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: 82042
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 # 56.
#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.
Only since 1934,and that was and is un-Constitutional. The US Supreme Court admitted this itself in the Miller case in 1939 when they ruled that the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons suitable for military use. In truth,they were even wrong about that since not a single one of the elitist leftist bastards had ever served a single day in uniform,and had no freaking idea what kinds of weapons are appropriate for military use and which aren't. The 2nd Amendment is PRIMARILY directed towards military-grade weapons,but as been proven in every conflict between tribes since the dawn of time,people can and will use pretty much anything to kill one another. For example,wine bottles filled with gasoline were pretty damn effective in taking out tanks in WW-2. Does that make you want to ban gasoline and empty wine bottles? And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds. Sure they can,and do. Your ability to own them is only limited by your income. Shit,Steven Speilberg has TWO SS-20 Russian ICBM's,complete with the launch trucks. 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. So what? The Bill of Rights aren't based on your emotions. The bans are constitutional if passed, and does not damage the Second Amendment. Yeah,and there really is a rabbit that hides chicken eggs on Easter.
Amazon can track your next book purchase and you must show ID to buy some allergy medicine, but James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities. This idiot acquired some of the tools of modern warfare as if he was buying a new wardrobe. We're different than other cultures as we do allow Americans to possess the same accoutrements that our military generally uses, but someone like this man should never have been given the access he had to such equipment and materials. But even some involved in the trade are troubled by how easily Holmes stocked up for his alleged rampage even while celebrating this largely unchecked freedom. We need to come up with a better system with our instant background checks so that we have the ability to make sure that people like this guy who have emotional problems or people who have felony records cannot get access to these kinds of weapons and equipment. And if this inconveniences the legitimate customers of this equipment to a certain degree, the saving in lives and increase in public safety is worth the extra hassle. I don't see such measures as affecting police officers looking to add to and upgrade their equipment, members of the military who don't want to wait on permission from the bureaucracy for new combat gear, and hobbyists like survivalists and paint ballers. Once vetted and checked, these folks should have just the same access to much if the same equipment they have always gotten. I do not see anything wrong with limiting the sales to some folks of some things with purely a military use. And checking more thoroughly just exactly who is buying what to put an end to this epidemic of mass shootings. The First Amendment as I mentioned restricts free speech when harm is done, and works because it makes people responsible for their speech. Making sure people are responsible with what munitions and war equipment they buy by restricting some from this trade who are too shaky and have no real legitimate use is just mandating the same sort of responsibility for people enjoying Second Amendment freedoms as exists for speech. And I see not a thing wrong with this.
Mike you have emotional problems. You take drugs to treat it. Would you agree that you have no business being anywhere near a gun? I mean you take drugs for depression.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Get off your High Horse,stone. EVERYBODY but sociopaths have emotional problems. It's part of being human.
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)
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
There have long been restrictions on fully automatic weapons. And people cannot possess RPG rocket launchers and rounds.
#54. To: sneakypete (#44)
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
who have emotional problems or
Replies to Comment # 56. Mike you have emotional problems.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]