Another Mass Shooting in the Good Ol' USA

[Chicks]

"Originalism" and other Supreme nonsense: How the right-wing justices rationalize mass murder

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/03/ori...ionalize-mass/

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Chicks

"Originalism" and other Supreme nonsense: How the right-wing justices rationalize mass murder

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/03/ori...ionalize-mass/

I agree with Stephens on this, but that and nothing is likely to happen with demagogues and rabble rousing shills controlling the narrative.

[RickeyM]

While it is no surprise that the party that consists of the best politicians money can buy staunchly defends against any and all gun control measurers, what is amazing is the new and original ways they're defending against any and all gun control measurers.

Rep. Ken Buck: We Can't Regulate Assault Weapons Because Raccoons Eat Chickens

To which Kyle Clark responded via Twitter:

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) suggests restricting access to AR-style rifles would lead to deaths in Colorado. Chicken deaths.

And Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) also via Twitter:

Oh — Why didn’t y’all just say so? We have to protect the chickens from the raccoons. Cool cool,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). “So that’s why our kids have to die in their classrooms. So we can protect the chickens. Makes total sense now.

Yeah, It does make total sense now

[donquixote99]

^^^ [Facepalm gif]

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Double-action does, single-action not without thumb.

Nope, double-action requires the human muscle to bring the next round under the hammer. Ergo, not auto-loading. Except the ones in the wiki article, which aren't double-action, they're auto-loading revolvers.

[BigElCat]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

While it is no surprise that the party that consists of the best politicians money can buy staunchly defends against any and all gun control measurers, what is amazing is the new and original ways they're defending against any and all gun control measurers.

Rep. Ken Buck: We Can't Regulate Assault Weapons Because Raccoons Eat Chickens

To which Kyle Clark responded via Twitter:


And Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) also via Twitter:


Yeah, It does make total sense now

Originally Posted by donquixote99

^^^ [Facepalm gif]

Gawd.

I'd be hard pressed to justify owning a VR-82. Guess I had to buy it to prevent it from falling into the hands of some socio-path. And I wanted something that mounted optics.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

Nope, double-action requires the human muscle to bring the next round under the hammer. Ergo, not auto-loading. Except the ones in the wiki article, which aren't double-action, they're auto-loading revolvers.

Nope. Revolvers, unless they are old double-action revolvers which require manually pulling back the hammer to rotate the cylinder which loads the next cartridge into firing chamber position, are all automatic loading firearms.

In most automatic pistols the pulling of the trigger fires the gun and the recoil forces the slide back to eject the shell and receive the next round in the firing chamber location. In a revolver, the pulling of the trigger rotates the cylinder which puts next round into firing chamber position.

Auto-loading firearms require only a trigger pull to move the next cartridge in to firing position. There is no secondary action required. There is no secondary action of pulling back a hammer, no secondary action of operating a bolt lever, no secondary lever action required, no secondary action required.

The pulling of the trigger facilitates reloading. Every time the trigger is pulled, a round is fired until available rounds are exhausted. That is the definition of auto-loading.

Revolvers are auto-loaded firearms.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

Gawd.

I'd be hard pressed to justify owning a VR-82. Guess I had to buy it to prevent it from falling into the hands of some socio-path. And I wanted something that mounted optics.

If being hard pressed to justify VR-82 ownership, being OK with DDM4 ownership is inane.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Nope. Revolvers, unless they are old double-action revolvers which require manually pulling back the hammer to rotate the cylinder which loads the next cartridge into firing chamber position, are all automatic loading firearms.

In most automatic pistols the pulling of the trigger fires the gun and the recoil forces the slide back to eject the shell and receive the next round in the firing chamber location. In a revolver, the pulling of the trigger rotates the cylinder which puts next round into firing chamber position.

Auto-loading firearms require only a trigger pull to move the next cartridge in to firing position. There is no secondary action required. There is no secondary action of pulling back a hammer, no secondary action of operating a bolt lever, no secondary lever action required, no secondary action required.

The pulling of the trigger facilitates reloading. Every time the trigger is pulled, a round is fired until available rounds are exhausted. That is the definition of auto-loading.

Revolvers are auto-loaded firearms.

Revolvers are not considered auto-loading firearms. The long trigger pull of double-action pistols and the need to rotate the cylinder by cocking the hammer on single-action renders it so. Moreover, revolvers require manual ejection of spent casings and manual reloading of new cartridges (and won't accommodate spare magazines).

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Nope. Revolvers, unless they are old double-action revolvers which require manually pulling back the hammer to rotate the cylinder which loads the next cartridge into firing chamber position, are all automatic loading firearms.

In most automatic pistols the pulling of the trigger fires the gun and the recoil forces the slide back to eject the shell and receive the next round in the firing chamber location. In a revolver, the pulling of the trigger rotates the cylinder which puts next round into firing chamber position.

Auto-loading firearms require only a trigger pull to move the next cartridge in to firing position. There is no secondary action required. There is no secondary action of pulling back a hammer, no secondary action of operating a bolt lever, no secondary lever action required, no secondary action required.

The pulling of the trigger facilitates reloading. Every time the trigger is pulled, a round is fired until available rounds are exhausted. That is the definition of auto-loading.

Revolvers are auto-loaded firearms.

The autoloading definition, as far as I understand, describes weapons which, when fired, chamber the next round and cock the gun to fire the next round, without operator intervention. A double action revolver does not do these things until the operator inputs muscle energy to accomplish them. The only difference between it and a lever action or bolt action rifle, arms no one would describe as autoloading, is that the revolver trigger has the additional function as serving as the lever to accomplish these tasks. Since chambering, cocking, and firing can all be accomplished in a continuous action by working this one lever, operation is streamlined. But operation is still slower than a true autoloader, and accuracy suffers from motion introduced by the vigorous trigger pull necessary for double-action firing.