« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone 

By: ribit in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (1)
Sat, 17 Sep 11 1:29 AM | 74 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 15143 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 15135 by lkorrow)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

lkorrow
...an auto, actually semi auto, isn't a good choice for someone not familiar with firearms. They are a bit complicated to use and at a time where you might be too scared to think it might be of no more use than a brick.

...a revolver has problems with the hammer hanging up in clothing. The one I showed ya has a hammer shroud so it won't get hung up in clothes. It is a .38 which isn't the best in the world, but the recoil isn't bad which can be another plus for those unfamiliar with guns.

...last, but not least, the one pictured has a lazer site. When ya grip it, a lazer light will come on and a red light will appear where the gun is pointed. Sure to be an intimidation factor for the attacker.

...if ya want a .40, I got a .40 S&W which is what most of the cops carry, but I don't recommend them for the novice.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when you see one tumble down a flight of stairs!


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By: lkorrow
in CONSTITUTION
Fri, 16 Sep 11 9:23 PM
Msg. 15135 of 21975

Eek. Well, I guess they're supposed to look intimidating. That's cheaper than I thought they were...


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next