devildog

None immediately bookmarked, but I found these on google which is about what I remember: http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm FBI requires 12" min to be adequate, note the Cor Bon JHP 90g came in at 13.3" and the Fiocchi XTPHP 90gr at 13.6". Even some of the older tests on older ammo came in at 9-10". This guy got 10.75-11.75 on Gold Dots from 4 years ago: http://www.stoppingpower.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14504 The .380 performance isn't jaw dropping for sure, but they aren't harmless rounds either. IMHO the .380 has its place. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Not that I'm looking to get into an abortion debate, but the rate of abortions for blacks in NYC is simply staggering. IIRC, it's like 3 abortions to two births. Somethings wrong with that picture, IMO. they were all for medical reasons, I'm sure You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Strongly disagree. Rugers LCP, or Little Copy Pistol, because it is a rip off of a KelTec 380 design, may be fun to target shoot but the 380 round sucks for self defense. I don't want to get shot by any gun, but if I had to chose I would rather be shot by a 380 than a 45!!! At the minimum I would go with a 9mm, and the heaviest 9mm self defense round that you gun will shoot reliably and that you shoot accurately. Go heavy. Negative. .380s can be carried with just about anything (nothing) on, so they are an excellent choice for anytime, anywhere and still be concealed. There's some really good ammo now for the 380 with good gel tests. Is it a .45? No. But it's more than enough to stop a bad guy. But to the OP. Read a lot. Fire a lot if you can. Find what you're comfortable with. It's more important to be accurate than wave a big gun around. If A charging bad guy isn't scared off by you drawing a gun (at which point, what does it matter if its a .32, a .38 special or a .50), he's not going to be stopped instantly w/o a shot to the CNS / heart. Most importantly, whatever you get, practice a lot. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

This should be on the democrat side of the two. Unless of course, ironic post is ironic. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

You guys keep saying that, but still haven't linked to anything. I mean, you have linked to some things, but none of them ever showed a universe popping up from absolutely nothing. It still came from something, and the argument would go, that something (eventually) came from God. For example, there was an article along the lines a while back where Hawking was suggesting that the universe had to come into being (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator), it wasn't a choice, due to the law of gravity. As mentioned before, that's still a universe coming from something, and who or what set gravity up in the first place? You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

That would be Dogmatics, not apologetics. Negative. It's still apologetics, which simply means defense of the faith, in reference to Christianity. Any position taken on anything must hold certain givens, and in that line of thought, a God/gods are given. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Doubt it. A parent who kept a loaded gun in the home with a small child? Nuts I tell you! NUTS! Who will think of the poor children? In 20 mins, she could have field stripped it, cleaned it, cleaned it again, reassembled and reloaded :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Some apologists subscribe to the philosophy of you have to start with the top (God) and move down (to us). Sounds like this was the case for you. There are many others that see this as a wrong method and begin elsewhere. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

heh. Just read this before seeing it here. I love how it took the morons 20 mins to break in. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Bullshit. Read your quoted sentence. See the keyword "our"? And you guys are using some stoopid shit concerning the old USSR to refute? Who's on top? Who rules this country? Who directs the military? What would even your local LEOs do when... ...you try an armed insurrection against...guess who....OUR goobermint and whoever is on top. If you have the weaponry to handle all that then I want to be standing behind you when you kick it all off. You mean countries where the military coup is prevalent? Just playing, "what if," it would depend on just how many people were in this armed revolt. There's already enough small arms out there to ensure weapons for this hypothetical army, so we don't have to consider that. As for the military's and LEOs reaction, the LEOs would probably be trying just to keep peace and wouldn't be worth much, gov't wise. Since they are civilians as well, whatever the population % is rebelling, you could probably count on that many LEOs siding with the rebellion as well. Lastly, let's consider what the military would look like. A while back, I read a report that basically asked whether or not members of the military would fire on civilians in order to confiscate guns. A third said they would follow orders, a third said they wouldn't, another third weren't sure. So, if given 3 million current members in the military, it's not a huge stretch to think anywhere from a third to a half would refuse to engage, go AWOL, side with the rebellion, etc. especially since 1/2 those numbers are reserves, and thus in the civilian life most of the time. Now, the US military even at half strength would certainly defeat any lesser, ill trained, civilian uprising. But, what if whatever sparked this revolt ended up with 10,20, 40 million+ people, all armed, all around the country. Now its no longer just a firefight here or there, now we're talking soldiers getting shot at wherever they go, as well as massive logistic problems. Tanks and planes are nice, but it's infantry that take and hold ground. Just getting fuel from A to B would be a nightmare, let alone food, ammo, etc. especially since those darn civilians were the ones that were originally providing you with those things. So unless the military went full scorched earth policy, they'd die by a thousand paper cuts. And full scorched earth just brings about its own problems as well, both national and international. Lastly, if this rebellion lasted any amount of time, there are all sorts of countries and groups out there that would love to arm them with better gear if they are fighting the US govt in open war. Not too mention any defectors from the military could certainly bring equipment and such over. Anywho, point is, whoever is on top currently, doesn't have an iron clad grip that can never be broken by force atm. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

