Man pulls gun at party, gets beaten by bystanders
By Kevin Clerici
Originally published 11:24 a.m., January 19, 2009
Updated 11:24 a.m., January 19, 2009


An intoxicated Oxnard teen was arrested Sunday on charges of assault with a 
deadly weapon, possession of a loaded firearm and exhibiting a firearm in a 
threatening manner, Oxnard police said.

Filiberto Mata, 19, of Oxnard, was involved in a large fight about 9:30 p.m. 
Sunday at a party in the 1300 block of Commercial Avenue in Oxnard.

When police arrived, Mata was on the ground bleeding outside the house where he 
had been detained by bystanders. Several bullets were strewn about his feet, 
police said.

Police initially thought Mata was a victim, but party goers painted a different 
picture.

Witnesses said it was Mata who pulled a small caliber handgun from his waistband 
and pointed it at Leonel Madrigal, 26, of Oxnard. The two have had an ongoing 
feud, Oxnard police officer Edward Idukas said.

The gun apparently malfunctioned or Mata was too drunk to properly handle it, 
Idukas said, and Mata instead ejected several live rounds from the gun onto the 
ground.

Madrigal wrestled the gun from Mata, who then pulled a knife. Madrigal also 
wrestled away the knife, but suffered a superficial cut to his hand in the 
process.

Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents who held him 
down until authorities arrived, police said. While being detained, Mata suffered 
several contusions to his face and head, police said. He was treated for his 
injuries at Ventura County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura 
County Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a loaded 
firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner. His bail was 
set at $25,000.

Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police said.

Police are still investigating.

>Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents who held him 
>down until authorities arrived, police said. While being detained, Mata suffered 
>several contusions to his face and head, police said. He was treated for his 
>injuries at Ventura County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura 
>County Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a loaded 
>firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner. His bail was 
>set at $25,000.
>
>Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police said.
>
>Police are still investigating.
>
 Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything this
twit did.

                                                  Bill Smith

Bill Smith wrote:
>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents who
>> held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While being
>> detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and head,
>> police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura County
>> Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County Jail on
>> charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a loaded
>> firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner.
>> His bail was set at $25,000.
>>
>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>> said.
>>
>> Police are still investigating.
>>
> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything this
> twit did.

And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh jackass?

>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>
>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything this
>> twit did.
>
> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh jackass?

YES, "gun crime" would occur significantly less frequently if those highly 
restrictive gun laws were removed, you MORON.

A short text from the below referenced article:
    1. Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban 
passed. Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have 
reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been 
decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.172 Thus, the murder rate had 
already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the 
semi-auto gun ban became law.
    2. Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths. The 
Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that, "An analysis of the 
murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link-the 
significant rise of murder in the late 1960's, and the slight decrease in 
murder in the early 1980's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 
year-olds in the general population. This age group is the most violent one, 
as well as the group most likely to be victimized-and the murder figures ebb 
and flow with their ranks."173 (Emphasis added.)
    3. According to the Clinton Justice Department, crime has decreased even 
while the number of guns increased. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 
research arm of the Justice Department, reported in 2000 that while the 
number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10% during a recent five-year 
period, gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33%. 174
    4. Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the 
states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which 
studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 
1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder 
rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.175
Reference:
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

In essence, GUN LAWS DON'T WORK, you frickin' retard.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
 wrote:

>Bill Smith wrote:
>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents who
>>> held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While being
>>> detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and head,
>>> police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura County
>>> Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County Jail on
>>> charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a loaded
>>> firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner.
>>> His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>
>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>> said.
>>>
>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>
>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything this
>> twit did.
>
>And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh jackass?
>
>
We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
point to make with this?

                                            Bill Smith

Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>
>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>> this twit did.
>>
>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>> jackass?
>
> YES, "gun crime" would occur significantly less frequently if those
> highly restrictive gun laws were removed, you MORON.

So if you removed the laws against bank robbery, then bank robberies
would occur less frequently, eh numbnuts?

After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?

