It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”
And this has been my fear since Heller came through, with the "reasonable restrictions" language. I've heard it from many of the lawyers floating around the courthouse. The word is REVOLVER. "If you want to keep a revolver in your house for protection..." or "If you need to get a permit and carry a revolver..." or "You don't need some high capacity semi-auto like a SEAL Team/Delta Force member..." I fear that this shooting is going to sprout a real attack on semi-autos, or at least the mags over ten-rounds. I've even heard some fairly logical people, and fellow gun owners and enthusiasts saying that they don't need 15, 20, 25 round mags for hunting/recreation/protection.
I can see the argument being made in Congress and in Courts..."We're not saying that all guns should be restricted. We're saying that these automatics...these killing machines that can spew out 15/20/30 bullets without reloading...are the problem, and it's reasonable to ban these items because we are still allowing for individuals to own revolvers to protect themselves. After all, if revolvers won the West, armed our nations police for hundreds of years, and fought in both World Wars, that's good enough for John Q. Public to keep his family safe from what goes bump in the night."
So, my friends, I may be shopping for a new revolver soon. I fear the writing is on the walls...