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: 81821
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
Comments (1-80) not displayed.
.
.
.
#81. To: sneakypete (#77)
The process of passing these laws is a give and take one that keeps the worst in off the wall gun grabbers from ever getting their way. Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way. I see the legislative process and it's checks and balances as one that will keep the measures passed as reasonable and moderate enough to not hurt Second Amendment prerogatives to own and use firearms. What THEY think is nobody but the police should be ALLOWED to own guns. Period." Such laws were they passed in the worst case scenario would be invalidated by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional The only way they could do something like this is if the Constitution was changed or suspended.
Last time I checked, the worst of the gun grabbers wanting all firearms seized were few in number and the people willing to vigorously stand and oppose them were quite large in number and not in any mood to put up with such nonsense. I sure don't want my firearms taken away and cops to be the only one with guns. And most people supporting the moderate measures proposed in the wake of Sandy Hook feel much the same way. And it was Sandy Hook that change my mind on this issue in a big way. I don't want this slaughter of innocent children to ever pe repeated in this country.
Everyone doesn't have emotional problems that lead them to take prescription drugs to deal with it. Mike what drugs do you take. Are they the ones that Holmes took?
You just want to disarm the blacks. You're racist.
Really? Who? I see the legislative process and it's checks and balances as one that will keep the measures passed as reasonable and moderate enough to not hurt Second Amendment prerogatives to own and use firearms. That's because you are a leftist,and we are now a One Party leftist nation. There are just two branches of the ruling party. The left and the hard left. Such laws were they passed in the worst case scenario would be invalidated by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional HorseHillary! If that were true,the whole Civil Wrongs Act of 1964 would have never been signed into law/
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Really? Who? Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
Wrong.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Wrong. Those who have an opinion of right or wrong prior to hearing the argument are crazy. Or willingly ignorant. Mike says abortion is murder. That is his claimed belief. He says there should be exceptions for rape and incest. So Mike is for legalizing murder in certain instances. Fact.
Kiss my ass.
You act like someone with severe emotional problems. You are trying to browbeat in a very irrational way. I am quite in the pink; no need for alcohol, drugs or thugs. You do the drug of alcohol, why do you need that? Why do you need to be a thug? You try to dish it out, but you can't take it yourself. I don't need to tell you whether I take prescriptions or not. You are not my Mama, homey. Get a clue and grow some respect.
Pete, there is no discussing this issue in here with the child called Stone ignoring the dialog on the issue and trying the baiting game. Thanks for sharing your views and hopefully we will someday be in a forum together run by an adult. Cheers.
You celebrate violence against women. Fact.
Kiss my ass. I'd be ashamed to admit it too. You need to surrender your firearms. You have a head problem. You need to be evaluated. But instead you tell me to kiss your ass. That makes you a hypocrite as you subscribe the idea that brain dead people subscribe to. Background checks.
You already admitted you take medication for depression. You are a depressed individual. You have no true joy.
Translation. I'm making Mike really depressed. He is going to deal with it by going and taking one of his prescription pills. You know the ones he says should lead to others having their guns taken away. But no not this hypocrite.
Bullshit.
I figured it was only a matter of time before some retard brought abortion to the gun argument. It's sad that it would be a site owner.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ferret Mike brought it up. You quoted him on it. I put it together for you's.
And THAT is EXACTLY why we're living on....Wait For it..... The Planet of the Demons from Dumbass. Only here would your bullsshit about gods fly.
