Driving Habits Argument Leads to Tampa Gunfight

[Wonk]

(snip)

Thomas Larry Watson, 51, a Firearms Training Center & Shooting Sports employee, was being held without bail at Falkenburg Road Jail Monday on a charge of felony aggravated battery with a firearm.

In a dispute over driving habits Saturday, Watson got out of his vehicle and fired his .40-caliber Beretta handgun at Derek Porter, 24, who pulled his own handgun and fired back, Tampa police said.

more...
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA6W9RNDPD.html

A Firearms Training Center employee :eyes:

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. And he missed?

What kind of Firearms Trainer does he think he is? It's a disgrace!

[slackmaster]

15. He deserves to be fired, jailed, and have all his licenses pulled

The concealed-carry permit, his driver's license, his dog license, marriage license; EVERYTHING!

[-..__...]

2. Yawn...

Grasp a little harder... m'k.

Desperation Meter:

0 2 4 6 8 10
<.\..........>

[Wonk]

3. Your point being... this is responsible gun ownership? nt

[RoeBear]

4. I say throw the book at him...

...it'll let others know that this won't be tolerated.

[-..__...]

5. Or just as easily...

responsible driving habits and car ownership. So, two hot heads got in an altercation over God who knows what. Firearms are involved and one of the
participants is a firearms instructor. It's a road rage incidnet. Unless you want to argue that 1,200 lbs of Detroit/Japanese/German automotive engineering is any less a lethal weapon than a handgun. Subsitute driving instructor or AAA representative and it's highly unlikely that it would have been posted here. So, what's the point? Yes, no matter how we legislate or would like to, there's always going to be a few idiots who manage to fuck things up... be it behind the wheel of a car, the trigger of a gun, or the keyboard of a computer.

[CO Liberal]

6. This Is Why....

...I favor gun control. It only takes a split second to turn a "law-abiding" gun owner into a killer.

[RoeBear]

7. I prefer to only punish the wrong doer...

...letting others know that they will be punished if they do the same thing. Punishing all citizens for the crime of one person seems extreme and wrong.

[iverglas]

34. punishment is such fun

The very thought of a bad guy getting what's coming to him gets my heart thumping and my juices flowing.

Occasionally I stop to think what things might be like if it were more difficult for bad guys to actually do bad things. Maybe fewer bad things would happen to the people the bad guys would have done them to if they'd had the means to do them, if we did something to prevent them from having the means to do them ...

But nah. That doesn't give me nearly such a rush as the idea of punishing them.

And I know how unable/unwilling most of those bad guys are to consider the consequences of their actions, whether for themselves or other people, and restrain their impulses to do what will get them whatever gratification they're looking for. So I know that if I just say "you're gonna get it if you do that!" and I don't bother doing anything to make it more difficult for them do do it, I can look forward to a lot more of the fun of them getting punished, and less boring stuff like "the number of injuries and deaths by firearms dropped again this year ...".

Where are my knitting needles?

Yours truly,
Mme Dufarge
Paris, 1789

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demsrule4life]

11. I agree with D__S

I have investigated a couple of road rage incidents that turned into major accidents with non involved vehicles. At least these two guys had the decency to stop and take it between themselves. D__S has a good point, a million foot pounds of energy compared to around 500 FPE for the .40 S&W. (And no, I don't condone infantile behavior)

[MrBenchley]

12. Wonder how many people he "trained"

to yank out their guns over traffic disputes?

[demsrule4life]

14. I JUST CANT BELIEVE YOU DIDNT JUMP

all over this one. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040113/ap_on_en_tv/people_nugent

[CO Liberal]

17. I Already Responded to That In The Lounge

I'll bet Teddy Boy is thankful he didn't cut off his manhood or (heaven forbid!) his trigger finger.

:-)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

19. Ted Kennedy Drove an Oldsmobile

And no one was discussing "people + cars = deaths". We were discussing an asshole with a gun, so the conversation naturally turned to Ted Nugent, a well-known asshole with a gun.

[MrBenchley]

22. The RKBA crowd slurs a Democrat

Are you surprised? I'm not.

[slackmaster]

26. The anti-RKBA crowd jumps to defend an inrepentent drunk

Democrat or not, Ted Kennedy ruined his own career and sealed his own fate.

