On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:12:55 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

....which, if you could read, would have figured out wasn't what was 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.

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.

You're *not* making your case. The only conclusion one can possibly draw is
that you can't read.

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

Good question? Why do you?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:55:25 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

Gunner was correct. You simply refuse to read what he wrote. It's *YOUR*
problem, not his.

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.

That's not what he said but in your zeal to make him look bad you got the shoe
polish on your eyeball. You look positively silly.

Now go back and read what was actually written and apologize to Gunner.

On 7/30/2012 10:46 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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".

No, that's false, ****stain. It *is* true that a single 30 round mag
will get you arrested and prosecuted if you cannot show that you owned
it prior to 2001.

Leave logic to adults with brains, boy. You're out of your depth.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:47:56 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to save face ???

On 7/30/2012 10:47 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

My logic is impeccable.

Tell us right now who told you how to spell the word. It's obvious you
have no familiarity with it whatever.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:46:26 -0400, "
wrote:

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".


Your point is taken. I spoke of my "understanding" of the current ban
on high-cap mags. Since 2000 it would be a crime, now. He is correct
for large mags prior to 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.

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.

I'm okay with that. I was speaking the current ban. He and I are both
correct, depending on the dates of purchase and of the ban.
--

On 7/30/2012 11:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:12:55 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

...which, if you could read, would have figured out wasn't what was 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.

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.

You're *not* making your case.

I have made it quite well.


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

Good question?

Yes, it's a question for you. You're full of ****, just like gummer.
Why? Why don't you learn to distance yourself from stupid dole
scroungers like gummer?

On 7/30/2012 11:20 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:55:25 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

Gunner was correct.

gummer, of course, was and is wrong.


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.

That's not what he said

It is, of course, quite obviously what he said.

On 7/30/2012 11:23 AM, Doug wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:47:56 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to save face ???

Who is this latest ****tard trying to suck up to gummer, anyway? Not a
nym I've seen before.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:26:12 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:12:55 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

...which, if you could read, would have figured out wasn't what was 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.

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.

You're *not* making your case.

I have made it quite well.

IFF your "case" was that you're illiterate, you've done well. Good job!

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

Good question?

Yes, it's a question for you. You're full of ****, just like gummer.
Why? Why don't you learn to distance yourself from stupid dole
scroungers like gummer?

Perhaps you could actually read what was written. Have your mommy read it to
you if you can't handle the big words. Then you can apologize to both of us.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:25:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:46:26 -0400, "
wrote:

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".


Your point is taken. I spoke of my "understanding" of the current ban
on high-cap mags. Since 2000 it would be a crime, now. He is correct
for large mags prior to 2000.

Minor nit: ...for large mags you've had in your possession 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.

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.

I'm okay with that. I was speaking the current ban. He and I are both
correct, depending on the dates of purchase and of the ban.

Right. Different subjects. Now tell Mr. Chamberlain.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:27:00 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:20 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:55:25 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

Gunner was correct.

gummer, of course, was and is wrong.

You really should learn to read, Mr. Chamberlain.

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.

That's not what he said

It is, of course, quite obviously what he said.

Wrong, you illiterate twit. He said *NOTHING* about acquiring them, he only
referred to possession. Now apologize!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:23:52 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 10:47 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

My logic is impeccable.

Your logic is nonexistant, Mr. Chamberlain. another nym shifting moron

Tell us right now who told you how to spell the word. It's obvious you
have no familiarity with it whatever.

W - O - R - D.

word.


Do I win a prize, Mr. Illiterate?

On 7/30/2012 11:39 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:26:12 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:18 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:12:55 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

...which, if you could read, would have figured out wasn't what was 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.

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.

You're *not* making your case.

I have made it quite well.

IFF your "case" was

My case is that gummer is full of **** about large-cap magazines.


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

Good question?

Yes, it's a question for you. You're full of ****, just like gummer.
Why? Why don't you learn to distance yourself from stupid dole
scroungers like gummer?

Perhaps you could actually read what was written.

I did. gummer very clearly was saying that anyone can lawfully obtain
and own a large-cap magazine, and he's wrong. He's full of ****, and
you're dining on the **** with him and calling it sirloin.

On 7/30/2012 11:43 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:25:44 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:46:26 -0400, "
wrote:

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".


