On 7/30/2012 6:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
My gut sense, is that the Fed is making it more dificult for people to
write pain meds. I have a personal theory why, but that's not really
important. I reccomend that you fill all your RX, and keep them some where
secure, in case there is a time you really need the meds.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Theory? There are too many freaking junkies and too many docs who
prescribe to them. Rarely do folks with bad backs NEED high-power narcs.

When I had dental work done last, the doc prescribed heavy duty stuff; I
filled the rx because I didn't know what to expect pain-wise. Mild
pain, took one ibu. Next trip to pharmacy I asked the pharmacist if
narcs were commonly prescribed for the work I had done. She said yes
and offered that I must have a high pain threshold. Not!

When I worked in drug rehab, there was the occasional alcoholic who
discovered they had a bad back or arthritis or some such because they
detoxed and weren't "medicated" any longer.

When I worked in occupational health and took urine specs from
prospective hires, I got so I could almost spot them coming in the door.

I think it would be lovely to legalize pot...might keep a lot of addicts
off meth and heroin and rx narcs.

Years ago, I tried generic naproxy (Berkley and Jensen brand) and found it
to be useless. I tried name brand Aleve, and they worked very well. Please
treat youself to a bottle of name brand Aleve, and see if they work any
better. You'd likely know that Naproxyn is corrosive to the stomach lining,
and needs to be taken with meals.

I wonder if they make a slow release Tramadol, you can take at bedtime?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I don't like anything that affects my balance, perception of the world
around me or any of my senses in any way. I've a physician friend who
helps me and understands my distaste for any narcotic drugs. I fix his
computers and other things like his old ultrasound machine and he fixes
me. He prescribed Tramadol which seems to be the mildest of the strong
pain killers but still doesn't do all that much but it helps. I take OTC
Naproxen sodium (generic Aleve) along with the Tramadol for the
inflammation that torments me. Doc has suggested adding another drug
that targets nerve pain that I also have which can keep me from getting
any sleep. With the DEA looking over every doctor and pharmacist's
shoulder, it's difficult to get the amount of pain medication one needs
because the DEA terrorizes the health care providers about the amount of
pain meds they provide. JH one of the guys I work with, lives on Lortabs
for his congenital crippling gout-like condition and the DEA has been
eyeballing his doctors because of the amount of drugs my friend takes to
survive. I crawl out of bed early every morning to take my meds then go
back to bed because it can take two hours for the stuff to start
working. Oh well, I'm back to bed for a while now so I can work today. O_o

TDD

Stormin Mormon wrote:

My gut sense, is that the Fed is making it more dificult for people to
write pain meds. I have a personal theory why, but that's not really
important. I reccomend that you fill all your RX, and keep them some where
secure, in case there is a time you really need the meds.


That was over 15 years ago. Would you take medicine that far out of
date?

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:26 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I was in the hospital and a young woman doctor asked me what my pain
level was on a 1-10 scale, my answer was "ELEVIN!" and I despise drugs
because the darn stuff never works on me in any normal dose. O_o


I have had surgery and not taken the pain medicine. Most times I
didn't even have the prescription filled, because I too hat to take
pills.


I don't like anything that affects my balance, perception of the world
around me or any of my senses in any way. I've a physician friend who
helps me and understands my distaste for any narcotic drugs. I fix his
computers and other things like his old ultrasound machine and he fixes
me. He prescribed Tramadol which seems to be the mildest of the strong
pain killers but still doesn't do all that much but it helps. I take OTC
Naproxen sodium (generic Aleve) along with the Tramadol for the
inflammation that torments me. Doc has suggested adding another drug
that targets nerve pain that I also have which can keep me from getting
any sleep. With the DEA looking over every doctor and pharmacist's
shoulder, it's difficult to get the amount of pain medication one needs
because the DEA terrorizes the health care providers about the amount of
pain meds they provide. JH one of the guys I work with, lives on Lortabs
for his congenital crippling gout-like condition and the DEA has been
eyeballing his doctors because of the amount of drugs my friend takes to
survive. I crawl out of bed early every morning to take my meds then go
back to bed because it can take two hours for the stuff to start
working. Oh well, I'm back to bed for a while now so I can work today. O_o


Gabapentin is what the VA currently prescibes for my diabetic
neurapathy. They had me on naproxin and several other low grade pain
killers, but they didn't do anything but make me sick to my stomach.
Gabapentin takes time to build up in your system, and has to be taken on
a regular basis, but it does take the edge off of the pain with no
noticable side effects. I don't think some doctors are trained to treat
pain.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Wish I lived closer, and was available to help out. I had one job "just
replace a thermostat" that ended up being half a dozen times up and down a
ladder, to the roof. That was memorable.