Bill Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>  wrote:
>
>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents
>>>> who held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While
>>>> being detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and
>>>> head, police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura
>>>> County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County
>>>> Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a
>>>> loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening
>>>> manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>
>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>>> said.
>>>>
>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>
>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>> this twit did.
>>
>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>> jackass?
>>
>>
> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
> point to make with this?
>

Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:08:50 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
 wrote:

>Bill Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents
>>>>> who held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While
>>>>> being detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and
>>>>> head, police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura
>>>>> County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County
>>>>> Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a
>>>>> loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening
>>>>> manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>
>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>> this twit did.
>>>
>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>> jackass?
>>>
>>>
>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
>> point to make with this?
>>
>
>Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>
>
No, but I don't know how to keep it from happening, do you?

                                    Bill Smith

> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?

Very GOOD!  LAWS don't stop criminals.  They never have, and they never 
will.  Laws only enforce a method of punishment when said laws are broken.

The only way a criminal has EVER been stopped from doing a crime is another 
person (almost always armed) who won't take the bad-guy's shit anymore.

The phrase "fuck with me and die" has ALWAYS been more effective than "I'm 
telling on you!"  (AKA I'm calling the cops on you.)

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:

> 
> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?

While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies (your 
strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent bank 
robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished someone for 
committing the forbidden act. Dishonest people will still commit the 
same acts, and honest people will  not. All a law MIGHT be able to do is 
prevent an honest person from committing some non-harmful and otherwise 
innocuous act. There is some validity to the claim that a law may also 
make a criminal out of an honest person by making the innocuous act he 
performs a crime.

Steve Rothstein

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
>>
>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>
> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
> someone for committing the forbidden act.

Really?

So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?

Are you really that stump-stupid?

If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?

What's your address ?

Bill Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:08:50 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>  wrote:
>
>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents
>>>>>> who held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While
>>>>>> being detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and
>>>>>> head, police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura
>>>>>> County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County
>>>>>> Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a
>>>>>> loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening
>>>>>> manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>>> this twit did.
>>>>
>>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>>> jackass?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
>>> point to make with this?
>>>
>>
>> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>>
>>
> No,

Good for you.

> but I don't know how to keep it from happening, do you?

Let people smarter than you work out the details, but at least
you have the sense enough to know your own intellectual limitations.

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>
>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
> 
> Really?
> 
> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
> 
> Are you really that stump-stupid?
> 
> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
> 
> What's your address ?
> 
> 
> 

Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you were 
a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell him right 
from wrong.

But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in Luling, TX 
in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where to meet you 
and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with murder, 
attempted murder, or even simple assault.

After all, dead bodies are hard to book.

Steve Rothstein

In article ,
 Stephan Rothstein  wrote:

> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> > Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> >> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> >>
> >>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
> >>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
> >> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
> >> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
> >> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
> >> someone for committing the forbidden act.
> > 
> > Really?
> > 
> > So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
> > stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
> > 
> > Are you really that stump-stupid?
> > 
> > If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
> > were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
> > another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
> > wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
> > than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
> > 
> > What's your address ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you were 
> a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell him right 
> from wrong.
> 
> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in Luling, TX 
> in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where to meet you 
> and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with murder, 
> attempted murder, or even simple assault.
> 
> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
> 
> Steve Rothstein

Not an idle threat.  I've been with Steve at the shooting range. <g>
I'd never want to stare down the wrong end of HIS muzzle!
-- 
Peace! Om

"Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once." -- Anonymous

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> Bill Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents
>>>>> who held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While
>>>>> being detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and
>>>>> head, police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura
>>>>> County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County
>>>>> Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a
>>>>> loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening
>>>>> manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>>>> said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>
>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>> this twit did.
>>>
>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>> jackass?
>>>
>>>
>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
>> point to make with this?
>>
>
> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?

Absolutely yes. They are already allowed to keep and possess automobiles, 
prescription drugs, explosives, and any manner of potentially harmful 
objects, including bowling balls. Drunks and fools are allowed to have 
children, worship rocks, vote, engage in sex, gather at the lodge hall, 
write letters to government officials, and author editorials in the New York 
Times - all of which are potentially more damaging than the mere ownership 
of a gun.

There is no sobriety or intellectual requirement for an inalienable right. 
Nor should there be.

