🚀 go-pugleaf

Obviously you're trying to harrass U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.  You may 
not be aware of this, but she became mayor of San Francisco after walking in 
on the assassinated mayor George Moscone in 1978.



"Anonymous" <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote in message 
news:a7fde6370a4062792f7967781efe4dfd@remailer.paranoici.org...
> Face to face transfer must come to the City. No FFL needed,
>
> Comes with 3 thirty round and 2 twenty round magazines.
>
> For cash sale, will throw in 100 rounds 68gr. BTHP.
>
> 1000$
>
> (415) xxx-xxxx  ask for Diane.
> 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> contributed wisdom to  news:ke7qrt$eas$1
@dont-email.me:

> 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.

That is all true.
Unfortunately its not the purpose that gets it banned. The events they are 
trying to avoid are not usually carried out by hunting rifles. Hunting 
rifles get used for hunting, and military look/feel gets used for sprees. 

Maybe a better argument to write them is that if you ban the military 
look/feel guns then people will switch to hunting rifles which are more 
powerful anyway?


Gandalf  Parker

On 1/29/2013 5:40 AM, Gandalf Parker wrote:
> John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> contributed wisdom to  news:ke7qrt$eas$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
>> 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.
>
> That is all true.
> Unfortunately its not the purpose that gets it banned. The events they are
> trying to avoid are not usually carried out by hunting rifles. Hunting
> rifles get used for hunting, and military look/feel gets used for sprees.
>
> Maybe a better argument to write them is that if you ban the military
> look/feel guns then people will switch to hunting rifles which are more
> powerful anyway?

       Last time I checked about 350 people were killed with 
rifles of all kinds in 2010. Yet about 10,700 were killed with 
handguns.

      The sensational murders get the press and just shapes how 
the public feels.

John