It would have been a lot faster job, if I'd had a qualified helper, and a
couple walkie talkies.


I have a pair of nice little 22 channel Cobra Micro Talk GMRS/FRS radios
that work very well. Me and JH do a lot of telecom and data
wiring and the radios come in handy when you're 300' away from your
co-conspirator trying to sort out or find cables. We've been trying
to find a young guy maybe 50 years old or so to help us pull wire
up in ceilings where it's difficult for us to climb around. ^_^


Is there a local 'Vets Helping Vets' office? They usually have a
list of Veterans that need any kind of work, and some are quite skilled
in your field.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

One fellow I worked for. I'd issue him a FRS walkie talkie at the beginning
of the day. He'd get a call on the cell phone, and turn off the FRS.
Finally, I quit using FRS, and just call him on the cell when I needed it.

One time we were troubleshooting a system from cellar (where I was) to third
floor. I handed him a walkie, which he set down, and then climbed the
stairs. I asked him why he did that. "I knew you had three. You were holding
one, the second was on the table, so I figured I had the third one". I
guess there is no accounting for how some folks think.


Or try to get out of work.

I found that nine year old codeine calmed my persistent cough (bronchitis)
and gave me twelve hours of relief. One tablet lasted 12 hours, and then I
took a second, and a third at 12 hour intervals. I'd been coughing for many
days.

With the usual cool dry place, meds are good for much longer than the expiry
dates. I've heard tetracyclene gets toxic, but most meds have a long shelf
life.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
important. I reccomend that you fill all
your RX, and keep them some where
secure, in case there is a time you really
need the meds.


That was over 15 years ago. Would you take medicine that far out of
date?

I'd not thought of that. This guy was the boss, and his name was on the
company. After working for him for years, I've found that he's scatter
brained, and absentminded. I don't think he was trying to get out of work, I
think he was just completely scatter brained. I made my money by quietly
doing all the little things he forgot.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

one, the second was on the table,
so I figured I had the third one". I
guess there is no accounting for
how some folks think.


Or try to get out of work.

In article ,
Norminn wrote:



When I worked in drug rehab, there was the occasional alcoholic who
discovered they had a bad back or arthritis or some such because they
detoxed and weren't "medicated" any longer.
I was also amazed at how many alcoholics we would dry out just to
have them come back in a couple as manic as the day was long.

I think it would be lovely to legalize pot...might keep a lot of addicts
off meth and heroin and rx narcs.
FWIW, I don't think so. To my experience those who are happy with pot
stay with it and those who don't need an extra kick. While I don't agree
with the idea that pot is a gateway drug, I don't think that it
legalizing would mean a whole bunch of people stop there and don't go
further.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Some meds, stored properly, yes. My nine
year old codeine worked fine. The way the
fed is going, all we have on hand may be
the old stuff from back when.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

That was over 15 years ago. Would you take
medicine that far out of date?

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I was in the hospital and a young woman doctor asked me what my
pain
level was on a 1-10 scale, my answer was "ELEVIN!" and I despise
drugs
because the darn stuff never works on me in any normal dose. O_o

I have had surgery and not taken the pain medicine. Most times I
didn't even have the prescription filled, because I too hat to take
pills.

If I take pain medication I'll be back up on the ladder making the
original injury worse.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You get the feeling that someone in government doesn't want doctors
to
prescribe pain meds?
Some just want a paycheck, not to work for it.

We need a device such that, when they ask how much it hurts, we push a
button and say "like this".

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I was in the hospital and a young woman doctor asked me what my
pain
level was on a 1-10 scale, my answer was "ELEVIN!" and I despise
drugs
because the darn stuff never works on me in any normal dose. O_o

I have had surgery and not taken the pain medicine. Most times I
didn't even have the prescription filled, because I too hat to take
pills.

If I take pain medication I'll be back up on the ladder making the
original injury worse.


I walk with a cane,, and have fallen down steps several times so I
really don't want to climb a ladder. My sense of balance is pretty much
gone.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You get the feeling that someone in government doesn't want doctors
to
prescribe pain meds?
Some just want a paycheck, not to work for it.

