United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Gun magazine maker who threatened to leave CO over magazine limits, now making smaller magazines
Source:
blogs.militarytimes.com
URL Source: http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gear ... m3-ms4-sling-and-mag-limiters/
Published: Apr 9, 2013
Author: n/a
Post Date: 2013-04-09 15:04:54 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 78678
Comments: 126
Magpul releases 10 round PMAG M3, MS4 sling and mag Limiters The PMAG 10 AR/M4 GEN M3 5.56×45 NATO magazine was designed to be your friend when working in the prone. Its shorter length means you can get lower and work fingertip mag changes instead of having to manhandle a larger mag under the gun. Incorporating new material technology and manufacturing processes for enhanced strength, durability, and reliability, the PMAG 10 provides next-generation performance for those needing lower profile magazines. $13.95 The PMAG Round Limiters install in 10, 20, or 30 round GEN M3 magazines, reducing the magazine capacity by 5 or 10 rounds. Designed for sporting and hunting applications, installation of the Limiter is simple, tool-less, and requires no permanent modification of the magazine body. Minus 5 PMAG Round Limiter and Minus 10 PMAG Round Limiter are both $13.95.
Poster Comment: I support universal background checks, the magasine limitation of ten rounds and strong restrictions on assault rifles. One can both support the second amendment and restrictions that help save the lives of people, especially those of children. There is no conflict in doing that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58.
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Of course you do as you hate the constitution. You cannot support both. A right is a right not to be taken away by the whim of the evil government. Mike you are a liar. You are Mike. Since you are on anti depressants you shouldn't have a gun right? Do you deny you take medication for your depression? Why you so depressed Mike?
The Constitution gives us free speech, and it works because we are accountable for how we use it. If you threaten certain officials, you can go to prison. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people get hurt in the stampede to the door, you are also in trouble. There have long been restrictions on fully automatic weapons. And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds. With the murder of young children at Sandy Hook and because of the many mass killings people have done using these tools I have changed my mind about, there should be further restrictions as I indicated. The bans are constitutional if passed, and does not damage the Second Amendment. As for the personal questions from info gleaned from Robin's Nest where you are a lurker from a family member's post: You are not my doctor, I don't answer to you about my medical needs or lack of them. You should ask yourself why you have a problem with limits that cause you to wander into tasteless behavior.
Got ya. The TV programmed you. You used to believe in the second amendment (allegedly) but now you "have changed your mind".
You show signs of being hyper-vigilant and overly paranoid. I could also contend that you should ask yourself if you are someone who should be handling firearms, not me. You are not a medical practitioner, and neither am I, so it is inappropriate to go to where you have led the discussion. If this is the best you have to offer in debate, I have nothing more to say on this thread.
You show signs of being a liar. A proven liar.
You are paranoid and I have no use for our whacked out, over the top and insulting way you comport yourself. I am very much in support of the Second Amendment, and I have no interest in discussing my medical record just because someone else discusses it in Robin's Nest. The Congress in all likelihood will give in to the political reality that most of the political races sponsored by the NRA the last election failed. They will recognize that over ninety percent of people support comprehensive background checks and will pass them into law. NRA sponsored laws in Louisiana have put convicted felons back on the street who were in possession of firearms. These same laws also passed in several other states are getting a hard look by lawmakers there who do not want felons in possession of firearms, and the NRA can expect the backlash to this recent development to grow. The ground has shifted away from them, and they are no longer just going to get their way in issues involving gun rights. Now, if you want to discuss the issues respectfully, you need to grow up and start doing so. I am a veteran of nine years in the U.S. Military, a gun owner, and I support vigorously the Second Amendment. If you can't accept that and be respectful in your approach to conversation in a thread, there is no foundation in place to talk to you on this issue.
No,you are NOT. What you support is a watered-down PC version of the 2nd Amendment. and I have no interest in discussing my medical record just because someone else discusses it in Robin's Nest. Gee,I wonder if that is because your personal medical record would make YOU one of the persecuted? Not only because of the medicine you are taking,but on top of that you have a record of being prepared to use violence and weapons to harm or kill others. The federal government already has all the evidence they need to justify sending you off to a labor camp in some remote area to protect the public from attack. It would be "for the chil-runs',of course. They have a right to be protected from attack by violent monsters like you. Don't try to deny it,the Department of the Army has the proof. They will recognize that over ninety percent of people support comprehensive background checks and will pass them into law. If 90 percent of the people polled by CNN and the Huffington Post supported making all real property collectively-owned (a real possibility) ,I guess you think that should be passed into law,too? NRA sponsored laws in Louisiana have put convicted felons back on the street who were in possession of firearms. EXCELLENT NEWS! This means the Bill of Rights are still working,and unpopular people as well as popular people still have some protections from a over-reaching and power-mad oppressive government. It was perfectly legal for convicted felons who had served their time to own any weapon or weapons they wanted to own and could afford to have from the day our country was founded until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into "law". For almost 200 years,this wasn't a problem. Suddenly it was,and the government has been illegally putting citizens in prison ever since. The ground has shifted away from them, and they are no longer just going to get their way in issues involving gun rights. Hey,Mike! You love that majority rule stuff so much how about we put it to the vote that minorities not receive ANY special treatment or considerations,and be treated exactly like white citizens both in terms of rights and responsibilities? How about we put it to majority vote that anybody seen crossing the border anywhere but at official crossings can be considered to be a illegal alien invader,and shot on sight? I am a veteran of nine years in the U.S. Military, a gun owner, and I support vigorously the Second Amendment. According to your own writings your door should be kicked in,your gun seized,and you should be imprisoned in a mental institution for having it. After all,isn't that the way a majority of the voting public think someone with such a violent history and record of being prepared to do violence with deadly weapons should be dealt with? And you can't even claim you were just doing your duty,either. You volunteered for the airborne infantry,and you volunteered for Special Forces. Man up and turn yourself in! After all,it's what 90 percent of the people polled by the Huffington Post,The NYT,CNN,and the DNC are demanding. Not to mention the old CPUSA,whatever the Progressive Party are calling themselves today,whatever the Democratic Socialists of America are calling themselves today,etc,etc,etc.
Stone thinks I am another poster on another site where I am a member in good standing but have not posted on in a good long while. So he was playing Detective Columbo and trying to flush me out from a place I am not at. None of any medication I am taking currently would keep me from owning the guns and ammunition I now currently own.
Mike you are a liar. Lets give you a chance to tell the truth for once. How old are you? You already said before so this isn't information you haven't already posted here. Lets see if you can keep your story straight.
Your post is off topic.
There are no replies to Comment # 58. End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOne can both support the second amendment and restrictions
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
(Edited)
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
I have changed my mind about,
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
(Edited)
"(allegedly)"
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
You show signs of being hyper-vigilant and overly paranoid.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13)
"You show signs of being a liar. A proven liar."
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
(Edited)
I am very much in support of the Second Amendment,
#55. To: sneakypete (#46)
"Gee,I wonder if that is because your personal medical record would make YOU one of the persecuted? Not only because of the medicine you are taking,but on top of that you have a record of being prepared to use violence and weapons to harm or kill others."
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Replies to Comment # 58.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]