Democrat Targets .50 Caliber Revolver for Nationwide Ban

A well-known gun maker recently introduced a powerful new hunting revolver that is said to have no equal in terms of firepower.

But within days of introducing the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum at an industry-wide trade show in Florida, an anti-gun Democrat promised to seek a nationwide ban on the product.

"It's hard for me to rationalize any particular need or purpose" for the 500 Magnum, said Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.). "I think guns are made to kill people. That's my opinion."

Asked if he would seek a nationwide ban on the 500 Magnum, Davis replied, "Yes, indeed."

Billed as the "most powerful production revolver in the world today," S&W claims its new 500 Magnum cartridge produces nearly three times the muzzle energy of the .44 Magnum round, one of the most powerful sidearm cartridges available.

But Davis said the .50 caliber revolver, which weighs 72.5 ounces and has an overall length 15-inch has no purpose in society except to cause injury and death to humans, dismissing the manufacturer's claim that it is intended for hunting wild game.

He claimed handguns in general are specifically designed kill fellow human beings, whereas rifles and shotguns are typically relegated to hunting animals.

"You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver," Davis said. "Those of us who live in big, urban centers have a different fear and a different take than some people who may live in different environments."

Davis believes the 500 Magnum has a greater potential for becoming a lethal inner-city status symbol than an effective hunting tool, at least in his congressional district. He added that its high power combined with its concealability could make it the "weapon of choice" for urban gangs.

"If you live in a place like Chicago, and you know the amount of violence that is perpetrated by individuals who grow-up with the idea that having, handling and using a gun is a way-of-life in terms of establishing yourself on the streets or as part of the culture, then I'm afraid that many of these individuals will, in fact, acquire this weapon," Davis said.

"And, of course, the thing will be, 'I've got the most powerful piece on the block,'" he said.

While Smith & Wesson's new five-round revolver is billed by the company as "the most powerful production revolver ever made," it's already being reclassified by some gun control advocates.

"If you've got something that masquerades as a handgun, but has the firepower of a major weapon, you're all at risk," said Illinois State House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie. "This is not the Wild West. It hasn't been for a long time."

Currie compared the 500 Magnum to "military-style assault weapons," although she had no information to base her claims on except for a "tip" received from a reporter.

"I'm not a weapons expert, but it sounded like pretty strong firepower to me," Currie said. "The description I heard was that from a significant range you could fell a large bear."

She dismissed the notion that the 500 Magnum is a hunting revolver, but did equate it with mob violence.

"My concern is whether this kind of weaponry -- it is a handgun as I understand it -- in a crowded, urban area downtown street corners in the midst of people who are angry about something and developing the kind of rage that means vandalism and mob action - whether this kind of weapon has any place," Currie said.

Like Davis, Currie said she would examine the prospects of making the sidearm illegal in the state.

"I'm going to look at the technology, as I say, and see if there is any way to specifically keep it from operating in the state of Illinois," Flynn said. "We are also working on efforts to ban military-style assault weapons, and, perhaps there is something about this technology that makes it possible to amend that legislation to include firepower like this."

Rifles are most commonly used for hunting, but many gun enthusiasts have also used smaller side arms for hunting, according to Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, who corrected the claim by Davis that hunters don't use revolvers to shoot prey.

"He's quite ignorant because there are people who do," Pratt said. "I do know for a fact that people take large caliber handguns with them to go hunting. And, I have no doubt that if you were lucky enough to get close enough, you could take a deer down with a .44 Magnum, which until now, was the biggest gun around."

As far as Davis' contention that any would-be criminal could easily conceal the 500 Magnum, Pratt said, "Yeah, if you have a trench coat or something like that."

Asked if the 500 Magnum's predecessor, the .44 Magnum faced the same criticisms and threats by politicians upon its introduction in 1955, Pratt said the controversy over Smith and Wesson's latest offering appears to be a sign of the times.

"It was all sort of good clean fun when it was introduced, but we're 20 years further along the gun-hating sensitivity training," Pratt said. "We're talking about the frame of mind that opposes concealed carry by private citizens."

Here's a fitting reply...

www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/newgunban.htm

THE BIRTH OF A NEW GUN BAN
The gun bigots want to ban the new S&W 500 Magnum

By Nicki Fellenzer

Letter to Rep. Danny Davis (D - IL)

Dear Congressman Davis:

Well, once again, just when I thought politicians couldn't get any more cowardly, any more irrational, and any more tyrannical, you have proven me wrong.