[SmokingLoon]

24. Ted Kennedy, a drunk asshole with a car and a homicide!

I hate that guy...anyway, back to topic...this incident in Tampa should be investigated fully. If criminally convicted, then send them to the big house.

[MrBenchley]

29. And ANOTHER slur on a Democrat by the RKBA crowd

Is anyone surprised?

[MrBenchley]

21. "Racist NRA Leader Poses Menace to Self, Others"

This was NEWS to anyone?

[SmokingLoon]

23. That is prior restraint...

and it punishes those who have broken no law. And it assumes the law abiding will become criminal.

[Fescue4u]

8. The gun control facist would have prefered

That he used a car to attack.

[TheBrownDog]

9. that's a good one!

:evilgrin:

[Spentastic]

10. No it isn't

It's a weak tactic used by the gun bunnies over and over again.

Can you carry a Mercedes in your pocket? Can you conceal a Mercedes under your coat? Surely the fact that gun instructor boy pulled his gun tells you something about the efficacy of guns vs cars?

Primary fuction of a car is?

Transport.

Primary function of handgun?

Throw projectiles at target.

Now which would you assume would be more effective as a weapon?

I'm fairly sure anti gunners would have preferred for the guy to have used his brain rather than pull his gun or use his car. But perhaps that's our problem. We assume that others actually have brains.

[Fescue4u]

28. A car is an effective weapon

More so than many pocket pistols.

And btw, concealment is not relative to my statemnet.

[iverglas]

13. it's a *great* one!

The gun control facist would have prefered
That he used a car to attack.

Wot the hell is a "facist"? Who is this "gun control facist"?? Do I know him/her?

I sure hope that somebody didn't mean to say "fascists". I might 'a thunk somebody was talking about somebody(ies) I knew, in that case.

But back to that joke, and a good one it is.

'Cause the damned funny thing is -- NEITHER of them used those big honking (forgive the pun) motor vehicles of theirs to attack ANYBODY.

That's such an obvious point ... that just seems to be missed so often.

Kinda like how what we might call the gun-control point in this tale of woe seems to have been, er, missed.

Two people involved in an altercation -- any kind of altercation -- not uncommonly come to blows. When that happens, one or both of them not uncommonly end up with, oh, black eyes. Maybe even broken noses. The rest of the world is generally pretty safe when this happens. (Quick now -- how many times have we heard of one of the parties to a punch-up throwing a punch and hitting someone standing 15 feet away? Or a child asleep in a building across the street?)

Two people involved in an altercation -- any kind of altercation -- when one or both of them have ready access to firearms, seem all to frequently to shoot at the other with it/get shot by the other's. When that happens, one of them not infrequently ends up dead, or at least rather more seriously injured than somebody who got punched. Sometimes, somebody who wasn't even involved in the altercation ends up getting shot, maybe even dead.

Hahaha. That's a good one alright.

Here's a question. If either of these toadstools had not been packing a pistol, just how eager would he have been to get involved in this little bit of brouhaha in the first place? Maybe people who don't tote guns around with them would just be a little more careful about their driving habits. Who knows, eh?

.

[Fescue4u]

27. wooo you got me

I made a spelling mistake.

I guess thats a good enough reason to give up a civil right?

[RoeBear]

30. How can we take you serious if...

...you misspell a word?

"Kinda"? Proper English is 'kind of'.

Or is it considered rude to point out misspellings?

"Wot the hell is a "facist"? Who is this "gun control facist"?? Do I know him/her?

I sure hope that somebody didn't mean to say "fascists". I might 'a thunk somebody was talking about somebody(ies) I knew, in that case."

[Dolomite]

16. Well, it looks like you guys are hot on the disinformation trail

(once again may I add!)

The guy in jail wasn’t an instructor - he was a “range officer”. He worked at a firing range. He took your money, pointed to the firing lanes, and said, “Use anyone that’s open”. At the end of the day he picked up a broom and cleared the floor of spent brass. Whoopee!
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/online/qdisp/BN=04002150

The other guy, Derek Something-or-another, was obviously justified in using his handgun in self-defense. The fact that he was injured in the hand and arm may indicate that the wounds were sustained while he was in a defensive posture. Maybe not, but because he hasn’t been arrested, it seems like he did a good job! That is unless of course, while at the traffic light, he had an opportunity to speed away in his car and never took it. But I’d be willing to bet that he could have been blocked on both ends and had no choice but to beat feet and assume cover with his own weapon.