We need a device such that, when they ask how much it hurts, we push a
button and say "like this".



A cattle prod would work, but they are usually pain sissies.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote
...
With the usual cool dry place, meds are good for much longer than
the expiry
dates. I've heard tetracyclene gets toxic, but most meds have a long
shelf
life....
Christopher A. Young

I drove someone to the hospital for cramps from tetracycline that had
been in the refrigerator ~6 months past its expiration date. I don't
remember exactly what they did about it but it wasn't much and we
didn't stay long.

On 7/30/2012 7:10 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Wish I lived closer, and was available to help out. I had one job "just
replace a thermostat" that ended up being half a dozen times up and down a
ladder, to the roof. That was memorable.

It would have been a lot faster job, if I'd had a qualified helper, and a
couple walkie talkies.


I have a pair of nice little 22 channel Cobra Micro Talk GMRS/FRS radios
that work very well. Me and JH do a lot of telecom and data
wiring and the radios come in handy when you're 300' away from your
co-conspirator trying to sort out or find cables. We've been trying
to find a young guy maybe 50 years old or so to help us pull wire
up in ceilings where it's difficult for us to climb around. ^_^


Is there a local 'Vets Helping Vets' office? They usually have a
list of Veterans that need any kind of work, and some are quite skilled
in your field.


JH had his cousin help us and he was a Vietnam era vet who claimed he
was SOG in Nam. The guy was psycho and had some real problems getting
along with people. I now refer to him as Cousin Commando. O_o

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 7:10 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Wish I lived closer, and was available to help out. I had one job "just
replace a thermostat" that ended up being half a dozen times up and down a
ladder, to the roof. That was memorable.

It would have been a lot faster job, if I'd had a qualified helper, and a
couple walkie talkies.


I have a pair of nice little 22 channel Cobra Micro Talk GMRS/FRS radios
that work very well. Me and JH do a lot of telecom and data
wiring and the radios come in handy when you're 300' away from your
co-conspirator trying to sort out or find cables. We've been trying
to find a young guy maybe 50 years old or so to help us pull wire
up in ceilings where it's difficult for us to climb around. ^_^


Is there a local 'Vets Helping Vets' office? They usually have a
list of Veterans that need any kind of work, and some are quite skilled
in your field.


JH had his cousin help us and he was a Vietnam era vet who claimed he
was SOG in Nam. The guy was psycho and had some real problems getting
along with people. I now refer to him as Cousin Commando. O_o


These are mostly returning soldiers who didn't have a job to come
home to. They were techs, & support people, not insane killers.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:15:46 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

I understand that NY is anal about such things, though. I was warned to not
cross with magazines larger than 10 rounds. I bought a few extra and left the
high capacity ones at home when I went back to visit in VT last year.

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

In article ,
"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote
...
With the usual cool dry place, meds are good for much longer than
the expiry
dates. I've heard tetracyclene gets toxic, but most meds have a long
shelf
life....
Christopher A. Young

I drove someone to the hospital for cramps from tetracycline that had
been in the refrigerator ~6 months past its expiration date. I don't
remember exactly what they did about it but it wasn't much and we
didn't stay long.

The main reason not to use expire tetracycline is because of a high
incidence of severe kidney disease.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Jim Wilkins wrote:

We need a device such that, when they ask how much it hurts, we
push a
button and say "like this".

A cattle prod would work, but they are usually pain sissies.

I mean one that transfers exactly where and how much it hurts, to help
their diagnosis.

I mean one that transfers exactly where and how much it hurts, to help
their diagnosis.


I have often wondered how bad someone else's pain was. Sometimes when
I feel good I think I hurt more than someone bitching about a pain.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:22:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:49:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:34:16 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:22:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:15:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:00:04 -0400, "
wrote:
snip - finally - you're too stupid

Gunner's got you pretty well nailed; Ignorati.


Sure... you just make me smile!!

People with double-digit IQs do that a lot.


Just curious in your infinite amount of wisdom allowed for the
possibility that you could be wrong? This answer should be
interesting !!

I could be, but I research my positions rather than react to leg tingles from
the mainstream media. Leftist loons can only respond to media knee jerks, as
you've openly admitted here. Evidence: low (i.e. bargain basement) IQ.

Well said. Indeed.

Gunner


Yes, especially the first 3 words !!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

I thought so. You cannot drive to Las Vegas to buy a "large-capacity"
mag and cross back into the state of California with it.

