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.


Whenever some granny lady starts whacking me with her umbrella while
screeching: "You godless communist! You can't smoke here!", I calmly
explain: "It's quite all right, madam, I'm French."

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in news:K-
:


Han wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
news
snip
To not treat real pain properly is malpractice (my book).
To treat fake pain with real meds is malpractice too.


Most VA doctors give a damn, and try to do the right thing. It's all
the lifer government employees that screw things up. Like any other
system, they can only hire forom the pool of what's availible.

I worked in a VA Hospital, though they didn't pay me. I know about the
doctors who do their very best, and I know about some of the employees ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Gunner Asch wrote:

Im a smoker too. But a polite one.

However..I do get a bit tired of people coming up to me in a clearly
marked smoking area and making comments.

Ive told the story before about the fat bitch who came to an outdoor
bbq area of a restaurant..where the smoke from the BBQ was hanging in
the air visibly..and bitched about the people sitting at their tables
smoking, to the waitress. Who then pulled out her pack of smokes, lit
up and then blew smoke into the face of the fat ****, who then
squealed like a piglet and told her tiny little hubby to complain to
the manager...who came out..and it up his own cigarette.....

Virtually every smoker goes out of their way to not offend others who
by nature are smoking nazis..or because of medical conditions.

If we know about the problem..we will do just about anything to avoid
listening to the nazis bitching..or harming the sensitive. Even those
who are really NOT sensitive, but simply have convinced themselves
they are. A associate of mine is one such. He can stand in a cloud of
pot smoke (inhaling deeply), diesel smoke, bbq smoke, burning building
smoke...yet if someone in eyesight lights up a cigarette..he starts to
choke and make faces..even if he is up wind. I figure he must have
been a smoker at one time and its his brain telling him smoking is a
Bad Thing. Shrug..and I know more than a few of his type...but he is
the worst.

Now Stormin is quite frankly..a wackjob. Micheal and others may
indeed be sensitive and I would certainly treat them as I would any
other person with such issues. With kindness and sympathy.


Anti-smoking is, like other mass movements, a religion. Here are some
rejoinders you might add to your repertoi

* "Put it out? I've been trying for almost an hour! No, don't tell me! I
have to figure this out on my own!"
* "If I did, what would we use to cover the smell?"
* "Who made you the anti-fun marshall?"
* "I am a grenade and this cigarette is my pin. You have to ask yourself one
question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, punk, do you feel lucky?"

Han wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in news:K-
:


Han wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
news
snip
To not treat real pain properly is malpractice (my book).
To treat fake pain with real meds is malpractice too.


Most VA doctors give a damn, and try to do the right thing. It's all
the lifer government employees that screw things up. Like any other
system, they can only hire forom the pool of what's availible.

I worked in a VA Hospital, though they didn't pay me. I know about the
doctors who do their very best, and I know about some of the employees ...


...that should be tied to the flag pole and left there.


People need to know that our VA hospitals couldn't operate without
the volunteers. The one I use is too far away, and my health is too far
gone or I would gladly be there a day or two a week.

HeyBub wrote:

* "Put it out? I've been trying for almost an hour! No, don't tell me! I
have to figure this out on my own!"
* "If I did, what would we use to cover the smell?"
* "Who made you the anti-fun marshall?"
* "I am a grenade and this cigarette is my pin. You have to ask yourself one
question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, punk, do you feel lucky?"


Typical of what I hear in 'no smoking' areas.

HeyBub wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

And of course..you may buy magazine "repair kits", which are all the
parts for a high cap magazine, which have not been assembled. They are
of course...for replacing worn parts in ones legal magazines...of
course.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ty+m agazines

A number of people will replace the various parts in their pre 99 mags
except for (1)..and then in a couple months or a year..replace it,
making the magazine legally repaired with all new parts. If the worn
parts are then assembled into a "old worn beater" magazine..they are
all original parts and pre-2000


Right. I saw an ad once (Ebay?) for the very hatchet George Washington used
to chop down the legendary cherry tree.

Part of the description read: "Since 1742 the hatchet has had the handle
replaced seven times and the head replaced twice. Other than that, it is the
original."


Stolen from some comic.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Just out of personal curiosity, do most magazines have a serial
number of other way to tell that the person wielding the engraver might
have been.. shall we say "creative"?

Nope.

On 7/30/2012 5:47 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:16:33 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

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.

Well, I was trying to communicate with

You were just taking a dump in public, you ****tard.

Gunner Asch wrote:

Go to a gun show in Chandler or Phoenix and there are a number of
Californians buying more than 10 rd magazines..and marking them before
2000...and coming home with their magazines, ammo, and other goodies
that are cheaper to buy in a free state than in much of California.

A few years ago I ordered some XD magazines from a California supplier and
screwed up the product number. When I realized I had the CA 10 round version
of the standard 16 round mag, I exchanged them. No problem with the exchange
but I did notice while the 10 rounders were shipped from CA, the full
capacity ones came from NV.

G. Morgan wrote:

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.

The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all. He has no say
in who the candidates will be. He has no input on the policies, platforms,
or promises of the candidates. After the election, he has no influence with
the office holder.

Further, he faces an almost impossible task in some jurisdictions. In a
general election in my voting precinct there may well be seven hundred names
on the ballot. Some examples:
* President & Vice President
* U.S. Senator
* Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, Treasurer, Railroad
Commissioner, General Land Office Commissioner, and other assorted state
executive offices
* Several members of the State Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals
* Several seats on civil and criminal appellate courts
* 34 District Court Judges
* Six Court of Domestic Relations, four Juvenile Court judges
* State Senator and State House members
* Sheriff, constable, and Justice of the Peace, Inspector of Hides &
Animals, County Judge, County Commissioner's Court, and other county
offices.
Then we get to the city offices: Mayor and so forth.

What with 250 election positions and hundreds of candidates, the truly
"independent" voter would have to spend an astounding amount of time
obtaining and reading brochures, attending rallies, evaluating endorsements,
and the like to make an informed decision on each race.

One alternative is for the "independent" voter to vote on only those offices
or propositions he's studied. This rarely happens.

Inasmuch as voting is free, the "independent" voter almost always wants to
get his money's worth. He'll flip a lever in almost every race.

The best alternative is to pick a party most closely matching one's
philosophy and get to work from within. Then, come election day, you're in
and out in (literally) seconds.

Further, as G. Northcott Parkinson said: "Supporting a party makes things so
much easier. When someone from your side makes a statement, you merely
shout: 'Hear! Hear!' When a member of the opposition speaks, you shout
'Shame! Shame!' What could be simpler?"

Oren wrote:

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

They ID you to buy mags? The **** is spreading.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:06:00 -0400, "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.



You have to know the meds before you can say yes or no to taking them
past date. Some are stable, some lose potency, still others can go
bad and have an adverse effect.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:33:53 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:30 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:34 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

You dumb ****, your cite *supported* what he said! Of course, you're too
stupid to have read what he wrote so you continue to make a damned fool of
yourself.

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.

You certainly didn't understand anything you read.

I understood it fully.


Then you're even dumber; arguing against your own position.

gummer very clearly was saying that anyone can lawfully obtain
and own a large-cap magazine, and he's wrong.

No, moron, that wasn't what was said in the post we're talking about.

It is, of course, what gummer was saying in his usual slipshod,
imprecise, mangled-syntax manner.

Given that you can't read, you would think it was mangled syntax. It really
was quite clear but it's nice to know that you *finally* agree. You really
are slow but you still have tomorrow to apologize.

In article ,
Han wrote:



I worked in a VA Hospital, though they didn't pay me. I know about the
doctors who do their very best, and I know about some of the employees ...

I think this may be somewhat dependent on where you are, at least to my
dealings with two VA psych units. The one in the bigger city was part of
an academic medical center and had pretty good docs (all profs at the
Med Center) and staff. The other one was a satellite in a much smaller
city, and not so much greatness.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:34:44 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:31 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:14:05 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

A minor nit because

It's not a "minor nit" in any way, for any reason.

It is most certainly a minor nit because gunner didn't state it either way.
However, Oren did and got it *slightly* wrong. It had *NOTHING* to do with
what Gunner said, though. Yes, minor. Irrelevant, even.

It's at the crux of
what gummer the dole-scrounging imbecile wrote.

....and I thought you finally understood what was said. Well, you are one
dense nymbecile.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:35:41 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:42:13 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 2:52 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
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. 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.

Actually all he said that they are legal..

Generally, they aren't legal. In fact, I'm surprised that the law
grandfathered existing ones as of the effective date of the law. If
they can ban the manufacture, sale, importation and transfer of any of
them after that date, then they could just as well have banned them
outright. Note that if someone owning a grandfathered high-cap magazine
dies, the estate item cannot lawfully pass to any heir in California.

The liar and dole scrounger, gummer, very definitely was trying to
suggest that high-cap magazines are generally legal in California, and
that's false.

Good God, you're an idiot.

Nope. It's exactly what the dole-scrounger was saying.

Amazing. Just amazing. ...even for the Usenet.

On 7/30/2012 7:05 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:33:53 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:30 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:13:34 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

You dumb ****, your cite *supported* what he said! Of course, you're too
stupid to have read what he wrote so you continue to make a damned fool of
yourself.

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.

You certainly didn't understand anything you read.

I understood it fully.


Then you're even dumber; arguing against your own position.

Nope; I'm not. I'm arguing against gummer's bull****, and your gullible
acceptance of it, that large-capacity magazines are generally legal in
California. That's exactly the implication of what gummer wrote, and
it's bull****.



gummer very clearly was saying that anyone can lawfully obtain
and own a large-cap magazine, and he's wrong.

No, moron, that wasn't what was said in the post we're talking about.

It is, of course, what gummer was saying in his usual slipshod,
imprecise, mangled-syntax manner.

Given that you can't read,

I can read, and I can even read and understand gummer's mangled-syntax
bull****. It's still bull****. Large capacity magazines are not
generally legal in California, contrary to what that ****ing dole
scrounger and liar, gummer, wrote.

On 7/30/2012 7:07 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:34:44 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:31 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:14:05 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

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.

A minor nit because

It's not a "minor nit" in any way, for any reason.

It is most certainly a minor nit because

It is not a "minor nit", you ****wit.


It's at the crux of
what gummer the dole-scrounging imbecile wrote.

...and I thought you finally understood what was said.

I did, of course.

On 7/30/2012 7:08 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:35:41 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:32 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:42:13 -0700, Neville M Wiles
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 2:52 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
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. 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.

Actually all he said that they are legal..

Generally, they aren't legal. In fact, I'm surprised that the law
grandfathered existing ones as of the effective date of the law. If
they can ban the manufacture, sale, importation and transfer of any of
them after that date, then they could just as well have banned them
outright. Note that if someone owning a grandfathered high-cap magazine
dies, the estate item cannot lawfully pass to any heir in California.

The liar and dole scrounger, gummer, very definitely was trying to
suggest that high-cap magazines are generally legal in California, and
that's false.

Good God, you're an idiot.

Nope. It's exactly what the dole-scrounger was saying.

Amazing. Just amazing.

No, what's amazing is that gummer hasn't been shot dead already.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:47 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:16:33 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

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.

Well, I was trying to communicate with

You were just taking a dump in public, you ****tard.

....and look who just can't resist eating it all up. Another Nymbecile.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:52:05 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:50:05 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:07:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

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....

No, moron, just calling them as they are. Again.

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.

You are another illiterate moron, but that's old news.


Can't explain you lack of reading skills????
^ ^^^


Priceless. Simply priceless!

....and add an IKWYABWAI to the ****tard's hypocritical grammar whine. Jeez
mommy should take your keyboard away from you and send you to bed without your
supper.

On 7/30/2012 7:12 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:03 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

On 7/30/2012 5:47 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:16:33 -0700, Donn Messenheimer
wrote:

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.

Well, I was trying to communicate with

You were just taking a dump in public, you ****tard.

...and look who just can't resist

....rubbing your face in your own ****. Yes, look!

You still haven't said why you so enthusiastically have your face
planted in gummer's ass. Well?

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

I was in the ER for the second time in three days after they yanked a kidney
stone out of my urethra. I met a nurse who told me she had kidney stones
during childbirth.

For those who have had kidney stones, there is a 12 on a 10 pain scale. For
her, there was nothing but admiration.

Everyone is different. I broke my back, and then rode my ATV ten miles back
to the house, stopping twice to immerse myself in an ice cold mountain creek
to numb my entire body.

Pain is totally individual.

Steve

On 7/30/2012 7:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:52:05 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:50:05 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:07:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

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....

No, moron, just calling them as they are. Again.

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.

You are another illiterate moron, but that's old news.


Can't explain you lack of reading skills????
^ ^^^


Priceless. Simply priceless!

A minor typo.

You *would* pick up a nugget of cat **** and parade it around like a
gold nugget, wouldn't you? You stupid ****ing douchebag...

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o

TDD

On 7/30/2012 8:16 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes
low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o

No "yankees" have ever gone to AlabamDumb****istan and stayed, except
perhaps some military personnel who were posted there and didn't want to
be court-martialed for going AWOL.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker. I had to work with
a carpetbagger. Luckily, he was the only one that I ran into my whole
time I was there. He was a civilian in Weathervision, and he could pick
your pockets while shaking of your both hands. Weren't they supposed
to have died off not long after the Civil War?.

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state. There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

On 7/30/2012 11:00 AM, 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.



You did notice I wrote smoking creep, not polite, civilized choo choo
trains. There are those addicted to inhaling that natural insecticide
who are quite uncouth when it comes to their noxious exhaust. When a
polite request not to pollute a posted no smoking area is ignored or
responded to with a loud suggestion that the requester have sexual
intercourse with himself, extreme tactile deterrents are often
necessary. Pepper spray works rather well too. ^_^

TDD

On 7/30/2012 8:11 PM, HeyBub 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.


Whenever some granny lady starts whacking me with her umbrella while
screeching: "You godless communist! You can't smoke here!", I calmly
explain: "It's quite all right, madam, I'm French."


Then bend over and fart smoke rings. ^_^

TDD

On 07/30/2012 10:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state. There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.


Ah thank you, Sir, for excluding The South from your list of
possible future abode. If you are as inhospitable in person
as your electronic persona suggests, I am sure we Southerns
can all breath a sigh of relief knowing we have successfully
fooled another carpetbagging Yankee.


technomaNge
--
American by birth,
Southern by the grace of God.

On 7/30/2012 8:58 PM, technomaNge wrote:
On 07/30/2012 10:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state. There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.


Ah thank you, Sir, for excluding The South from your list of
possible future abode.

I am more than happy to leave you alone in your blissful
anti-intellectual ignorance and bigotry. Just understand this, you
knuckle-dragging cracker: you need us, but we don't need you. You are
a drag on progress and civilization, and you forever will be.

On 7/30/2012 1:43 PM, Neville M Wiles wrote:
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.

Oh bull****. What you mean is you cannot buy one from a local California
gun shop. You wouldn't anyway because you are a girly man.
I hope your boyfriend wipes his dick on your drapes.

George Plimpton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.


I know exactly how long I was stationed there.

On 7/30/2012 10:22 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/30/2012 8:16 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes
low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o

No "yankees" have ever gone to AlabamDumb****istan and stayed, except
perhaps some military personnel who were posted there and didn't want to
be court-martialed for going AWOL.


My late mother was a naturalized Southerner from Brooklyn, NY. She spent
the majority of her life here in Alabamastan and she and my
father are buried at Arlington National Cemetery since they were both
Army veterans of WWII. The crunching sound of you eating your rude
and disrespectful words is quite loud. ^_^

TDD

On 7/30/2012 10:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker. I had to work with
a carpetbagger. Luckily, he was the only one that I ran into my whole
time I was there. He was a civilian in Weathervision, and he could pick
your pockets while shaking of your both hands. Weren't they supposed
to have died off not long after the Civil War?.


The critters still show up, heck some of them are my relatives. ^_^

TDD

On 7/30/2012 10:58 PM, technomaNge wrote:
On 07/30/2012 10:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state. There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.


Ah thank you, Sir, for excluding The South from your list of
possible future abode. If you are as inhospitable in person
as your electronic persona suggests, I am sure we Southerns
can all breath a sigh of relief knowing we have successfully
fooled another carpetbagging Yankee.


technomaNge

I'm sure he/she/it thinks The South resembles everything h/s/i has seen
in the movies and on TV shows. I sort of like it that way, it keeps
those P.L.L.C.F. piles of excreta out of our fair state. Of course, if
it deigned to visit us, we would still treat it with polite hospitality
and kindness whilst it wandered around babbling to itself about the
unexpected sights of beauty and civilization. ^_^

TDD

On 7/30/2012 3:20 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:07:00 -0500, 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

TDD

Sounds like a few of the SOG guys I run into now and then.

I always wonder if they went fugazzi in country..or were fugazzi before
boot camp and the powers that be managed to put the right pieces in the
right slots, because they needed fugazzi people to do the deed.

The only problem is...that they survived and were released back into the
Real World..and now that they were certifiable..but had some good
tinware....couldnt be put down or put away.

Shrug

Gunner

--

My older brother did two tours in Nam, first in Army Security then as a
Green Beret. He came back, got a degree in chemistry then went to law
school and joined The Dark Side. ^_^

TDD

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Electric engravers are a $8 item at Radio Shack.


Just out of personal curiosity, do most magazines have a serial
number of other way to tell that the person wielding the engraver might
have been.. shall we say "creative"?

The only ones I have ever seen marked were mid ban items stamped "for
law enforcement only" from a couple makers.
Other than that they are not usually marked. The only way to ID the
actual year of manufacture would be if the company altered the design or
didn't exist before the date in question. There were a few outfits that
did this to placate the gun grabbers but for the most part there is
nothing.

Plus if you are good with sheet metal you could easily make your own. I
made a few 20 round ones for a Mini just to see if a tighter and better
fitting mag had an impact on anything other than feeding.

--
Steve W.

On 31/07/12 17:00, Gunner Asch wrote:

We all had some bad nights and a few bad days here and there..

You still trying to peddle the bull**** that you served in Nam?
Shame the VA doesn't believe you.