As far as the “range officer”, he did have a gun in the car (which is not illegal in Florida). I highly doubt he had a Concealed Handgun License. And here’s why (thanks to the Hillsborough County court system):
POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF LESS THAN $200
CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON
OBSTRUCTING OR OPPOSING AN OFFICER WITHOUT
POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (methadone)

So I, for one, am extremely grateful to the good citizens of Florida for voting in the politicians necessary to institute their concealed carry law all those years ago – for without it, at least one citizen would have been left at the mercy of an armed thug – Derek would probably be dead right now.

(Ed fer Spellin)

[milliner]

20. Wow ...this got boring fast

Imagine that, a jerk without papers, loses it, and a responsible citizen shuts him down coming out of the gate.

[slackmaster]

25. Is anyone really surprised

How quickly the anti-RKBA crowd jumps on any tentative report that casts gun owners in a bad light and treats it as fact without making any effort to verify the information?

[iverglas]

31. huh

Don't know who these "guys" are, but I guess they aren't me.

Nothing I said had anything to do with the status of the toadstools involved in the mêlée in question.

I don't particularly care whether either of them was the King of Prussia or Toad of Toad Hall.

They were both driving around the world with firearms that they used in a manner dangerous to the public.

Whether either of them would have behaved as he did had he not had a warm gun to back him up in whatever idiocy he got up to is an interesting and open question. It is perhaps most à propos in respect of whoever was the instigator of the gunplay and initial wrong-doer in the scenario -- not just whether he would have instigated the gunplay, but whether he would have instigated the events that led to them, which I gather it is likely he did. (Unless it was that law-abiding citizen who shot only in self-defence who was the wrong-doer in the traffic contretemps ... in which case I wonder the same thing anyhow.)

At least one, possibly two, jerks with guns.

My preference is that there be no jerks. That being something about which absolutely nothing can be done, my second choice is that the jerks not have guns. That's something about which something can be done, even if the problem cannot be entirely eradicated.

Just as an aside, that's a cute tale about that "range officer". It was illegal for him to possess a firearm ... and yet he was employed in a context in which he presumably had ready access to firearms (and, given what we know about him, likely little compunction about making off with them) at all times. How very odd.

[MrBenchley]

32. You have to wonder why

a shooting range would employ someone like that...unless they were either utterly incompetent to the point of idiocy, or crooked themselves.

[Romulus]

33. for once I agree with you n/t

[Dolomite]

36. "ditto" (ouch!)

[milliner]

37. Assumptions are great, really

I think I'll try this myself.

This man had no criminal record. After a criminal background check the gun range hired this man thus adding to the economy by providing jobs. someone will have to explain why this man should not be employed by this range

[MrBenchley]

40. Yeah, nothing like druggies with guns

to give us a nice warm tingle...(snicker)

"someone will have to explain why this man should not be employed by this range"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrre......

[iverglas]

43. are we quite sure?

This man had no criminal record.

I'm not sure, actually, so maybe you would share, if you are.

My other post in this sub-thread contains a link for viewing his arrest record; the post I was responding to offered one of his past 2 arrest records, here are the others, and the current one.

At the time of his March 1999 arrest --
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=99063681
-- controlled substance, obstructing an officer -- he was "UNEMPLOYED/DISABLED".

At the time of his May 1999 arrest --
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=99027668
-- cannabis, criminal mischief, concealed weapon -- he was employed by "TAMPA TOBACCO CO".

At the time of his 2004 arrest (the one reported in this thread) --
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/qdisp/bn=04002150
-- he was employed by "SHOOTING SPORTS" as a "RANGE OFCR".

- There is no information on those records regarding the disposition of the cases; who knows? perhaps he was acquitted on all charges, or they were withdrawn (both "dismissed" and "sentenced" are options that could have been entered in that field, but nothing was) ...

- There is no information at that site older than 5 years ... perhaps a man born in 1952 with 6 charges in the last 5 years was never convicted of a criminal offence before that time ...

