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: 80808
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 (1-55) not displayed.
.
.
.
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
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.
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.
Do you even know what this means? Probably not. 1.) You go to a gun store and buy a gun. You get background checked (current law). You give the gun to your son for his 13th birthday. Should you have to somehow figure out how to background check him??? 2.) I got a gun when I was 13. I traded it to a friend for a set of speakers when I was 15. Should I have gone to jail? These are the kind of questions that need to be answered. Just stating that you believe in "universal" background checks doesn't mean shit. It's just another in a long-line of meaningless, feel good phrases foisted on us by the unthinking, emotional left.
I checked and my Ferret Mike account is still in good standing at Robin's place. Robin does not give out two accounts to people so go ahead and notify her you think 'annica' and my new posts at her place are the same person. I have no problems with you embarrassing yourself this way. By the way, I was born in 1954.
The proposed law does not regulate private firearm exchanges. If it passes, what you give your thirteen year old will not be affected. As a parent, you are still responsible for your child's behavior. So what a kid does to learn how to use say a 22 cal rifle is your rresponsibility.
I also have mentioned Reagan was shot on my birthday. Now you know the day too. That plain enough for ya? Fucking idiot that you are.
WTF are you talking about?
Attacking my response to your personal attack? How disingenuous of you. Read the header of the thread, that's the topic. Not whether someone in another forum is talking about depression medications as you are obsessed with.
The discussion is guns. You want to ban them. You want to own them for yourself though. But you are hooked on prescription drugs. I'm not talking about someone on another forum. I don't know why you bring that up. Since you are hooked on prescription drugs you shouldn't own a gun correct? Or are you a hypocrite like ALL liberal dumbasses!
I definately do not want to ban them. I don't even want the assault rifles banned. I prefer to see the same kind of controls on them that fully automatic weapons have currently. I don't want the Second Amendment gutted. I just want to see reasonable measures taken that make it much harder to add to the too killing of so many people that has become an epidemic in this country.
Since you are hooked on prescription drugs you shouldn't own a gun correct?" And who says what prescriptions I have in my medicine cabinet? You seem to think you are a psychic.
Good luck with that one, that's a can of worm that does not need to be opened... Because if they pass that then "who" is going to make the determination as to what is or isn't a mental problem??? (They can't seem to figure out what to make of gays and pedophiles other than they're votes for their side)... You currently have people out running the streets that shouldn't be because of the "privacy" legislation that was passed years ago... It basically makes it impossible for some people to get the help they need, and doesn't stop them from being like Adam Lanza... And $5 says guys like him still won't get the help they need because the powers that be (the real loony toons) will zero in on political beliefs/affiliation to make their determinations as to who has "mental problems"... Hello Nazi Germany, USSR, etc...etc... goodbye USA....
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
Good! Why should the Office of Reich Security and it's various relatives be the only ones able to protect themselves? We're different than other cultures as we do allow Americans to possess the same accoutrements that our military generally uses,... ALLOW? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FREAKING MIND,COMRADE? THIS is what is wrong with the leftist mindset. The PEOPLE in America ALLOW the GOVERNMENT to buy and equip their employees/minions with this gear using OUR money. You and your fellow leftists have it backwards,and even the proof of over 40 million serfs in various leftist countries being murdered BY their governments in the 20th Century can't open your eyes to how dangerous your political opinions are. but someone like this man should never have been given the access he had to such equipment and materials. How is anyone supposed to know this in advance? OOOPS! That's right,in the COLLECTIVE EVERYBODY is punished for what SOME people MIGHT do. Providing none of those people wear government uniforms,that is. 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. Yup,deys jist too much ob dat "freedom stuff" going around,ain't it? We MUST stomp it out! Then again,anybody that places safety over freedom doesn't have a reason to bitch when somebody in the government wants to put a bullet in the back of their necks because the Security of the State will always trump the security of the individual in all cases,right,comrade? 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. There ya go! What software program are you using to convert the bleeping of sheep into English? 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. Oh,it won't inhibit agents of the state from getting what they need to keep the serfs in line. Don't worry about that one. As for the others,you clearly don't think they have any rights other than the right to obey their masters,so don't pretend to be concerned about them. Once vetted and checked, these folks should have just the same access to much if the same equipment they have always gotten. Yup. In Big Rock Candy Mountain Land .... ...in the REAL world where the authorities have to grant PERMISSIONS,that doesn't happen,though. The First Amendment as I mentioned restricts free speech when harm is done, and works because it makes people responsible for their speech. People who misuse their firearms aren't held responsible for their actions? Since when?