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>>>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>
>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>
>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>
>> What's your address ?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you were 
> a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell him right 
> from wrong.
> 
> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in Luling, TX 
> in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where to meet you 
> and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with murder, 
> attempted murder, or even simple assault.
> 
> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
> 
> Steve Rothstein

Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez" implied 
email threat already constitute assault?

"HeyBub"  wrote in message 
news:zLudnYoHx-LcDOvUnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:

>>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
>>> point to make with this?
>>>
>>
>> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>
> Absolutely yes. They are already allowed to keep and possess automobiles, 
> prescription drugs, explosives, and any manner of potentially harmful 
> objects, including bowling balls. Drunks and fools are allowed to have 
> children, worship rocks, vote, engage in sex, gather at the lodge hall, 
> write letters to government officials, and author editorials in the New 
> York Times - all of which are potentially more damaging than the mere 
> ownership of a gun.
>
> There is no sobriety or intellectual requirement for an inalienable right. 
> Nor should there be.
>

Well I don't know jerry. I would  much rather see many of these morons be 
able to own a gun if I could just take away their right to vote and have 
kids. I guess that's why I will never be elected to be in charge.
-- 
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Michael Savage

Alex Clayton wrote:
>>> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>>
>> Absolutely yes. They are already allowed to keep and possess
>> automobiles, prescription drugs, explosives, and any manner of
>> potentially harmful objects, including bowling balls. Drunks and
>> fools are allowed to have children, worship rocks, vote, engage in
>> sex, gather at the lodge hall, write letters to government
>> officials, and author editorials in the New York Times - all of
>> which are potentially more damaging than the mere ownership of a gun.
>>
>> There is no sobriety or intellectual requirement for an inalienable
>> right. Nor should there be.
>>
>
> Well I don't know jerry. I would  much rather see many of these
> morons be able to own a gun if I could just take away their right to
> vote and have kids. I guess that's why I will never be elected to be
> in charge.

Oh, I agree. But if we've made the decision that we must accept the downside 
of allowing some to breed or worship roosters, or whatnot, as the price for 
liberty for others, then we should be willing to pay the same (regrettable) 
price for unfettered gun ownership.

"HeyBub"  wrote in message 
news:DrKdnYm1T4H-zurUnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>>>
>>> Absolutely yes. They are already allowed to keep and possess
>>> automobiles, prescription drugs, explosives, and any manner of
>>> potentially harmful objects, including bowling balls. Drunks and
>>> fools are allowed to have children, worship rocks, vote, engage in
>>> sex, gather at the lodge hall, write letters to government
>>> officials, and author editorials in the New York Times - all of
>>> which are potentially more damaging than the mere ownership of a gun.
>>>
>>> There is no sobriety or intellectual requirement for an inalienable
>>> right. Nor should there be.
>>>
>>
>> Well I don't know jerry. I would  much rather see many of these
>> morons be able to own a gun if I could just take away their right to
>> vote and have kids. I guess that's why I will never be elected to be
>> in charge.
>
> Oh, I agree. But if we've made the decision that we must accept the 
> downside of allowing some to breed or worship roosters, or whatnot, as the 
> price for liberty for others, then we should be willing to pay the same 
> (regrettable) price for unfettered gun ownership.
>
Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with the way 
things are.
  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are forever 
screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly like gun 
buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to own and carry a 
gun, should be applied to people who want to vote. I would vote for that.
-- 
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Michael Savage

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6tn09gFbibjgU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mr. Albritton wrote:
>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>
>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>> this twit did.
>>>
>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>> jackass?
>>
>> YES, "gun crime" would occur significantly less frequently if those
>> highly restrictive gun laws were removed, you MORON.
>
> So if you removed the laws against bank robbery, then bank robberies
> would occur less frequently, eh numbnuts?
>
> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>
>
Not sure what point you are trying to make.  However,  the restrictive gun 
laws only affect law-biding citizens.  Therefore, if said laws were to be 
abolished, then perhaps criminals would be less likely to do the crime, 
because they would be risking an encounter with an armed citizen, rather 
then a unarmed (read helpless!) victim.


-- 
"God helps those who are willing to stand up
and do what's right -- especially in times
of trouble and when danger threatens our
country!"

