« 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 10:11 PM | 75 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 15201 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 15193 by DGpeddler)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

dgp
...the has a bullet of about 45 grains traveling at approx 750 feet per second. The .38 is anywhere from twice to three times the mass. Speed about the same. It's a better bullet. I was just tryin to steer lkorrow away from an auto. It takes a lot of practice to learn to use an auto safely and efficiently.

...a .25 is what I always refer to as a Saturday Night Special. Not good for much but gettin ya in trouble.




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: DGpeddler
in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 18 Sep 11 7:12 PM
Msg. 15193 of 21975

ribit, I just remember that a 25 with a two inch barrel would not penetrate the skin of a hot water heater from about five feet. My 22 put a bullet compleately through it. (I played with a lot of guns when I was in high school, EVERY Sunday afternoon. I made about $30 a week and me and my buddy spent about two grand on guns and ammo in one year. Nice thing about Gallup was you could go five miles in any direction and be far enough out of town to shoot.


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