Your unreasonable hand wringing at the sight of a mere handgun would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous to the freedoms of every law-abiding citizen in this country. Yes, I'm talking about your frothing, overzealous race to ban the 500 Magnum revolver days after Smith & Wesson introduced it at a trade show in Florida.

Within days you and those who wield your leash at the Brady Center and the VPC have initiated feeble, wretched bleatings about these new revolvers being a "threat to law enforcement" and the "weapon of choice" for inner city gangs. Within days of the gun's unveiling you began demanding justification for its role in society and its "need" to those who choose to purchase it. And within days, you've initiated a smear campaign about the dangers of this firearm to human beings, even though no human being has ever been harmed by one of these weapons.

What I can't figure out is: are you weak, stupid or a pathetic and dangerous combination of both?

Let me explain something to you, SIR (and I use that term loosely) - no one owes you an explanation or a justification for a purchase they choose to make. NO ONE! Much like we don't need to justify our purchase of a sports car, a 4 carat diamond or a luxurious new mink coat to you or to any of your tyrannical pals in Congress, law-abiding citizens don't need an excuse or written permission from your beloved nanny government to purchase a weapon with which to target shoot, hunt or simply defend ourselves. Simply put - it's none of your business!

Your gutless bellyaching about this gun's "purpose in society" is little more than the whine of a petulant, would-be tyrant, who doesn't understand the meaning of "freedom," doesn't appreciate the responsibility that comes with his power and holds the needs of the many sacred over the needs of the individual. You were recently quoted in an online article as saying, "It's hard for me to rationalize any particular need or purpose" for the 500 Magnum. "I think guns are made to kill people. That's my opinion." Well allow me to let you in on a little secret, Mr. Davis - we, the law abiding citizens of the United States don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. You weren't elected to legislate your opinions. You weren't elected to pass laws to alleviate your irrational fears. You were elected to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same…" Did you forget your oath, Mr. Davis? Did you forget your solemn pledge to uphold the Law of the Land - all of it, and not just the parts you agree with? Do you understand the gravity of the oath you took? It means your unreasonable phobia about guns, your irrational terror of an armed populace and your misguided misconceptions about a certain firearm take a back seat to the law. The Constitution doesn't care how scared, unsure or misinformed you are about firearms, and neither do the people you represent.

You seem to have forgotten, Mr. Davis - you were elected by the people. You work for them. You represent them. They are not your subjects, and you are not their ruler. If the law-abiding citizens you represent in Congress see it fit to make a purchase, be it a 500 Magnum or a AK-47, you have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to limit their freedom to do so simply because you're scared or uncomfortable.

But just to put your little worried mind at ease…

This gun is large - no, I mean LARGE. Its barrel alone is over eight inches long. It's like a .44 on Viagra. It weighs over four pounds. It's hardly concealable, has a powerful recoil, and, ergo, would hardly be the choice of criminals from whom you shrink in terror. The idea that such a cumbersome weapon would be a threat to law enforcement is as idiotic as it is false. Criminals prefer a weapon they can easily conceal, not one that would make them look as if they're hiding a cricket bat in their pants.

This gun is expensive. Do you really think gang-bangers will blow $1,000 on a handgun they can't effectively hide and whose recoil will likely knock their 17 year old butts to the ground, when they can just as effectively victimize you with a .38?

Of course, you don't have to worry about that, do you, Mr. Davis? You have guards to protect you - guards who wield weapons of power, some with more power than you fear from the 500 Magnum. So you don't really have to worry about defending your life, since you have taxpayer-funded bodyguards who do it for you.

These same taxpayers who provide protection for your cowardly rear end are the ones you're trying to disarm. Do you recognize the obscenity of this arrangement?

I'll tell you the truth, Mr. Davis. Some people who purchase this weapon will use it for hunting. And yes, they do hunt with handguns, and your denial of this fact does not negate the reality of its existence. Some people who purchase this firearm will do it to have a neat new weapon with which to shoot targets. And some will buy it to protect their homes and their families from assailants. But whatever the reason they make this purchase, government maggots like you need to keep their interfering noses out of their business. The gun is not the threat to you, but the criminal is. Concentrate on those who break the law, and leave the rest of us alone.

Sincerely,

Nicki Fellenzer

(Found on ar15.com.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.