Bill Smith  wrote in 
news:vnncn4d688i68glelrc12f38217lsngoeq@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:08:50 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>  wrote:
> 
>>Bill Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby residents
>>>>>> who held him down until authorities arrived, police said. While
>>>>>> being detained, Mata suffered several contusions to his face and
>>>>>> head, police said. He was treated for his injuries at Ventura
>>>>>> County Medical Center, before being booked into Ventura County
>>>>>> Jail on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a
>>>>>> loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting a firearm in a threatening
>>>>>> manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury, police
>>>>>> said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>>> this twit did.
>>>>
>>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>>> jackass?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have some
>>> point to make with this?
>>>
>>
>>Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>>
>>
> No, but I don't know how to keep it from happening, do you?

Not without a judge's decision or having Congress add perpetual 
drunkeness to the prohibited possessor list and that gets to be too much 
slippery slope for me. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>
> What's your address ?

I live in Cañon City, Colorado.
I'm the only Albritton in that community.
Make my day.

http://www.bouldercounty.org/sheriff/pdf/permitInfoPack.pdf

18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day 
law")

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have 
a right to expect absolute safety
within their own homes.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a 
dwelling is justified in using any degree
of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person 
when that other person has made an
unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable 
belief that such other person has
committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is 
committing or intends to commit a crime
against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when 
the occupant reasonably believes that such
other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any 
occupant.

3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly 
physical force, in accordance with the
provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal 
prosecution for the use of such force.

4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly 
physical force, in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil 
liability for injuries or death resulting
from the use of such force.

Stephan Rothstein  wrote in 
news:n46dnYFQXKkBGevUnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@earthlink.com:

> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>>>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
>> 
>> Really?
>> 
>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>> 
>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>> 
>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>> 
>> What's your address ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you were 
> a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell him 
right 
> from wrong.
> 
> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in Luling, 
TX 
> in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where to meet you 
> and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with murder, 
> attempted murder, or even simple assault.
> 
> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.

Well said, Steve......  ;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6tn8scFbpai2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>
>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
>

The fact that laws against bank robbery (or any other crime) does not 
prevent the crime, is not a good reason to get rid of the law.  It does, 
however, provide what the punishment is for the person(s) commiting the 
crime.

> Really?
>
> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>
> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>
Name-calling and abuse only demonstrate that you are losing the discussion, 
and that you have NO REAL FACTS to back up your statements!


> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>
> What's your address ?
>
Your continuing wild, high-flying, statements of fantasy show that you are 
only trying to muddy up the discussion in this particular thread.

professorgunz wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank robbery
>>>>> don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>>>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>>>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>
>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>
>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>
>>> What's your address ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you 
>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell 
>> him right from wrong.
>>
>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in Luling, 
>> TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where to meet 
>> you and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with murder, 
>> attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>
>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>
>> Steve Rothstein
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez" implied 
> email threat already constitute assault?

Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used 
interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong, but I 
think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.

But I am confident I could defend myself from him. And he has proved my 
point that the law does not deter him from committing crimes.

Steve Rothstein

Omelet wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephan Rothstein  wrote:
>
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not
>>>> prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only
>>>> punished someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>
>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>
>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>
>>> What's your address ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell
>> him right from wrong.
>>
>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and where
>> to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get charged with
>> murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>
>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>
>> Steve Rothstein
>
> Not an idle threat.  I've been with Steve at the shooting range. <g>
> I'd never want to stare down the wrong end of HIS muzzle!

Then get up off your knees, boy.

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> professorgunz wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not
>>>>> prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only
>>>>> punished someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>>>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>
>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>
>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>
>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell
>>> him right from wrong.
>>>
>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>
>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>
>>> Steve Rothstein
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>
> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong, but I
> think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.

Then call Homeland Security, coward.

E.J. Chamberlain wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message
> news:6tn8scFbpai2U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>
>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not prevent
>>> bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only punished
>>> someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>
>
> The fact that laws against bank robbery (or any other crime) does not
> prevent the crime, is not a good reason to get rid of the law.  It
> does, however, provide what the punishment is for the person(s)
> commiting the crime.
>
>> Really?
>>
>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>
>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>
> Name-calling and abuse only demonstrate that you are losing the
> discussion, and that you have NO REAL FACTS to back up your
> statements!

