project much?

1. It is a prototype. it is not on the market.
2. It is going to be availiable to military and police only.
3. Change your diaper, you just dropped a load in your pants.

Andrew, seems like you’re projecting some violent fantasies on gun owners.

There is a good article on the net by Sarah Thompson M.D. called “Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality”. You might want to read it.

I could be wrong, but last time I checked, the folding SubGun will not be available to the general public. And even if a public version becomes available, it will be semi-auto and no more dangerous or concealable than a dozen other similarly sized weapons out there on the public market.

So clean your drawers and stop shitting yourself over a non-issue.

Ah…. You DO realize that new machine guns cannot be sold to civilians?
The only people in the whole world who can buy this thing, should they ever make it (doubtful), are government agencies. The same government agencies who can already buy any machine gun they want…..

So… like… what is the issue here?

Considering that transfer to civilians of newly manufactured firearms that fire more than one round with each pull of the trigger has been illegal since 1986, I don’t see how this is relevant to…um…anything. Oh…other than patent hoplophobia and gun bigotry.

Unless you know of some manner in which I, as a private citizen, can legally purchase this new development. If so…I’m all ears. I bet these are great fun at the range.

You do know this gun is a single prototype built especially for demonstration purposes at a gun show - not designed for sale or manufacture? And that as a fully automatic firearm it will never be sold to civilians in the US unless they obtain a Class III license from the federal government first?

So good luck with that killing spree using an unobtainable weapon.

Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of weapons. Stupidity is demonstrating publicly that you have it.

Sales of machine guns made since 1986 to civilians are prohibited by federal law. You did know that, right?

But hey, why let reality intrude on you lurid, panty-wetting fantasies?

Ultra-portable? It’s a 9mm pistol with a folding box hanging off of it. It is less portable than the pistol itself — it just allows it to hold a larger magazine, stock and handle. It turns a regular pistol (or machine pistol, which you and I can’t readily get) into a carbine.

Yeah, “creative license”–nice save. So, did the editor’s note appear when the article originally posted, or after the civilian ban was pointed out to you?

@David Codrea: Afterwards. We’re not a gun activism site. We are an entertainment gadget blog. This probably isn’t the smartest spot to preach about constitutional rights and such. Even people who take these kind of articles seriously have their own opinions, despite the fact that they can’t distinguish between activism and entertainment.

And just a note. The fact that civilians can’t obtain the weapon legally, doesn’t mean they can’t obtain it on the vast black market, or even mod a similar gun gadget themselves. We express no political affiliation either way on this issue. This is strictly entertainment. If you want to take a gadget post as scripture, then enjoy. Thanks for reading!

Oh….. glad that got explained. I would never have considered ‘killing sprees’ , and ’slicing through the souls of innocents’ as topics for gadget entertainment.
I suppose a big SUV article will be billed as the next ‘Best way to plow down a bus stop full of old folks’.

Then again…. I think I am glad I don’t understand the entertainment value there…..
I prefer the gun bloggers sites… not nearly as violent in their humor. In fact, not violent at all compared to this.

No disrespect intended……

Actually, If I were to do a post on SUV’s, I would most definitely talk about mowing people down. Welcome to Gearfuse.

I was on the fence, but seeing how upset it will make you, I’ll have to get a couple.

d1ckhead.

In other words, rather than admit you didn’t know what you were talking about, you found a convenient afterthought for the gullible among your readership to swallow?

Like I said-nice save.

So in fact, by your own admission, the omission in the article as originally written was not due to some pre-planned “creative license.” You only thought that excuse up after your ignorance was publicly exposed by those who know more about the subject than you do.

What ever happened to “write what you know”?

A principled “Editor’s Note” would have included an admission that you made false assumptions based on lack of knowledge. Had you done that, I would not have felt compelled to post a comment on your site.

And now you try the pathetic “black market” or “conversion” fallback. You just got caught outright not knowing what the hell you’re talking about, but you still want to find some straw to grasp to still make your original assumption appear plausible.