Your point is taken. I spoke of my "understanding" of the current ban
on high-cap mags. Since 2000 it would be a crime, now. He is correct
for large mags prior to 2000.

Minor nit: ...for large mags you've had in your possession since 2000.

That's not a "minor nit" at all, you ****wit.

On 7/30/2012 11:45 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:27:00 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:20 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:55:25 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

Gunner was correct.

gummer, of course, was and is wrong.

You really should learn to read

I learned to do that excellently well long ago.


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.

That's not what he said

It is, of course, quite obviously what he said.

Wrong,

Nope. I'm right. gummer, the liar and dole scrounger and ****-eater,
very clearly implied that *anyone* may acquire and own a large-cap
magazine. In fact, *NO ONE* may acquire and own one as a private
citizen. Only someone who already owned one prior to 2001 may own one,
and no one may acquire one.

On 7/30/2012 11:47 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:23:52 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 10:47 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
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.

My logic is impeccable.

Your logic is nonexistant, Mr. Chamberlain. another nym shifting moron

Tell us right now who told you how to spell the word. It's obvious you
have no familiarity with it whatever.

W - O - R - D.

Not even remotely clever or witty; nothing but ****wittery.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:27:57 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 11:23 AM, Doug wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:47:56 -0400, "
wrote:

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.


Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to save face ???

Who is this latest ****tard trying to suck up to gummer, anyway? Not a
nym I've seen before.


Donn, to be honest, I can't tell who is the dumber one. They're both
trying hard to be number one. I might have to just award them a tie
for number one g.

"G. Morgan" wrote:

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.


Which is another act of aggression, and a sex crime. You must be one
of those non violent homosexula liberals with your facscination wth
other men. You got so hot & bothered that you forgot that he said it
was in a smoke free place, where they ignored the rules.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

A man's got to know his limitations.


Too bad liberals don't.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"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.


The pain in my legs feels like an electric shock. Sometimes a minor
tinge, and others to the point you want the bleeding, infected things
gone forever.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"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.


I had a woamn tell me "No man will ever experience pain, until they
give birth". I told her of the hours of oral surgery I endured with no
pain killer. The Army dentist had to break out two damaged teeth in
little pieces. The former dentist had used up all the supplies, and
most of the tools were missing so he used what looked like a large
scratch awl. I bent the arms on the dental chair to the point I had
trouble getting out of it. She was crying, just from the description.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Issue all patients tazers?


That's easier than issuing the medical staff empathy.

" wrote:

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

What a moron


Looks like the dimmies are breeding again.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


"G. Morgan" wrote:

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.


Which is another act of aggression, and a sex crime. You must be one
of those non violent homosexula liberals with your facscination wth
other men. You got so hot & bothered that you forgot that he said it
was in a smoke free place, where they ignored the rules.

Hyperbole (hy-PUR-be-lee; Greek: huperbole-, "exaggeration") is the use
of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be
used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is
not meant to be taken literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

HTH
HAND
GFY

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Stormin Mormon wrote:

A man's got to know his limitations.


Too bad liberals don't.

You must be the resident right-tard that has the unbelievable ability to
separate everything into a right/left issue. Your voting card is
predictable and requires no thought, straight Republican! Yeah? You
don't bother to actually research the candidates, just look for the
elephant and move the lever, right?

Ignorance is bliss, you must have a grin from ear to ear - like a
retard.

Ah, the non agressive G Morgan, the liberal. His true stripes show, now.

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

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

"G. Morgan" wrote:

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.


Which is another act of aggression, and a sex crime. You must be one
of those non violent homosexula liberals with your facscination wth
other men. You got so hot & bothered that you forgot that he said it
was in a smoke free place, where they ignored the rules.

If the denist did that on a Taliban, the dentist would have gotten life
sentence in federal prison. Such is the irony. But, of course, you're not
Taliban. I wish the dentist had the supplies he needed. Syringes,
lidocaine, and so on. Why didn't?

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

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

I had a woamn tell me "No man will ever experience pain, until they
give birth". I told her of the hours of oral surgery I endured with no
pain killer. The Army dentist had to break out two damaged teeth in
little pieces. The former dentist had used up all the supplies, and
most of the tools were missing so he used what looked like a large
scratch awl. I bent the arms on the dental chair to the point I had
trouble getting out of it. She was crying, just from the description.

