Any of you guys own a handgun?

[Salt Creep]

.38 Special in the old service pistol is lame. Hard grip, low amount of force from the bullet. High recoil. No thanks.

Check out some Federal Personal Defense ammo, or something similar. My wife's M85 certainly does not have high recoil, even from a 2" barrel on a titanium frame.

.357 in a S&W revolver is pretty nice. But it's only six shots, what am I going to do if there is a group of 3 people coming in?

Place your shots. You have 2 per target, until using a speed loader.

Buy what you like, and what fits your hands and taste. That's why there are so many very different options. It's better to hit exactly where you aim with a .380 than miss all day with a .45. (not saying anything bad about .45's at all, it's one of my personal favorites by far)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[badasshairday]

I can't believe tis thread is still alive!
It's really scary to see how many people out there are getting ready to start some kind of war against imaginary enemies or even against their neighbors.
I say if you like war and bullets I have a few places that I can recommend to you where you get to play Rambo all day long and get paid for it.

Dude, part of the reason nobody would invate the United States is because a crapload of our citizens are packing heat like the military!

 

[Planktonmd]

Dude, part of the reason nobody would invate the United States is because a crapload of our citizens are packing heat like the military!

Really?
Is that why no one "invates" the U.S. ?
I always wondered why Canada and Mexico did not "invate" the U.S. , thank you for solving this mystery for me.

 

[coprolalia]

How much does it run for? Looks pretty cool? How does it compare to a glock 27? The glock 27 is pretty compact and takes real 9mm and 40 rounds..?

I don't know what they're retailing for. I got my KelTec for about $230. It worked fine for about the first 300 rounds, now it stove-pipes all the time.

It shoots .380 ACP, which is about the same size (diameter wise) as the 9mm, but a little lighter load and not as much penetration. If you load hollow points in it, it's a pretty nasty little beast that will make someone stop in their tracks. It is a back-up gun, or when you need to carry completely inconspicuously.

The G27 is MUCH bigger than this gun.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

-copro

 

[BitingPlates]

You guys are out of control with all these guns.

 

[badasshairday]

Really?
Is that why no one "invates" the U.S. ?
I always wondered why Canada and Mexico did not "invate" the U.S. , thank you for solving this mystery for me.

about the "invate."

But in all seriousness. If there was an all out war and we were being invaded, we should thank our forefathers for the 2nd amendment. We'd have everyone including grandma's packing heat and taking shots at invading armies. Without the right to bear arms, we'd be screwed in a dire situation like that.

 

[badasshairday]

Dude, part of the reason nobody would invate the United States is because a crapload of our citizens are packing heat like the military!

Only on SDN would I call an attending "dude."

 

[NRAI2001]

I don't know what they're retailing for. I got my KelTec for about $230. It worked fine for about the first 300 rounds, now it stove-pipes all the time.

It shoots .380 ACP, which is about the same size (diameter wise) as the 9mm, but a little lighter load and not as much penetration. If you load hollow points in it, it's a pretty nasty little beast that will make someone stop in their tracks. It is a back-up gun, or when you need to carry completely inconspicuously.

The G27 is MUCH bigger than this gun.

-copro

Are hollow points legal in most states? California?

 

[Hernandez]

Are hollow points legal in most states? California?

Yes and no. Most ammunition restrictions are on the federal level and have to do with armor piercing ammo, there are some wacky state level restrictions, but none that I'm aware of which restrict all hollow points. However, California will begin requiring microstamping on all guns and I'd suspect they're also going to require all ammo be serial numbered as well shortly, because they think that having economically unaffordable technologically is a "reasonable restriction"

 

[jwk]

But in all seriousness. If there was an all out war and we were being invaded, we should thank our forefathers for the 2nd amendment. We'd have everyone including grandma's packing heat and taking shots at invading armies. Without the right to bear arms, we'd be screwed in a dire situation like that.

Giving the people the right to bear arms is/was also a way of keeping the government in line and providing some balance with "we the people".

 

[case42]

Are hollow points legal in most states? California?