"Last think I knew that it took the whole world to overcome Germany; TWICE! He should probably expand on that too :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions you can lose your right to vote for as little as $250 (quote from this source): "For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,[16] a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.[17] Some people would argue that $250 is excessively low and that since this dollar amount has not risen for many years, even damaging another's radio or cell phone could result in losing one's right to vote. If the dollar thresholds are not increased by law (or indexed to inflation), a conviction for what is effectively very little money could result in losing one's right to vote." Don Well, I would certainly be willing to look at what felonies should and should not lose the right to vote. I think there's a world of difference b/w say, $300 dollars in property damage and capital offenses. But I'm certainly against the idea of allowing *all* felons to vote, as that would include some of the most heinous out there which as far as I'm concerned, have lost the right to get a say in how others ought to live, what taxes they should pay, etc. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I did not say that specifically but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I simply supported the current age limit. I would have no problem with 15 years olds being able to vote except that they are still minors and under the 'parental control' of their parents, which in some ways could affect the outcome of their vote. They do not have the same legal rights as adults in some areas, and in some ways they have more legal rights. Assuming that teenagers would have the same legal protections for voting, I would have no problem with that. Even 14 year olds would be fine. Imagine the marketing on TV, McDonalds would have to tune their ads to not only mckids meals but also their favorite candidate..... But since the age limit is not or was not an issue in the thread, I see your attempt simply at a diversion from the actual thread intention which was idiots and insane people. My objection is to the subjective judgement of people by other people as to their ability to vote. period. If someone can make up a rule that says someone else cannot vote, then they can make up a rule that says I cannot vote - and I object to that. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but you said a bit back, the only, "'restriction' that should allow you to vote is that you are an American citizen and perhaps age of majority or whatever 18 year old as it is today. period. that is it. It should be a federal law. " As for the intention of the post, it wasn't to just add in a diversion from idiots & the insane, it was to illustrate that we do indeed have and need to set limits on who and who cannot vote. We both agree then, that say a 1 year old should not be allowed to vote, no matter how well they might be able to scribble on a piece of paper or push a button. So, we've now made a rule that says someone else cannot vote. We've gone from "No rules that say someone cannot vote" to "A rule (or some) that people cannot vote." Point being, you don't really believe in no rules. With that established, the natural follow up is just deciding where the gray is between, "No one can vote" and "Everyone can vote." Getting back to the idiots and felons specifically, those aren't exactly subjective. Certain criteria has to be met for a person to be labeled as such. For the foremost, you'd have to have 2 separate MDs and a judge rule against the person -- and that's assuming no contest from either the family or the person in question. And for the latter, let's not forget the person has to commit a rather serious crime to start. It's not like your going to go 5 mph over the speed limit and suddenly lose your right to vote. I said it before, why should someone who thinks its okay to rape 2 females and burn them alive in their home (the guy just got the death penalty for it) ever have the same sway (i.e. 1 vote) as someone who doesn't do that? Why should he have any pull in the lives of others? Ultimately, however, if your sole objection is down the future, someone might make a rule that excludes you, well, in the future a lot of things "might" happen based on any number of laws out there. We can't go around living in fear of the absolute extreme, and a lot would have to take place in the US to start excluding fully competent, adult, non-felon people from voting. There's not a politician out there that would suggest it, let alone get any support for it, because the voters would crucify them. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Why then do you think that there should be a federal law that you have to be at least 18. Why not allow 3 year olds to vote? Obviously we do have to draw limits, and just because we have some, doesn't mean its going to ever expand and exclude the vast majority. There's a world of grey between "everyone can vote" and "a select few can vote." You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

No way. Why should someone who, say, thought it was a good idea to rape a bunch of kids have any say whatsoever in running the country and making decisions that affect my life? They obviously can't show any decent judgement in their own little world, and now you want to have them have the same sway as a law abiding citizen? Likewise, while I'm sympathetic to the mentally ill, do you really want someone who thinks they are a fire engine or the king of Antarctica having the same pull as someone whose brain is functioning properly? At the very least, if they can't take care of themselves to any degree, why should their vote even matter? They can't make an informed, thoughtful decision, one way or the other. There's far more at stake than just being able to check a box. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

We should just take away all their money and sell of any and all assets. That'll teach them for being born! You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

That may be... but they didn't vote for our current POTUS either so it kind of evens out You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

The 175 links to wicked suits. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Well, I'm obviously still in my early days, but I'm glad to have had EPs drilled in over and over. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Only 2 days old on reddit, and didn't see it here (or maybe I'm going blind). Thought I'd pass it on. The comments are worth a read too

The irony of you and the Occupy movement slamming the church for "misuse of the Gospel" and then clinging to the Beatitudes is almost too much. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Go to the heart of the Congo and get some medical care there if you thing ours is worse. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

zhills is always great to jump at. You can camp and shower too there too :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Good :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.