12020 thru 12040 Unlawful Carrying and Possession
…
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
….
(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the followingA)
A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot
accommodate more than 10 rounds.(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition
feeding device.(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a
lever-action firearm.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php
--

"Thomas" wrote in message
...
I mean one that transfers exactly where and how much it hurts, to
help
their diagnosis.

I have often wondered how bad someone else's pain was. Sometimes
when
I feel good I think I hurt more than someone bitching about a pain.

The next time a woman brags about their greater tolerance for the pain
of childbirth, turn down the thermostat.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

My hero!

A great way to get an ass-kicking, if you ask me. If someone sprayed me
with an ABC extinguisher (with the irritant in the powder), I'd consider
that an act of aggression. I respect the owners wishes if their
car/truck is "smoke free", but do that to me where I'm allowed to smoke
and you might get the extinguisher shoved up your ass.




"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I'm deathly allergic to tobacco smoke and have been known to brain a
smoking creep with a fire extinguisher after emptying in his face.
Freon and Halon are also very rough on smokers if you can get enough
of a concentration into the air. CO2 is also fun to release in large
quantities in a small space around smokers. I've had evil thoughts of
flammable gasses even high concentrations of O2 but the civilized man
in me put a stop to that. I've installed Halon fire suppression systems
and if I remember correctly it took less than an 8% concentration of
1301 to put out a fire. I've never seen a smoker try to light up in that
atmosphere but it would be fun albeit expensive to tryout on one
of those idiots. ^_^

TDD

Issue all patients tazers?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

We need a device such that, when they
ask how much it hurts, we push a
button and say "like this".

A man's got to know his limitations.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

I walk with a cane,, and have fallen down steps several times so I
really don't want to climb a ladder. My sense of balance is pretty much
gone.

I've got to have that laminated, and carry it in my wallet.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

The next time a woman brags about
their greater tolerance for the pain
of childbirth, turn down the thermostat.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.

If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

On 7/30/2012 8:30 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

I thought so. You cannot drive to Las Vegas to buy a "large-capacity"
mag and cross back into the state of California with it.

12020 thru 12040 Unlawful Carrying and Possession
…
(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
….
(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the followingA)
A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot
accommodate more than 10 rounds.(B) A .22 caliber tube ammunition
feeding device.(C) A tubular magazine that is contained in a
lever-action firearm.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

I should point out that I disagree with the law, but it *is* the law,
and gummer, as usual, was full of ****.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:02:10 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:22:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:49:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:34:16 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:22:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:15:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:00:04 -0400, "
wrote:
snip - finally - you're too stupid

Gunner's got you pretty well nailed; Ignorati.


Sure... you just make me smile!!

People with double-digit IQs do that a lot.


Just curious in your infinite amount of wisdom allowed for the
possibility that you could be wrong? This answer should be
interesting !!

I could be, but I research my positions rather than react to leg tingles from
the mainstream media. Leftist loons can only respond to media knee jerks, as
you've openly admitted here. Evidence: low (i.e. bargain basement) IQ.

Well said. Indeed.

Gunner


Yes, especially the first 3 words !!

The first three words are "Well said. Indeed".

What a moron

On 7/30/2012 9:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.

I did not, of course, support what gummer said. gummer's comment
suggestions one may obtain 40 round magazines legally in California.
That's false, of course.


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

It says they may not be legally obtained or sold or offered for sale or
manufactured or acquired since 2000. gummer suggests one may legally
make, sell, buy, import or transfer magazines with a capacity greater
than 10 rounds. He is wrong.

On 7/30/2012 10:05 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:02:10 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:22:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:49:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:34:16 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:22:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:15:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:00:04 -0400, "
wrote:
snip - finally - you're too stupid

Gunner's got you pretty well nailed; Ignorati.


Sure... you just make me smile!!

People with double-digit IQs do that a lot.


Just curious in your infinite amount of wisdom allowed for the
possibility that you could be wrong? This answer should be
interesting !!

I could be, but I research my positions rather than react to leg tingles from
the mainstream media. Leftist loons can only respond to media knee jerks, as
you've openly admitted here. Evidence: low (i.e. bargain basement) IQ.

Well said. Indeed.

Gunner


Yes, especially the first 3 words !!

The first three words are "Well said. Indeed".

What a moron

gummer is a moron. Those who agree with him usually are as well.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:53:16 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.