You're lying again, jackass.


>
>
>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>
>> What's your address ?
>>
> Your continuing wild, high-flying, statements of fantasy show that
> you are only trying to muddy up the discussion in this particular
> thread.

Why do you lie?

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> professorgunz wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>>>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not
>>>>>> prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only
>>>>>> punished someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have NEVER
>>>>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell
>>>> him right from wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>
>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong, but I
>> think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
> 
> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
> 

I'd rather wait for your visit and handle it myself. They are too busy 
with other things right now.

Steve Rothstein

Alex Clayton wrote:
>>
> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
> the way things are.
>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are forever
> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote. I
> would vote for that.

Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.

I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street corners...

Stephan Rothstein  wrote in news:q-
6dndP07MM6xeXUnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earthlink.com:

> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank robberies
>>>>>>> (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they do not
>>>>>>> prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented anything, only
>>>>>>> punished someone for committing the forbidden act.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have 
NEVER
>>>>>> stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>>>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to tell
>>>>> him right from wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong, but 
I
>>> think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>> 
>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>> 
> 
> I'd rather wait for your visit and handle it myself. They are too busy 
> with other things right now.

I would assume that the person who did call Homeland Security over this 
would be more the coward than the one who didn't.  Besides Janet is 
probably busy simply trying to find her office.

-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

"HeyBub"  wrote in 
news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:

> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>
>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>> the way things are.
>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are forever
>> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
>> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
>> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote. I
>> would vote for that.
> 
> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
> 
> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street corners... 

One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.  I don't think we will 
see it in your neighborhood anytime soon. 



-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:Xns9B9B6789BD34Ahopewell@216.196.97.130...
> "HeyBub"  wrote in
> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>>
>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>>> the way things are.
>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are forever
>>> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
>>> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
>>> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote. I
>>> would vote for that.
>>
>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>
>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street corners...
>
> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.  I don't think we will
> see it in your neighborhood anytime soon.
>
>
>

We can dream.
-- 
Things get better with age. I'm approaching magnificent!!

"Alex Clayton"  wrote in
news:uL6dnS-hDKqAMeXUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@nventure.com: 

> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9B9B6789BD34Ahopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in
>> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live
>>>> with the way things are.
>>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are
>>>>  forever 
>>>> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
>>>> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
>>>> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote.
>>>> I would vote for that.
>>>
>>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>>
>>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street
>>> corners... 
>>
>> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.  I don't think we
>> will see it in your neighborhood anytime soon.
> 
> We can dream.

Or move to either Alaska or Vermont........both of them are too damn cold 
for me.  I spent too much time in Minnesota, Newfoundland, Goose Bay, 
Thule, Keflavik and North Dakota to be very interested in those options. 
;)

-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> "HeyBub"  wrote in 
> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
> 
>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>>> the way things are.
>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are forever
>>> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
>>> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
>>> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote. I
>>> would vote for that.
>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>
>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street corners... 
> 
> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.  I don't think we will 
> see it in your neighborhood anytime soon. 
> 

No, but it is a nice dream to work towards.

Steve Rothstein

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they
>>>>>>> do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>> act.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>>>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to
>>>>> tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>
>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>
>
> I'd rather wait

Call 'em you spineless weasel.

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> "HeyBub"  wrote in
> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>
>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>>
>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>>> the way things are.
>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are
>>> forever screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done
>>> exactly like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state
>>> puts out to own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who
>>> want to vote. I would vote for that.
>>
>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>
>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street
>> corners...
>
> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.

Or sell 'em out of vending machines at every 7.11 ...

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they
>>>>>>>> do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>>> act.
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
>>>>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to
>>>>>> tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>>
>> I'd rather wait
> 
> Call 'em you spineless weasel.

Come visit, you coward

Steve Rothstein

Stephan Rothstein  wrote in
news:ep-dnRaMEOXtgOTUnZ2dnUVZ_jULAAAA@earthlink.com: 

> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in 
>> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>> 
>>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live
>>>> with the way things are.
>>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are
>>>>  forever 
>>>> screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done exactly
>>>> like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state puts out to
>>>> own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who want to vote.
>>>> I would vote for that.
>>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>>
>>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street
>>> corners... 
>> 
>> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.  I don't think we
>> will see it in your neighborhood anytime soon. 
>> 
> 
> No, but it is a nice dream to work towards.

