MagPul Wavering?

[Great-Kazoo]

Just hoping they can keep track of LEO on our side, like the majority of CO Sheriffs, and keep them out of the hands of the likes of the douche PC of Golden.

MAJOR FAIL on your part. You want magpul to have every buyer sign a loyalty oath or something?
Are you also in favor of ALL GUN SALES BEING KEPT TRACK OF?? SOUNDS like a Bloomberg thought process you have going there.

[jslo]

MAJOR FAIL on your part. You want magpul to have every buyer sign a loyalty oath or something?
Are you also in favor of ALL GUN SALES BEING KEPT TRACK OF?? SOUNDS like a Bloomberg thought process you have going there.

Seems like you occasionally have a problem with reading comprehension, it's MagPul's thought to have them "sign a loyalty oath or something" (as in "promise") not mine. If MaGpul can figure a way to sell to LEO that supports all 2A rights, I'm all for it. But, their "promise" is not good enough anymore.

[Great-Kazoo]

Seems like you occasionally have a problem with reading comprehension, it's MagPul's thought to have them "sign a loyalty oath or something" (as in "promise") not mine. If MaGpul can figure a way to sell to LEO that supports all 2A rights, I'm all for it. But, their "promise" is not good enough anymore.

If their promise isn't good enough sell your pmags.
Most "chiefs' if not all are political appointees. The 2 sheriffs who did not support the majority when it came to our rights are also located in counties that have a deeper blue tint than the rest of CO.

[jslo]

If their promise isn't good enough sell your pmags.
Most "chiefs' if not all are political appointees. The 2 sheriffs who did not support the majority when it came to our rights are also located in counties that have a deeper blue tint than the rest of CO.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again", it's not MagPul's "promise" I'm concerned with it's anti 2A law enforcement agency's that may be able to change their "spots" for a chance to get MagPul products. I asked for opinions, and got them, and will assume MagPul will figure this out.

(Maybe it's my reading comprehension that's lacking)

[Aloha_Shooter]

(Maybe it's my reading comprehension that's lacking)

There you go ... finally found the answer. I have no idea how you ever came to a conclusion that they were "wavering" from a statement that was issued early in the fight and that simply said they were trying to find a way to serve LEOs who were doing their duty to the Constitution. The whole OP and subsequent defenses of it were one massive failure in reading comprehension.

[jslo]

There you go ... finally found the answer. I have no idea how you ever came to a conclusion that they were "wavering" from a statement that was issued early in the fight and that simply said they were trying to find a way to serve LEOs who were doing their duty to the Constitution. The whole OP and subsequent defenses of it were one massive failure in reading comprehension.

Last comment. I don't consider March 1st to be "early in the fight" but understandable. After all they had a business to run and were taking the time to prepare and testify. Also the thread started as a question, hence the ?, and was meant to get others thoughts on their statement. It seemed to me they were considering a "promise" would be adequate to resume sales. We know who some of the "good" guys are and who some of the "bad" guys are. A promise from the ones that actively fought "us", IMO, is not good enough. I'll take a step back and watch how MagPul decides to handle it. Don't get me wrong, I support and appreciate everything they have done, so far.

[CapLock]

Couldn't they get in on the Boulder Air Drop being citizens of Colorado? I could see and would gladly go to the back of the line if some guy in the military needed PMAGs but how could LE be hurting for mags. Won't there be plenty around for them after July 1st when we are no longer worthy?