And I got got your dedication hangin', Dude.....;} Had a good time Smokin, Drinkin, and Cussin' last night. ;}
And so we're yeast/virus.....as a result. Your God takes time out from her blissful existence to create the virus/yeast, give it free will, watch it fuck up, and then Sentence the yeast/virus to eternal lack of flour/water/host...... THE END Some god. Wait til she meets someone her own size.....;}
Why are you so offended? I didn't even mention your God Stalin by name.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Then like a little boy denying to Mom he was in the cookie jar despite the crumbs on hs face he looks silly and protests his innocence, congratulating himself on his straight face as he does so he tries to blame someone else for his behavior. He's never as smart as he would like to imagine he is. In any event, he is happy the topic has turned to issues about him, and how he demonstrates self loathing by attacking others. In that abortion of a rapist's obscene defilement of a woman's body example he tries to ejaculate the fruit of shock value into my face. I can well imagine him to be at a crime in progress with a gun prompting a rapist to hurry up and spluge into his wife or daughter to get the impregnation out of the way so he can protect the unborn baby with his very life. He doesn't care about the feelings of the woman and doesn't see rape as an act of violence, and he expresses this by giving shit to anyone else who knows it is, and cares that a woman has a right not to be defiled this way.
You don't try to show me proof I said I was on anti-depressants because there is no proof of this. Where it it Stone? You claim it exists, so where is it?
You went on the internet and said you were on anti depressants. Do you deny that?
Mike you are fucked in the head. Mike what I don't care about is you. I don't care about or respect your ideas. You are trash Mike.
Why do you want me to repeat myself?
Then show me your alleged mental horsepower and refute them. You can't, can you?
And all we hear are.... Crickets, as Stone tucks tail and scampers off.
You've been proven a foe of the second amendment. Here is more proof. Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself with a firearm?
I am of the mind to let the court decide that one. I am more interested in seeing your arguments regarding things brought up as issues in this thread before getting sidetracked about things like that particular case.
Explain how this is so and why you believe this please.
Because you don't support the second amendment. You want restrictions on it. Restrictions that will grow and grow. You are turning a right into a privilege. You are also a liar.
That is lawyer speak. Notice no denial.
There are restrictions on many things, take the First Amendment for example; you can be sued for libel if you slander someone causing them harm. This restricts free speech. If you cause a stampede in a large crowd that can injure or kill people, you will be prosecuted for doing this; that is a restriction on free speech. Free speech works because one is responsible for what they say and how they use it. In recent years we have witnessed a great many mass killings which were aided by high capacity magazines and particular types of firearms. To reduce the risk, laws restricting the size and type of weapons with the thought of reducing the risk of these mass killings have been proposed and would be constitutional for the same reasons restrictions on free speech are. High capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons that use them don't have applications other then war making or to use to kill many civilians in a way one cannot easily be interrupted. Restrictions like these do not interfere with people's rights to own and use firearms to hunt, target shoot or many other applications that are law biding. I don't see there being any risk of these minor measures or comprehensive background checks that are supported by over ninety percent of the public of creating the sort of slippery slope to more restrictions. I feel there has been enough problems in recent years, we are well advised to take these measures and to then weigh how well they have worked to prevent further mass killings. Then and only then should further measures be studied if the killings continue. Such a measured approach does not endanger Second Amendment rights.
So what? What medications I take are my business, not yours'. Nosy.
If you cause a stampede in a large crowd that can injure or kill people, you will be prosecuted for doing this; that is a restriction on free speech. Free speech works because one is responsible for what they say and how they use it. In recent years we have witnessed a great many mass killings which were aided by high capacity magazines and particular types of firearms. To reduce the risk, laws restricting the size and type of weapons with the thought of reducing the risk of these mass killings have been proposed and would be constitutional for the same reasons restrictions on free speech are. High capacity magazines and rapid fire weapons that use them don't have applications other then war making or to use to kill many civilians in a way one cannot easily be interrupted. Restrictions like these do not interfere with people's rights to own and use firearms to hunt, target shoot or many other applications that are law biding. I don't see there being any risk of these minor measures or comprehensive background checks that are supported by over ninety percent of the public of creating the sort of slippery slope to more restrictions. I feel there has been enough problems in recent years, we are well advised to take these measures and to then weigh how well they have worked to prevent further mass killings. Then and only then should further measures be studied if the killings continue. Such a measured approach does not endanger Second Amendment rights. Take your shallow words and stick them up your ass. You are a liar who is hooked on prescription medication. You should have no right to have a gun per your own words. You are a supporter of pre crime just like in minority report. You don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. You are a scrawny little hypocrite. Go take a bath you stink.
