|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
About that weapon of choice, not just another tool of self-defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But in “looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims” from the high school, Sher saw something very different: “The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer,” with extensive bleeding.
That’s because the AR-15 is “different,” its bullets traveling “at a higher velocity” and “imparting more than three times the energy” of a typical handgun projectile. Think of it like this: “The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat, traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/27/2018)
|
I hate this flippin' batch of bull-patties.
So 5.56mm. rounds do gnarled damage than handgun bulkets.
So would a .30-30.
So would a .30-'06.
So would .270, 7mm, 300 Winmag, , .308, .45-70.
OR JUST ABOUT EVERY CENTERFIRE RIFLE CALIBER THERE IS!!
5.56 is a rifle caliber. It is NOT even a remarkably powerful RIFLE CALIBER.
I'm not dissing it....I own four M4orgeries myself. But my .30-'06 packs a harder punch, as does my 7.62x51. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