Hollow points are legal in every state. They are actually a more "safe" round to be used in a defensive shooting due to the fact that they reduce the chance of overpenration (thus reducing the chance of wounding an innocent bystander). There is a law in NJ that makes using hollow points illegal during the commission of a crime...think add-on charge...but other than that they are legal.

 

[Monty Python]

Giving the people the right to bear arms is/was also a way of keeping the government in line and providing some balance with "we the people".

Here's the Second Amendment, directly quoted (the red comma is explained further below):

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've always wondered: was the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow all citizens the right to keep arms (to prevent the establishment of an overbearing, too-powerful, central government,) or ...

was their intent to arm all citizens along the lines of emergency national defense?

That debate continues to the present. The debate of whether the Founding Fathers intended to allow everyone to pack heat centers around the comma, high-lighted above in the direct quote. Did they mean that all citizens had the right to keep arms strictly in conjunction with being a member of the national guard (militia), or was the right to keep arms to be enjoyed by all private citizens, separate and apart from membership in the guard?

Remember that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution against the backdrop of an all-powerful British monarchy ... they wanted to intentionally weaken the new federal government to prevent another monarchy from evolving over here, and the Constitution shows their intent.

The US Constitution remains one of the most brilliant pieces of literature ever written, and shows true genius. It's a shame most Americans have no idea just how fortunate they are to live under that document.


.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

about the "invate."

But in all seriousness. If there was an all out war and we were being invaded, we should thank our forefathers for the 2nd amendment. We'd have everyone including grandma's packing heat and taking shots at invading armies. Without the right to bear arms, we'd be screwed in a dire situation like that.

If that happens I am going Wolverine on somebody!

 

[Hernandez]

I've always wondered: was the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow all citizens the right to keep arms (to prevent the establishment of an overbearing, too-powerful, central government,) or ...

was their intent to arm all citizens along the lines of emergency national defense?

Why are these two things mutually exclusive?

 

[usnavdoc]

Here's the Second Amendment, directly quoted (the red comma is explained further below):

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've always wondered: was the intent of the Founding Fathers to allow all citizens the right to keep arms (to prevent the establishment of an overbearing, too-powerful, central government,) or ...

was their intent to arm all citizens along the lines of emergency national defense?

That debate continues to the present. The debate of whether the Founding Fathers intended to allow everyone to pack heat centers around the comma, high-lighted above in the direct quote. Did they mean that all citizens had the right to keep arms strictly in conjunction with being a member of the national guard (militia), or was the right to keep arms to be enjoyed by all private citizens, separate and apart from membership in the guard?

Remember that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution against the backdrop of an all-powerful British monarchy ... they wanted to intentionally weaken the new federal government to prevent another monarchy from evolving over here, and the Constitution shows their intent.

The US Constitution remains one of the most brilliant pieces of literature ever written, and shows true genius. It's a shame most Americans have no idea just how fortunate they are to live under that document.


.

To me its pretty obvious. Rather than focusing on the comma and wondering what they meant, just read what they actually said. They use the word PEOPLE. They do not re-use the word militia. The second ammendment was in response to British occupation and the practice of confiscating weapons as a means of control of the people.

 

[Monty Python]

To me its pretty obvious. Rather than focusing on the comma and wondering what they meant, just read what they actually said. They use the word PEOPLE. They do not re-use the word militia. The second ammendment was in response to British occupation and the practice of confiscating weapons as a means of control of the people.

Agree fully with you. It's the comma which has given the gun-rights people and the anti-gun people (as well as the courts) the most confusion over the years as they try to "interpret" just what the Founding Fathers meant, slanted to their particular cause.

 

[Salt Creep]

The second ammendment was in response to British occupation and the practice of confiscating weapons as a means of control of the people.

Precisely. Paul Revere's ride warning of the coming British was warning that the British were coming to confiscate their arms.

The 2nd Amendment gives teeth to the 1st Amendment. One is only truly free when freedom can be ensured forcefully, should that prove necessary.