Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 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)
Sun, 18 Sep 11 12:22 AM | 75 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner 		Msg. 15174 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 15148 by lkorrow)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

lkorrow
...most handguns are for short range. Ya should be able to put a hole in a target at 25 feet without any trouble though. Ya probaly aren't going to need anything any more powerful than that. I carry a similar weapon (S&W Model 15 with a 2 in barrel) It is sufficient for defense and not so cumbersome and heavy that it wears ya out.




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 (2) »



» 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
Sat, 17 Sep 11 3:05 AM 		Msg. 15148 of 21975

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.


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