"G. Morgan" wrote:


Ignorance is bliss


And you keep ****ing yourself.

On 7/30/2012 1:36 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

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.

Looks like the ****stain is babbling out of his "brain" again.

As I stated..they are not illegal here.

They are illegal for anyone to obtain, gummer. In effect, they are
illegal. If you didn't already have one, you could not lawfully obtain
one by any means.

On 7/30/2012 1:39 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:17 -0700, Oren wrote:


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.


You cant? Really? Odd...folks do it every month.

Cite? chortle

Stormin Mormon wrote:

If the denist did that on a Taliban, the dentist would have gotten life
sentence in federal prison. Such is the irony. But, of course, you're not
Taliban. I wish the dentist had the supplies he needed. Syringes,
lidocaine, and so on. Why didn't?


The former dentist told people to ride the shuttle bus to Fairbanks,
and didn't do any work for the two years he was there. I doubt he ever
made more than first louie.

Ouch. Did he meet his fate, by the hands of the men he malpracticed on?
Exploding latrine, or some other fitting actions?

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

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

Stormin Mormon wrote:

If the denist did that on a Taliban, the dentist would have gotten life
sentence in federal prison. Such is the irony. But, of course, you're not
Taliban. I wish the dentist had the supplies he needed. Syringes,
lidocaine, and so on. Why didn't?


The former dentist told people to ride the shuttle bus to Fairbanks,
and didn't do any work for the two years he was there. I doubt he ever
made more than first louie.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:27:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


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.

Unfortunately..there are doctors who are in it simply for the money.
And they scribe meds to any and everyone who walks in the doors and asks
for high strength narcotics and in large doses. So the Feral
government treats each and every good and bad doctor the same way,
trying to weed out the bad ones and making sure good ones dont go bad.

There is not a lot of sympathy in Feral Government investigators for
patients with serious medical issues, they are simply the debris the
jackboots kick aside as they go after the doctors..any doctors.

I know people with serious medical issues, who have to buy their meds on
the street, because the doctors have had brushes with the law, rightfuly
or wrongfully and are timid as hell taking care of those who need more
than normal meds.

Shrug...its not a good thing for anyone.

Gunner


The VA has a system of pain doctors, but you have to convince primary
care that you need to see them. They only send small batches of pain
medication, and have frequent in person reviews of your prescriptions to
try to prevent problems or fakers from getting meds. A female Air Force
Veteran nurse I knew had to go to the Gainesville VA hospital every
couple months, to see her pain doctor.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:10:52 -0400, "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.

Excellent suggestion!!!


A lot of them served recently, and came home to find the company they
worked for was out of business. What a way to reward their service.

Gunner Asch wrote:

You cant? Really? Odd...folks do it every month. Really? Are you
sure its physically impossible to do? Damn!

A 50 cal ammo can full of Beretta 9mm mags that hold more than 10 is
impossible to get into California..yet 500,000 wetbacks have no
problem...along with a million tons of drugs....fascinating how that
works!!


That would be a million magazines if each had two in their pockets as
they slipped over the US border.


Too bad that idiots don't have to declare their stupidity at the
state border.

Guard: Do you have anything to declare?

Detainee: I'm an idiot!

Guard: Sorry, We're already over our quota of idiots. You'll have
to go back to New Jersey.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Ah, the non agressive G Morgan, the liberal. His true stripes show, now.


He even advertises that he's easy, in his email address.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Ouch. Did he meet his fate, by the hands of the men he malpracticed on?
Exploding latrine, or some other fitting actions?


Hopefully, he got transferred to some cushy job in DC and screwed up
a General's mouth and was brought up on charges.

I was there the day the replacment arrived, and met both of them.
The new dentist was good, considering what he had to work with. The
irony was that his name was Captain Hurt.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:05:04 -0400, "
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


Well since you resort to name calling I will go along that path....
Moron I was agreeing with him about your first 3 words (last
paragraph) in your last post. I guess reading isn't your best
subject.

I hear you, that's bitter irony. Well, life can be
like that. I hope the new guy made some phone
calls, got what he needed, and things were bettter
after the first few days?

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

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

I was there the day the replacment arrived, and
met both of them. The new dentist was good,
considering what he had to work with. The
irony was that his name was Captain Hurt.