General Discussion

Peter cotton

(380 posts)

47. Hm...what about the FN Five Seven?

Reply to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:27 PM

Feb 2013

5.7x28 centerfire, 20 shot magazine doesn't protrude.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The NRA is utterly shameless (Recent tweet). [View all] Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 OP

The NRA exists to sell firearms TheCowsCameHome Feb 2013 #1

Hence why they are against universal background checks. Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #9

So wait the NRA is tracking guns sales Drale Feb 2013 #2

Only 4.5 million of the 80 million firearm owners are members of the NRA. ... spin Feb 2013 #3

They would have bought more if they were available ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #4

Well, isn't that lovely for their manufacturers... Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #6

Not so much ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #10

Well, Let's All Shed A Tear For The Gun Merchants, Shall We? Paladin Feb 2013 #13

Union jobs (manufacturing) and small businesses are worthless to you? ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #16

A Lecture From You On The "Real World," Professor? Your "Real World"? Paladin Feb 2013 #17

I am not the solipsist here ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #18

Credit Where Credit's Due: That's A Good Set Of Standards. Paladin Feb 2013 #19

Why ban pistol magazines that protrude beneath the grip? Peter cotton Feb 2013 #25

To eliminate snail magazines and other extended magazines for handguns ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #43

Hm...what about the FN Five Seven? Peter cotton Feb 2013 #47

No problem there. It fits in the handle and is the standard magazine for the pistol. ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #51

While your proposal is easily understood, I don't see the point. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #87

Mostly its a concession to those who think magazine size matters ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #90

It's an interesting approach, but I've never seen anything like it being proposed Peter cotton Mar 2013 #93

I have better taste than to be a lawyer or legislator ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #95

Required? TheCowsCameHome Feb 2013 #20

Yes required. ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #21

I see. TheCowsCameHome Feb 2013 #22

Its legitimate sport shooting...something you ignorantly dismissed and disparaged ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #41

Legitimate or not, it doesn't mean it can't be changed. TheCowsCameHome Feb 2013 #53

Just like AWBs ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #55

very scarce is correct, I've had a back ordered semi auto rifle since before christmas loli phabay Feb 2013 #29

What's wrong with the AR-15? badtoworse Feb 2013 #5

Well, besides being the chosen weapon of choice for James Holmes and Adam Lanza....nt Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #8

It has been the most popular sport rifle for over a decade and is very prevalent ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #11

Adam Lanza had numerous weapons of his mothers from which to choose. Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #12

And Cho choose two pistols at Va Tech hack89 Feb 2013 #15

Yes mwrguy Feb 2013 #27

So what guns would you allow the public to own? nt hack89 Feb 2013 #32

The kind that you can't use to kill a bunch of kindergardeners mwrguy Feb 2013 #34

So no guns for the public? hack89 Feb 2013 #35

It's responses like yours that make the NRA credible badtoworse Feb 2013 #36

When it comes to indulging their deadly little hobby - gun fondling - the pro-NRA crowd simply apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #61

absolutely mwrguy Feb 2013 #66

Thanks! apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #70

You keep repeating that like it means something. bluedigger Feb 2013 #30

Just making clear that ownership of an AR type if very common among active shooters ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #42

That's usually what our Gungeoneer "professor's"* lesson plan usually consists of: circular logic, apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #62

They could have chosen any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine badtoworse Feb 2013 #23

Likely why the AK is included in AW bans? As are limits on mag capacity? nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #24

The near-unrestricted access to it. Too easy for too many to get at one (or more). nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #26

The technology has been around for decades badtoworse Feb 2013 #33

"All of a sudden"? Were you born after 1994? jmg257 Feb 2013 #37

I remember the AWB well badtoworse Feb 2013 #38

Yeah - so right wing NFA dupes keep telling "us". jmg257 Feb 2013 #39

The new laws are always more restrictive badtoworse Feb 2013 #40

Since what advocates want is to drastically reduce the number of guns jmg257 Feb 2013 #56

I only want to take away some of your civil rights is a concession? badtoworse Feb 2013 #58

Limit for the better of the community. The common good...just why govts are formed. jmg257 Feb 2013 #65

Franklin had something to say about your point and he was a wise man badtoworse Feb 2013 #67

So did Robert Yates. Of course the bill of rights are securities jmg257 Feb 2013 #68

The SCOTUS has always held that some limitations on civil rights are needed badtoworse Feb 2013 #71

Yep. Glad you said "needed". I agree. Concessions would be jmg257 Feb 2013 #75

You seem to be pocketing an awful lot if you think those things represent concessions badtoworse Feb 2013 #78

Adam Lanza had mental problems. Yet he was able to access a legally owned AR. jmg257 Feb 2013 #79

We can improve the background checks but no system will be perfect. badtoworse Mar 2013 #80

And I'm not buying the argument that just because semi auto rifles.... Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #86

There is a lot more to valid controls then just background checks. jmg257 Mar 2013 #96

Another reason I'm glad I HappyMe Feb 2013 #7

You nailed it. AngryOldDem Feb 2013 #14

Thereby proving that they represent gun manufacturers and no one else The Blue Flower Feb 2013 #28

Fucking enablers of slaughter malaise Feb 2013 #31

It's a shame... valiberal26 Feb 2013 #44

Seriously? badtoworse Feb 2013 #45

Quite. valiberal26 Feb 2013 #46

You probably wonder why the NRA (and numerous other gun owners) won't give an inch on the issue badtoworse Feb 2013 #48

Funny. valiberal26 Feb 2013 #50

You might be surprised; go on. badtoworse Feb 2013 #52

Why? valiberal26 Feb 2013 #54

You've made your intentions pretty plain badtoworse Feb 2013 #57

Not true. valiberal26 Feb 2013 #60

You're too naive about this to discuss it further. Have a good night. badtoworse Feb 2013 #63

Translation: "I lost this debate so now I'm just gonna call names and run off." apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #69

I'm still here badtoworse Feb 2013 #72

Of course you are. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #73

I will be glad to tell my GLBT friends that being bashed is just a petty quarrel ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #77

Oh, cut the crap. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #88

I suggest you do the same**2 ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #89

Spot-on reply - wish we could recommend individual posts. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #64

Yet another person for total confiscation. ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #74

"Logged and noted." IveWornAHundredPants Mar 2013 #82

There are those here who claim no one here is for total confiscation ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #83

Well, I guess we all have to keep ourselves busy somehow. IveWornAHundredPants Mar 2013 #92

Bytes are cheap ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #94

They're fucked up fuckers! Auntie Bush Feb 2013 #49

Yes, and so are their shills & sycophants; truly a morally repulsive organization. Also: see sig. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #59

I don't understand the outrage on this. nt ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #76

Really? Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #81

By "priorities" do you mean ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #84

For some, I think they do. At least subconsciously. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #85

OK. I think I understand your position now. ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #97

Most strutting adolescents trying to look like "real men" are shameless. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #91