🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/16/2013 11:44 AM, Roy wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 11:26 AM, Bhairitu wrote:
>> On 01/16/2013 07:34 AM, Roy wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2013 5:10 AM, Gandalf Parker wrote:
>>>> Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> contributed wisdom to
>>>> news:a7fde6370a4062792f7967781efe4dfd@remailer.paranoici.org:
>>>>
>>>>> ask for Diane.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ahh good Anonymous.
>>>> Make a point about the new fuel for gun legislation
>>>> in a way that adds fuel to the internet legislation arguments
>>>>
>>>
>>> New fuel?  The transfer of the magazines is illegal.
>>> Transfer of the
>>> rifle may be illegal unless it has the California modifications.
>>>
>>> Enforce the rules we have.
>>
>> Exactly but the federal rules expired in 2004.  Problem is the
>> "gun
>> nuts" and "anti-gun nuts" are both acting like "chicken
>> littles."  All
>> congress needs to do is reenact the law that expired in 2004.
>> I listen
>> to both sides of the argument from Alex Jones in the morning
>> to Thom
>> Hartmann in the afternoon.  Quite a show.
>>
>
> "Exactly but"????  California has its own set of gun rules.  I
> think most of the things the fed wants to ban are already banned
> here.
>

          California does have the bans that Obama wants. Limit 
to ten round clips unless they are bought before 1993, then they 
are 100% legal. Also California is a bit smarter when it comes 
to the actual functions of rifles rather than how they look. You 
can have an AR-15 as long as it's semi-auto. AR-15s are not 
assault rifles unless they are fully automatic. This is the 
mistake Obama is making, basically the semi-auto rifles that 
look like military weapons have the same functionality as 
hunting rifles and probably at less power. But people really 
aren't interested in facts, they just want to feel like they can 
do something to stop massacres like the one in CT.

John