Yep.


-- 
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that 
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."

In article ,
 Stephan Rothstein  wrote:

> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> > Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> >> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> >>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> >>>> professorgunz wrote:
> >>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> >>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> >>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
> >>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
> >>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
> >>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that they
> >>>>>>>> do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
> >>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
> >>>>>>>> act.
> >>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
> >>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
> >>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
> >>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
> >>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
> >>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What's your address ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that you
> >>>>>> were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law to
> >>>>>> tell him right from wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
> >>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
> >>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
> >>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Steve Rothstein
> >>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
> >>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
> >>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
> >>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
> >>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
> >>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
> >>>
> >> I'd rather wait
> > 
> > Call 'em you spineless weasel.
> 
> Come visit, you coward
> 
> Steve Rothstein

If he does show up, can I be your "second"? ;-)
-- 
Peace! Om

"Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once." -- Anonymous

Stephan Rothstein wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that
>>>>>>>>> they do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>>>> act.
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that
>>>>>>> you were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law
>>>>>>> to tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>>>
>>> I'd rather wait
>>
>> Call 'em you spineless weasel.
>
> Come visit, you coward

You still too chickenshit to pick up the phone, eh schmuck?

Omelet wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephan Rothstein  wrote:
>
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that
>>>>>>>>>> they do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>>>>> act.
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that
>>>>>>>> you were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the
>>>>>>>> law to tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>>>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>>>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>>>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>>>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>>>>
>>>> I'd rather wait
>>>
>>> Call 'em you spineless weasel.
>>
>> Come visit, you coward
>>
>> Steve Rothstein
>
> If he does show up, can I be your "second"? ;-)

Get a room you circle-jerkin' freaks ...

Bill Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:35:39 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>  wrote:
>
>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:08:50 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28:04 -0700, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> Once unarmed, Mata was restrained by a crowd of nearby
>>>>>>>> residents who held him down until authorities arrived, police
>>>>>>>> said. While being detained, Mata suffered several contusions
>>>>>>>> to his face and head, police said. He was treated for his
>>>>>>>> injuries at Ventura County Medical Center, before being booked
>>>>>>>> into Ventura County Jail on charges of assault with a deadly
>>>>>>>> weapon, possession of a loaded firearm and drawing/exhibiting
>>>>>>>> a firearm in a threatening manner. His bail was set at $25,000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Madrigal did not require medical treatment for his injury,
>>>>>>>> police said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Police are still investigating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Couldn't happen, we have laws, in California, against everything
>>>>>>> this twit did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you removed all those laws, it would happen even less, eh
>>>>>> jackass?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> We'd still have the same number of drunken fools. Did you have
>>>>> some point to make with this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Should drunken fools be allowed to keep and possess firearms ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>>> but I don't know how to keep it from happening, do you?
>>
>> Let people smarter than you work out the details, but at least
>> you have the sense enough to know your own intellectual limitations.
>>
>>
>
> We made a number of laws that he broke to do what he did, but that
> didn't work, why don't you offer a solution to the problem Prof?

So do you support denying firearms to the Mentally Ill ?

_ Poofter. Jonez _ wrote:

> So do you support denying firearms to the Mentally Ill ?

As mentioned many times before, ALL sane people wish that you and your 
ilk be denied the right to keep and have weapons, and also, to be kept 
locked up.
Why do you want your kind, the mentaly ill, to constantly be let loose 
upon society, time and time again?

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>
>> We made a number of laws that he broke to do what he did, but that
>> didn't work, why don't you offer a solution to the problem Prof?
>
> So do you support denying firearms to the Mentally Ill ?

As a blanket rule, no.

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that
>>>>>>>>>> they do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>>>>> act.
>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that
>>>>>>>> you were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law
>>>>>>>> to tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>>>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>>>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>>>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>>>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>>>>
>>>> I'd rather wait
>>> Call 'em you spineless weasel.
>> Come visit, you coward
> 
> You still too chickenshit to pick up the phone, eh schmuck?