- I don't find anything at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/AppCommon/ so he may never have received a custodial sentence on any charge, although he may still have been convicted.


He was hired by the gun range *after* he was charged with offences involving firearms, narcotics and public order. But heck, maybe they were all cases of mistaken identity, and maybe the gun range satisfied itself that he was an upstanding citizen.

[milliner]

45. And again

He is guilty of what?

You suppose he is a bad guy

I have no facts to assume he should not be hired

I hope you dont make hiring decissions for corporations with deep pockets because you woul be exposing the corporate purse strings to a huge liability issue

[CO Liberal]

46. And You Seem To Suppose He's a Good Guy

Why are some pro-gunners so quick to defend people they know nothing about, simply because they had a gun in their hands?

[iverglas]

52. ya think?

I hope you dont make hiring decissions for corporations with deep pockets because you woul be exposing the corporate purse strings to a huge liability issue

Beats me, I gotta say.

If this individual was indeed convicted of (or pled guilty to) the offences shown on his arrest records, I don't think. In fact, I think that if I had hired such an individual and he *did* take unauthorized advantage of his access to firearms and do something to someone with one of them, the shareholders of that deep-pocketed corporation might just be a tad peeved with me. 'Cause the corp would have a wee bit of a liability problem, methinks.

On the other hand, choosing another candidate over someone simply because the employer didn't like the someone -- and not because of his/her race, religion, etc. -- has never got anyone into trouble that I'm aware of.

In fact, Quebec is the only jurisdiction I'm familiar with that protects people with criminal convictions from discrimination in hiring ... and then only

if the offence was in no way connected with the employment
or if the person has obtained a pardon for the offence.

And even Quebec doesn't require that employers hire people they don't like.

If I were an employer whose employees had access to firearms, I have a sneaking suspicion I might not like applicants who had been charged with narcotics, firearm and public order offences unless they had a very good explanation for those charges. Like maybe "I was in France at the time".

He is guilty of what?

Well, that's the $64,000 question, isn't it just?

Was he charged with all those things starting in March 1999 (and was he perhaps charged with anything prior to January 1999, the cut-off date for the info available) and never convicted of any of them?

Do YOU know the answer? I gather you don't, since you haven't come forward with it despite my asking.

I have no facts to assume he should not be hired

No, I guess I don't, either. You're right. I should be assuming that someone charged with 5 criminal offences, involving firearms, narcotics and public order, prior to being hired for a position giving him access to firearms (and who has now committed a violent offence with a firearm ...), was in fact an innocent victim of some gross police error or malice.

My common sense subroutine might have to be off line in order for me to do that, but I guess that shouldn't be a barrier to forging ahead and making that particular assumption.

[milliner]

38. my son

worked at a car dealership as a lot attendent when he was 14 and had access to hundreds of cars. I didn't realize how stupid that dealership was

[iverglas]

39. I give up (ed.)

Did you try reading the link that was provided?

Try this one: http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?/Online/sname02

-- edit -- I should have looked at that link and realized it wouldn't work. You have to go here: http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/default.asp?Category=Online&Service=SNAME01
and enter "Watson, Thomas" (white, male).

There are three records for "Watson, Thomas L/Larry".

Did your 14-year-old son have a record of convictions for

- obstructing a peace officer
- possession of a controlled substance
- possession of cannabis
- criminal mischief
- CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON

??

(They were all listed in the post I responded to.)

If he did -- or if he had convictions for something vaguely related to his job, say driving without a licence, reckless driving, drunk driving ... kinda the way that a weapons offence combined with public order and narcotics offences might be regarded as related to a job that involves access to firearms -- then you betcha, one would really have to wonder how stupid that dealership was when it employed him and gave him access to hundreds of cars.

Did you have a point?

[MrBenchley]

41. You know, if you throw out this guy's actual criminal record

then you can pretend he has no criminal record....

I know somebody who works as a newspaper editor......that certainly says to me a lowlife with weapons and drug convictions ought to have a job in Florida where they hand out certificates for pistol permits....not.

[CO Liberal]

42. Sounds Like Reagan's 11th Commandment

Remember? "Speak no ill of another Republican"?

Sometimes it seems that some pro-gunners will say and do ANYTHING to stand up for another pro-gunner......

