Why the quotes?

He is, in fact, a "responsible, law-abiding gun owner". As was stated in the story, he "did nothing illegal." And since he wasn't arrested, it can be inferred that he is not a felon and was in possession of the rifle legally. So why the quotes?

As for:

>"I wonder what would have happened if that grocery store had been filled with other "law-abiding gun owners."

1) Yet again, source, please. i.e. how do you know there weren't other law-abiding gun owners there?

2) Probably nothing would've happened because gun owners know it's not a good idea to go off half-cocked. It's brainwashed liberals who think guns are evil and who call the police at the mere sight of one. (And a personal anecdote: I've actually been in similar situations (carrying concealed, coming across someone carrying openly), and in one case, I actually struck up a conversation with the other person.)

2a) (Ha! 2a, get it? Ok, nevermind.) This is also a perfect example of how the police cannot protect you. Had he actually perpetrated a mass shooting, and if there really were no other law-abiding gun owners present, the police would not have arrived in time to stop him. The only person resposible for your protection is you; that's why it's called self-defense. I don't have a problem with you not wanting to protect yourself, so why do you have a problem with me wanting to protect myself?

>"I also wonder whether Virginia will review that law now."

Why should they? They're right. If anything, other States should review their laws to make them more like Virginia.

Mark

P.S. So since you've posted again, but have not responded in our previous exchange:

http://forums.cnet.com/7726-6130_102-5416059.html?tag=posts;msg5416059

is it safe to assume you have no factual rebuttal or sources to back up your opinions?