No, I did report it to a police officer, sort of. I told myself and 
assigned the case to myself to investigate. In the meantime, I am 
waiting for you to show up coward.

Steve Rothstein

Stephan Rothstein  wrote in news:46CdnSFn-
_YR4OfUnZ2dnUVZ_hoAAAAA@earthlink.com:

> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>> professorgunz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Stephan Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, criminals don't follow laws, so laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery don't prevent bank robberies, eh dipshit?
>>>>>>>>>>> While I am not proposing removing the laws against bank
>>>>>>>>>>> robberies (your strawman, you handle it), it is clear that
>>>>>>>>>>> they do not prevent bank robberies. Laws have never prevented
>>>>>>>>>>> anything, only punished someone for committing the forbidden
>>>>>>>>>>> act. 
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the existence of the law, and it's deterrant penalty, have
>>>>>>>>>> NEVER stopped anyone who's contemplated the proscribed action?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really that stump-stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there were a legal holiday where the laws against Murder
>>>>>>>>>> were suspended, for just one day, and anyone who killed
>>>>>>>>>> another would not be prosecuted, you really think there
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be quite a few more dead bodies in the streets
>>>>>>>>>> than when Homicide laws and Life Sentences are in effect?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's your address ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I guess I will have to amend my statement. I forgot that
>>>>>>>>> you were a liberal who cannot control himself and needs the law
>>>>>>>>> to tell him right from wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if you really want to come try, I will let you. I live in
>>>>>>>>> Luling, TX in the Sandia Crossing Apartments. Tell me when and
>>>>>>>>> where to meet you and I will guarantee that you will not get
>>>>>>>>> charged with murder, attempted murder, or even simple assault.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, dead bodies are hard to book.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Officer R., but doesn't "Prof. Jonez"
>>>>>>>> implied email threat already constitute assault?
>>>>>>> Yes, it does. It also constitutes a federal crime since he used
>>>>>>> interstate wires (the internet) to deliver it. I could be wrong,
>>>>>>> but I think he meets the federal law for terrorism now.
>>>>>> Then call Homeland Security, coward.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather wait
>>>> Call 'em you spineless weasel.
>>> Come visit, you coward
>> 
>> You still too chickenshit to pick up the phone, eh schmuck?
> 
> No, I did report it to a police officer, sort of. I told myself and 
> assigned the case to myself to investigate. In the meantime, I am 
> waiting for you to show up coward.
> 
> Steve Rothstein

He threatens you anonymously by internet and calls you a chickenshit?

BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

-- 
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6tt45tFckiulU1@mid.individual.net...
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in
>> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>>>> the way things are.
>>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are
>>>> forever screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done
>>>> exactly like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state
>>>> puts out to own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who
>>>> want to vote. I would vote for that.
>>>
>>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>>
>>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street
>>> corners...
>>
>> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.
>
> Or sell 'em out of vending machines at every 7.11 ...
>

"_ Prof. Jonez _"  wrote in message 
news:6tt45tFckiulU1@mid.individual.net...
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "HeyBub"  wrote in
>> news:uOudnXHEVeYO7OXUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> Alex Clayton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I agree there, sadly, since I can't be King, I have to live with
>>>> the way things are.
>>>>  I would be happy with some "equality", since these morons are
>>>> forever screaming about equality. I would love to see voting done
>>>> exactly like gun buying in each state. Whatever hoops the state
>>>> puts out to own and carry a gun, should be applied to people who
>>>> want to vote. I would vote for that.
>>>
>>> Or, conversely, make gun buying as easy as voter registration.
>>>
>>> I can imagine a day when volunteers sell guns on the street
>>> corners...
>>
>> One would have to repeal a ton of laws to do that.
>
> Or sell 'em out of vending machines at every 7.11 ...
Now thats the best idea you have had all of your life.  Vending machines
with guns and ammo.  When they were that easy to get the violence was much
less.  I remember being able to buy a gun, ammo and a 6 pack all in the same
place.  Of course school shootings were unheard of at that time.

Prof JOnes is right -- lack of guns causes violence, ergo:  more guns less
violence.

Thanks ProfJones, you are just making points for us all.