[MrBenchley]

44. Yup....

No argument too absurd, no gun owner too scummy....

[milliner]

47. This jerk

was found to be carrying a weapon with out the proper papers.

this jerk if convicted should serve the appropriate punishment.

I only said that some people made assumptions as to his fitness to be employed at a gun range.

No one has stated how his place of employment has a bearing on this incident.

And how do you know this guy is a 'pro gunner'. and when did Regan enter into this?

[CO Liberal]

51. Simple

And how do you know this guy is a 'pro gunner'. and when did Regan enter into this?

Very few people in favor of gun control would actively seel employment at a firing range, IMHO. And Reagan entered the picture in reference to his "11th Commandment" about not saying anything bad about a fellow Republican. It seems that in a similar manner, some pro-gunners cannot say anything bad about another pro-gunner. It's almost as if the act of placing a gun in your hand elevate you to sainthood.

[milliner]

53. your goood

can you tell which hand my gun is in?

I never defended this person, I only pointed out that the facts do not match your conclusions. You are making assumptions faster than can be quantified. If you care to revert to the facts, then maybe??

I, in my most humble posture, do not feel that my elevation to saint hood is warranted. I dont even think I'm THAT GOOD.

[CO Liberal]

55. You Misunderstood

There are people on this board who seem to elevate ANYONE to sainthood if they use a gun. As if they could do no wrong. While it may be wrong to assume everything BAD about the gun range employee in Tamps, it's even worse IMHO to assume everything GOOD about him simply because he used a gun.

[milliner]

48. What criminal record?

Be careful

[CO Liberal]

49. We're Not Talking About an Eagle Scout Here, Milliner.....

We're talking about someone who apparantly has had more than one run-in with the law.

[MrBenchley]

50. Yeah but be careful, because he's trigger-happy

[milliner]

54. Sooo

do I understand that people that are not convicted of any crimes can be denied employment?

[CO Liberal]

56. Do You Honestly Believe...

...that anyone with a history of the following should be anywhere NEAR a gun?

- Obstructing a peace officer
- Possession of a controlled substance
- Possession of cannabis
- Criminal mischief
- CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON

[iverglas]

57. my goodness!

I do believe that you may have just stumbled on the solution to the on-going problem of unemployment!

"do I understand that people that are not convicted of any crimes can be denied employment?"

Are you actually meaning to say that you understand that they may not???

If so, and if you understand correctly, I can think of a few outfits that I need to go sue right now. I had never been convicted of any crime, and yet when I applied for employment, I was denied it. They seemed to think someone else was better for the job.

I haven't applied for many jobs in my life, but I clearly remember a lawyer who didn't hire me after interviewing me for an articling position. I was pretty convinced that it was because I was a women, given how he asked me what I'd do if an Italian man - emphasis on the "man" - walked into the office looking for legal services, and how all-round non-plused he seemed to be at the idea of even hiring a woman ... but that can be hard to prove, and besides, I had no desire to be hired by him. But hell, I had not been convicted of any crime, and I was denied employment. Looks like an open and shut case to me, if I'm readin' you right.


May I ask: what were you thinking when you wrote that?

It's given me a good laugh, but I doubt that this was your intention.

.

[milliner]

59. I never defended

this jerk

post 20 and 47 referred to this person as a jerk.

post 37 45 54 defend end the employer. After rereading the info I have yet to find culpability of this employer.

I will admit that this jerk probably, must likely, is a jerk. But cant prove.

This started as an example of lax gun laws and the havoc resulting, I proffered an opinion that a person stopped this jerk in mid meltdown, and he was able to do this because when a jerk with an attitude wants to seek revenge, an officer of the government is rarely on the spot. An individual took steps to stop a dangerous situation at risk to his personal safety and saved a lot of people from harm. More stringent gun control laws would not have stopped a person with evil in their soul from carrying a gun, and more likely would have stopped a citizen from the ability to put a stop to this situations

Assumptions:

post 6 Turn a law abiding citizen into killer... The person in question was not law abiding

post 12 this person was an instructor... he was not

post 29 slurring a Democrat... Stating facts are now slurs (couldn't resist)

post 31 Put the public at risk... not so much, actually diffused an incident that could have quickly gone bad

post 32 Employer is crooked...Haven't seen anything questioning the honesty of the employer

post 43 hired after his arrests...Could have been, didn't see his length of employment mentioned

This started as an example of 'guns are bad' turned into 'employer stupid or crooked and ended with several posters going after me for defending a jerk I never defended

Now go out and play nice

[MrBenchley]

60. Hahahahahaha....

And every time there's a thread on the racist scumbags at the NRA and their idiotic schemes, we also get post after post after post after post from the RKBA crowd, all solemnly declaring they're not defending the NRA as they do just that.