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)
Makes no difference. As a former soldier in the 82nd ABN Division and in Special Forces,you have exhibited a willingness to voluntarily kill others.
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)
Get off your High Horse,stone. EVERYBODY but sociopaths have emotional problems. It's part of being human.
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)
Which means you want them restricted to only the middle-class and wealthy being ALLOWED to own them after paying the proper fees. How does such a class system that ignores the FACT that the poor are more at risk of attack than the wealthy square with your leftist belief system? I don't want the Second Amendment gutted. I just want to see reasonable measures taken that make it much harder to add to the too killing of so many people that has become an epidemic in this country. EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?
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)
The Toomey / Manchin law doesn't require this, but other proposals did.
And if I ever wake up in the middle of the night I find strange people have broken in, I'll use a firearm to change their world. I don't see that as something they would try to grab my guns over. What makes you think they think I bought what I own to use to decorate a rock garden with?
The Toomey/Manchin law is reasonable, proposals that go that far to ban gift giving and exchanges between family and friends are not. Nobody would give a gift of a gun to the whackos who have done mass shootings, and that is my focus only; to see an end to this cycle of violent mass killings.
I don't see these as 'trap' laws that are designed to do this. The fees I have seen are more then reasonable for most people to buy what they need for personal and family defense; or hunting and target shooting. In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States You are greatly understating this Pete, and I feel the mass murders are an epidemic that precipitate the idea for others to do the same thing. We need this cycle of violence to be broken, and I feel restrictions on assault rifles, magazine size restrictions and a tighter background check are reasonable measures, and would not hurt our Second Amendment rights in any appreciable way.
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. What THEY think is nobody but the police should be ALLOWED to own guns. Period.
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)
We grant them prerogatives when they hold office to enforce rules for the greater good. And if we decide they overstep those boundaries we can remove them from office or vote to chang ethe rules they are operating under. You vastly overstate their powers and underestimate our powers as the people to fire those in power or work to chang ethe system for the better. The U.S. Constitution works because we are still responsible to use rights given us in it such as the Second Amendment in an accountable manner. And when people don't do this, it is incumbent on us to restrict unaccountable behavior; such as people using assault rifles and large magazines to lay down heavy fire with the intention of killing as many people in as fast a manner as possible in a way that is hard to interrupt. If the idiot who did Sandy Hook had had to change his magazines more frequently, more kids could of escaped then the five who did during a magazine change did. The man who shot Gabby Gifford and many others was stopped during a magazine change. I see these restrictions as having no real effect on most of the activities people use guns for. And I see them as being deterrents to the continuation of the cycle of mass killings we now see in this country. A cycle that must be broken.