Pathetic. Unworthy of anyone who presumes to write for a public audience.

Thanks for letting me know what you’re about, Andrew. As there does not appear to be even minimal journalistic integrity here, much less anything resembling skillful “entertainment,” I won’t be wasting my time reading any more of your dishonest work.

Regardless of where anyone stands on “the gun issue,” your methods stink and you owe your readers an apology.

@David Cordrea: There was no “save” needed. The editor’s note wasn’t an excuse to catch a mistake. It was to verify that what you’re reading is, in fact, for entertainment. We have nothing to apologize for. We expressed the subject matter in a story-like fashion. We ask the audience whether they are planning a killing spree, and then go on to say why this gun would be great for a criminal on the run. These are not untruths. We imagine this particular prototype would be pretty damn effective for anyone planning murders. Please see the tongue-in-cheek attitude in the article.

Your argument is that the article showed a lack of journalistic integrity. We invite you to seek out a line from the above article which does not either a) tell the truth about the product, or b) make the audience believe we are serious about suggesting that this gun will be used primarily to injure innocent people.

We would figure that someone of your, no doubt, tremendous experience in the firearms activism field would be better spending his time fighting the real power, such as Michael Moore and the leftist gun banning crusade, rather than a gadget blog joking around about a foldable machine gun. But if you wish to continue arguing over a blog which has over a year and a half of journalistic proof to drive the point that we are an “entertainment tech” blog, then by all means go ahead. If not, good luck on your battle.

Andrew,

I did not read your “entertainment article” as a parady or satire. I had already seen the video of this FMG 9 at the SHOT show. I see nothing to get hysterical about a concept gun thay probably would never be produced. It is just a 9mm with a folding stock. So what ! that does not make it any more damgerous. It if law enforcemnt want that weapon due the fact it can fold up then they can have it made. However it looked inaccurate and uncomfortable and not exactly a good weapon. I agree that the idea may be more Inspector Gadget.

Also I do not see how any one can consider your article entertainment. It is not funny to joke about murder sprees. I can only see the concept weapon useful for Special Forces or a James Bond movie.

Yeah, because Columbine was funny… That makes it entertainment, right?

The joke part is how the article sounds like a salesman nonchalantly advertising a weapon for the use of murder. Death has been joked about for years. There’s even its very own sub-genre called BLACK COMEDY. Pointing out that a gun with a built-in radio and flash light would be great for criminals on the run is not much of a stretch when you think about the fact that it actually WOULD be very efficient for that task. As far as Columbine goes, we will not talk about political matters. There are many places on the net to debate politics and Gearfuse is not one of them. We are and always have been, a gadget/tech site, delving into the shock jock genre of journalism at times. No one is holding a foldable submachine gun to your head, forcing you to read. If you find our site entertaining, great. If not, there’s no reason to read, because there is no hidden agenda, which most of you are trying to push or suggest.

I’m amazed at how no one seems to be able to detect the tone Andrew is coming across with in his article. It’s just a quick note no different than any other tech blog site out there, and similar to woot’s articles on its products as well. A quick satire about a product, delivered with an utterly non-serious tone. Honestly… when you sit there and blog entries about new innovations all day, a certain monotony can develop in your writing. Don’t chew up the guy because he excersized his writing a bit.

@Christopher Couture: Thank you! Finally some sense! Exactly my point.

If you don’t thing this is (legally at least) a police state, then why are “they” planning on such a device to be used against “civilins”? You should also note more and more, COPS dressed in CAMO and no longer are they PEACE OFFICERS but the “AUTHORITIES”. It used to be “civil servent” and “citizen” and this used to be a free country. During the summer of 1775, the Brits marched on Concord and Lexington to disarm the Militias, that is after invading OUT country aparently from Canada by sea. The shot heard round the world is coming about.

Man you guys act like a bunch of fags