"This started as an example of 'guns are bad'"
Actually it started as an example of the sort of lowlife who is obsessed with guns and how quickly guns can turn a routine incident like a lame dispute deadly...and turned into a lot of crying about how unfair it is that an example of the sort of lowlife who is obsessed with guns got into the headlines.

But there's only two ways a lowlife like this gets employed by a shooting range that certifies people for pistol permits...either they're shiftless idiots who can't be trusted to check their employees' backgrounds, or they're lowlifes themselves. And either way that makes this joint a public menace.

[milliner]

61. I could not have written

a better response to give an example of my point.

A jerk with a gun is stopped mid stride. Thats a fact.

All of a sudden the employer is tried and convicted with all of the evidence described below










oops guess not

[MrBenchley]

63. Hahahahahahaha....

I guess that's another post "not defending" anything....

[slackmaster]

62. Assumes facts not in evidence

...either they're shiftless idiots who can't be trusted to check their employees' backgrounds, or they're lowlifes themselves.

If the prospective employee had no convictions, what would you expect a background check to turn up?

[iverglas]

64. well how's about ...

If the prospective employee had no convictions, what would you expect a background check to turn up?

... the very information that has been repeatedly reproduced in this thread? Readily available to anyone with an internet connection. And, some might even say, essential information for someone considering employing a person and granting the person ready access to firearms, if that someone wishes to avoid being a link in a chain leading to harm, or liability for providing that link.

Now maybe this employer DID check the arrest record of the prospective employee in question. (Dear milliner: try reading it all again. The individual's 1999 arrest records describe him as, first, unemployed, and second, employed by a tobacco company. He was therefore, ipso facto, abracadabra and by necessary implication, employed by the firing range AFTER he was arrested on the five 1999 charges listed in this thread.)

And maybe this employer DID satisfy itself, to a degree that would satisfy a reasonably prudent person, that, despite those charges -- including narcotics, weapons and public order offences -- the prospective employee in question was truly an upstanding citizen, and had simply been the unfortunate victim of some mistake of identity, or police impropriety, or what have you.

To which some would add: and maybe pigs can fly.

Those who would say that might be clear-thinking people who have chosen not to put on their credulous-fool caps and are capable of assessing evidence without bias ... or they might be gun-grabbers looking for any old excuse to say nasty things about people who run enterprises involving firearms.

Me, I've stated no conclusions on the pigs-can-fly option. I simply express grave reservations about the likelihood of any explanation for this person's employment that does not include either unforgivable negligence (carelessness as to any danger potentially created for others) or outright malice (knowledge of that potential danger and decision to act in disregard of it, in the employer's own interests, whatever interest an employer might have in employing such an apparently very unsuitable individual).

[milliner]

65. Wells how's about

you iverglas, make the leap that guns at this range are lying about like peanuts at a bar.

This is a shooting range.

The several I have been to do not have guns lying about. How would this person been more of a risk to society? My personal opinion would be have him locked him up upon his first arrest and we would not have to deal with him for 20 years or so. But that nasty constitution thingy keeps cropping up

[MrBenchley]

66. One shudders to think how many posts

you'd make if you WERE defending this lowlife.....and how much further afield they would have wandered...

"This is a shooting range.
The several I have been to do not have guns lying about."
What do patrons do.....THROW the bullets at the target and shout "Bang!"?

"My personal opinion would be have him locked him up upon his first arrest and we would not have to deal with him for 20 years or so. But that nasty constitution thingy keeps cropping up"
Try not to sound too disappointed.....although pro-gun John AshKKKroft keeps running into the same problem.

[MrBenchley]

58. Wow

No spin too desperate for the RKBA crowd, is there?