mistergus75
New member
When we hear discussion of a ban on "semi-automatic" handguns, most of us think of Glocks. Sigs, Springfield XD's, etc.. And generally, we don't think of our revolvers as being part of that. But maybe we should.
After all...
1. One bullet per trigger pull, just like "semi-automatics".
2. Automatic feed of next round, just like "semi-automatics".
3. Some revolvers hold more rounds than some "semi-automatics".
So, why wouldn't double-action revolvers be defined as semi-automatic?
Once a ban on semi-automatics is enacted, there is no limit to how broadly it may be applied. We already see how they misuse terms like automatic, semi-automatic, assault rifle, etc., in the current debate.
For liberals, words have no real meaning, other than what they want at the moment. And once any form of "gun control" is enacted, they'll use it in ways we don't even want to think about.
We had better fight these people.
After all...
1. One bullet per trigger pull, just like "semi-automatics".
2. Automatic feed of next round, just like "semi-automatics".
3. Some revolvers hold more rounds than some "semi-automatics".
So, why wouldn't double-action revolvers be defined as semi-automatic?
Once a ban on semi-automatics is enacted, there is no limit to how broadly it may be applied. We already see how they misuse terms like automatic, semi-automatic, assault rifle, etc., in the current debate.
For liberals, words have no real meaning, other than what they want at the moment. And once any form of "gun control" is enacted, they'll use it in ways we don't even want to think about.
We had better fight these people.