On Feb 5, 10:06*am, Home Guy wrote:
trader4 @ optonline.net used incorrect usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

A police affidavit identifies the suspect as 75-year-old Chung Kim

Of course in the story it does not say that the perp was a
"former law-abiding gun owner".
Another lame jump to conclusions not supported by the facts.

If he's not a "law abiding gun owner" then why is he allowed to own a
gun?


Boy you really are the village idiot, aren't you? Where
in that story does it say that he was legally allowed to own
a gun?




For all we know, the perp could have been a felon and we don't
know his history with involvement with the law, if he legally
possessed the gun, etc...

Then you've just admitted that your system of "regulating the militia"
is faulty. *You've just admitted the possibility (or probability) that
you don't have a "well regulated militia" as called for by the
constitution.

It's been explained to you about a hundred times now
what "well regulated militia" means. The Supreme Court
has issued their rulings that reaffirm the right of citizens
to own firearms. Your rants are meaningless.




You've just admitted the reason why you need more rules and regulations
pertaining to how people own guns, how they come to aquire them, how
they can continue to possess them if they are not law-abiding.

You've just admitted that your current regime of gun laws and
regulations are inadequate and can be improved on.

You've just proved again why you're the village idiot.
Someone who is going to commit a crime is going to
break the law and doesn't care about violating yet
another gun law. You think knowing that he's going
to be charged with new gun law XYZ is going to matter
to a guy that's OK with committing capital murder?
Geez....