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.

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.

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.

d1ckhead.