Gunner said: "... not true in the slightest".

If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

IF you owned it before January 1, 2000. They are now banned from
purchase or import for the average Joe.

A gun shop in Las Vegas will not sell you one if you have a California
address and identification from that state.
--

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:07:39 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 9:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.

I did not, of course, support what gummer said. gummer's comment
suggestions one may obtain 40 round magazines legally in California.
That's false, of course.

The *fact*, as you showed, is that high capacity magazines are legal in CA. It
might be illegal to sell/import/**** them but they *are* legal and the police
aren't going to search your car for them.

Of course Gunner didn't say one may OBTAIN them. ...but in your zeal to prove
Gunner wrong, you forgot to read.

If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

It says they may not be legally obtained or sold or offered for sale or
manufactured or acquired since 2000. gummer suggests one may legally
make, sell, buy, import or transfer magazines with a capacity greater
than 10 rounds. He is wrong.

Try reading what was written rather than what your ass is telling you.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:11:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:53:16 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.


Gunner said: "... not true in the slightest".

In response to :

"In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder."

IOW, it's "... not true in the slightest" that a "single 30 round mag in your
car or ammo within thirty miles of your car is a crime".


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

IF you owned it before January 1, 2000. They are now banned from
purchase or import for the average Joe.

OK, but nowhere did Gunner say anything about purchasing them. He was
refuting the point that being caught with one in your car was somehow worse
than spitting on the sidewalk.

A gun shop in Las Vegas will not sell you one if you have a California
address and identification from that state.

Different subject.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:09:33 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 10:05 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:02:10 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:22:20 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:49:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:34:16 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:22:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:15:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:00:04 -0400, "
wrote:
snip - finally - you're too stupid

Gunner's got you pretty well nailed; Ignorati.


Sure... you just make me smile!!

People with double-digit IQs do that a lot.


Just curious in your infinite amount of wisdom allowed for the
possibility that you could be wrong? This answer should be
interesting !!

I could be, but I research my positions rather than react to leg tingles from
the mainstream media. Leftist loons can only respond to media knee jerks, as
you've openly admitted here. Evidence: low (i.e. bargain basement) IQ.

Well said. Indeed.

Gunner


Yes, especially the first 3 words !!

The first three words are "Well said. Indeed".

What a moron

gummer is a moron. Those who agree with him usually are as well.

Nice to see that your "logic" is as good as Douggie's. It'll save us all a
lot of work sizing you up.

On 7/30/2012 10:11 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:53:16 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.


Gunner said: "... not true in the slightest".

Exactly. gummer, the liar and dole scrounger, meant to suggest that
anyone could acquire a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
That's absolutely false. *NO ONE* (other than law enforcement) may
legally acquire one in California. gummer may not lawfully acquire a 40
round magazine to keep in his ******** in Taft, CA.


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

IF you owned it before January 1, 2000. They are now banned from
purchase or import for the average Joe.

A gun shop in Las Vegas will not sell you one if you have a California
address and identification from that state.

On 7/30/2012 10:41 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:07:39 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 9:53 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:55:52 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 12:15 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:14:06 -0700, Oren wrote:


In Californictionstain, I understand a single 30 round mag in your car
-- no guns or ammo within thirty miles of you car is a crime. They
will lock you up back behind the down yonder.

No, thats not true in the slightest. Even 40 rnd mags are legal here.

gummer ****s it up again.

From the California attorney-general's FAQ page on firearms:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to
accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before
January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,
2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,
expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in
California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace
officers, or licensed dealers.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9


It's nice that you support what Gunner said.

I did not, of course, support what gummer said. gummer's comment
suggestions one may obtain 40 round magazines legally in California.
That's false, of course.

The *fact*, as you showed, is that high capacity magazines

....may not be legally acquired, sold, offered for sale, bought, given,
or manufactured in California, since 2000.


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

He said they're legal. Your article doesn't refute that.

It says they may not be legally obtained or sold or offered for sale or
manufactured or acquired since 2000. gummer suggests one may legally
make, sell, buy, import or transfer magazines with a capacity greater
than 10 rounds. He is wrong.

Try reading what was written

I did. gummer, the liar and dole scrounger and ignoramus, meant to
suggest that anyone may still acquire, sell, buy, offer for sale, import
or manufacture a 40 round magazine. He's full of ****, just like you.

Why do ****eaters always stick together? Puzzling...