Really? The fee is $300 per weapon,and that doesn't include the weapon or any mental health certificate required by state or local authorities. How many poor people living in cities,the very people who need them the most,can afford to pay 300 bucks just to exercise one of their RIGHTS as an American citizen? AND...,don't overlook how expensive Class 3 weapons are now,which is the class semi-auto weapons would be put into if your wishes came true. While we are at it,lets not overlook the FACT that no new weapons are even ALLOWED to be put on the Class 3 list since that bastard Poppy Bush closed the Class 3 register. Last time I checked,a simple M3 greasegun that cost $3 to manufacture during WW-2 went from 500 dollars to over 6000 dollars thanks to the list being closed. Poppy even banned the import to the US of foreign military weapons INCLUDING US military arm given to foreign nations,and ordered the current US inventory of these weapons in reserve be destroyed. No problem for wealthy people that want to collect and shoot them,but impossible for working class people. And you see these as "reasonable expenses"? "EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?" In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[4] The current law is about banning so-called "Assault Rifles",not generic rifles,and there is no mention SO FAR of banning handguns. Of course,we all know the whole assault rifle thing is just the camels nose under the tent,and other rifles and handguns will be added later. You are greatly understating this Pete, and I feel the mass murders are an epidemic that precipitate the idea for others to do the same thing. What you or anyone else "Feels" is not a basis to pass a law contrary to the Bill of Rights,and the percentage of mass murders is negligible when you compare the numbers against the population numbers.
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)
Last time I checked,it was already illegal to murder people,regardless of the tools used. Banning tools isn't going to stop murders.
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)
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.
Comments (96 - 126) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestwho have emotional problems or
#57. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
I support universal background checks
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#61. To: jwpegler (#59)
"You go to a gun store and buy a gun. You get background checked (current law). You give the gun to your son for his 13th birthday. Should you have to somehow figure out how to background check him???"
#62. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#60)
I checked and my Ferret Mike account is still in good standing at Robin's place. Robin does not give out two accounts to people so go ahead and notify her you think 'annica' and my new posts at her place are the same person.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#65. To: Ferret Mike (#64)
Read the header of the thread, that's the topic
#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#65)
"I'm not talking about someone on another forum. I don't know why you bring that up.
#68. To: Ferret Mike, AKA Stone, jwpegler, sneakypete (#54)
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.
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
James Holmes spent months stockpiling thousands of bullets and head-to-toe ballistic gear without raising any red flags with authorities.
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#55)
None of any medication I am taking currently would keep me from owning the guns and ammunition I now currently own.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Mike you have emotional problems.
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#66)
I definately do not want to ban them. I don't even want the assault rifles banned. I prefer to see the same kind of controls on them that fully automatic weapons have currently.
#73. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
The proposed law does not regulate private firearm exchanges. If it passes, what you give your thirteen year old will not be affected.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#74. To: sneakypete (#70)
"Makes no difference. As a former soldier in the 82nd ABN Division and in Special Forces,you have exhibited a willingness to voluntarily kill others."
#75. To: jwpegler (#73)
"The Toomey / Manchin law doesn't require this, but other proposals did."
#76. To: sneakypete (#72)
"Which means you want them restricted to only the middle-class and wealthy being ALLOWED to own them after paying the proper fees."
"EPIDEMIC? How do you define that word in a country with over 350 million people and fewer than 100 a year die because of your allegations?"
#77. To: Ferret Mike (#74)
I don't see that as something they would try to grab my guns over.
#78. To: sneakypete (#69)
"THIS is what is wrong with the leftist mindset. The PEOPLE in America ALLOW the GOVERNMENT to buy and equip their employees/minions with this gear using OUR money. You and your fellow leftists have it backwards,and even the proof of over 40 million serfs in various leftist countries being murdered BY their governments in the 20th Century can't open your eyes to how dangerous your political opinions are."
"Yup,deys jist too much ob dat "freedom stuff" going around,ain't it? We MUST stomp it out!
#79. To: Ferret Mike (#76)
The fees I have seen are more then reasonable for most people to buy what they need for personal and family defense; or hunting and target shooting.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#78)
The U.S. Constitution works because we are still responsible to use rights given us in it such as the Second Amendment in an accountable manner. And when people don't do this, it is incumbent on us to restrict unaccountable behavior; such as people using assault rifles and large magazines to lay down heavy fire with the intention of killing as many people in as fast a manner as possible in a way that is hard to interrupt.
#81. To: sneakypete (#77)
"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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]