« 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: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 17 Sep 11 3:05 AM | 89 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 15148 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 15143 by ribit)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Ribit, thanks for the info. Sounds likle a good choice and good price/performance. Is my assumption correct that it's a short range weapon, because it has a short barrel?

I recall you guys talking about ordinance, but I'm clueless on .30 vs .40, as I wasn't paying attention at the time.




Avatar


- - - - -
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: ribit
in CONSTITUTION
Sat, 17 Sep 11 1:29 AM
Msg. 15143 of 21975

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.


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