Naturally I not only do not support this petition, I know this is just to generate outrage and will never get any momentum behind it to become a real proposal with a chance of passing. Besides, banning a political class of people from owning guns because of their beliefs is highly unconstitutional. It would be too discriminatory to become law.
I'll let the fact I argued in good faith and you sound like a throwback to how middle schoolers argue speak for itself. You make yourself look badly here. That is something that hardly bothers me in the least.
Comments (122 - 126) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Me either,but what do the people who keep pushing gun control think about this issue? Don't forget,THEY are the ones getting these laws passed,not you or I."
" Me either,but what do the people who keep pushing gun control think about this issue? Don't forget,THEY are the ones getting these laws passed,not you or I.
#82. To: sneakypete (#80)
"Last time I checked,it was already illegal to murder people,regardless of the tools used. Banning tools isn't going to stop murders."
#83. To: sneakypete, ferret mike (#71)
Get off your High Horse,stone. EVERYBODY but sociopaths have emotional problems. It's part of being human.
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way.
#86. To: sneakypete (#85)
Remember, there are people too who would love to see murder legalized, and they will never get their way.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#88. To: sneakypete (#87)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#83)
"what drugs do you take."
#90. To: A K A Stone (#83)
"Everyone doesn't have emotional problems that lead them to take prescription drugs to deal with it."
#91. To: sneakypete (#85)
#92. To: A K A Stone (#88)
"So Mike is for legalizing murder in certain instances. Fact."
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#89)
"what drugs do you take."
#94. To: Ferret Mike (#90)
I don't need to tell you whether I take prescriptions or not
#95. To: Ferret Mike (#91)
Pete, there is no discussing this issue in here with the child called Stone ignoring the dialog on the issue and trying the baiting game.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
"You already admitted you take medication for depression."
#97. To: A K A Stone (#88)
Ferret Mike would be one example that is on the record for legalized murder.
#98. To: sneakypete (#97)
#99. To: sneakypete (#50)
Gods have always been vicious bastards. A God that doesn't scare people isn't going to be respected and obeyed.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#40)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#39)
That is why God is so great.
#102. To: mcgowanjm (#99)
Only here would your bullsshit about gods fly.
#103. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#97)
(Edited)
"I figured it was only a matter of time before some retard brought abortion to the gun argument."
#104. To: A K A Stone (#98)
"Ferret Mike brought it up. You quoted him on it. I put it together for you's."
#105. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
#106. To: Ferret Mike (#103)
He doesn't care about the feelings of the woman and doesn't see rape as an act of violence, and he expresses this by giving shit to anyone else who knows it is, and cares that a woman has a right not to be defiled this way.
#107. To: A K A Stone (#105)
"You went on the internet and said you were on anti depressants. Do you deny that?"
#108. To: A K A Stone (#106)
(Edited)
"I don't care about or respect your ideas."
#109. To: A K A Stone (#106)
#110. To: Ferret Mike (#109)
#111. To: A K A Stone (#110)
#112. To: A K A Stone (#110)
"You've been proven a foe of the second amendment."
#113. To: Ferret Mike (#112)
Explain how this is so and why you believe this please.
#114. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
You don't try to show me proof I said I was on anti-depressants because there is no proof of this.
#115. To: A K A Stone (#113)
"You want restrictions on it. Restrictions that will grow and grow."
#116. To: A K A Stone (#114)
(Edited)
"That is lawyer speak. Notice no denial."
#117. To: Ferret Mike (#116)
#118. To: Ferret Mike (#115)
(Edited)
There are restrictions on many things, take the First Amendment for example; you can be sued for libel if you slander someone causing them harm. This restricts free speech.
#119. To: A K A Stone (#117)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#118)
"Go take a bath you stink."
#121. To: Ferret Mike (#120)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]