kallend 2,230 #26 January 12, 2010 Quote And the best way to fight that type of crime, is to allow the citizens to be able to defend themselves when it strikes. Worked well in Kennesaw (where gun ownership is mandatory) today... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 January 12, 2010 QuoteQuoteShow me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #28 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote And the best way to fight that type of crime, is to allow the citizens to be able to defend themselves when it strikes. Worked well in Kennesaw (where gun ownership is mandatory) today It happened at a Penske truck shop. It's my experience that many workplaces and businesses like that are posted "No guns allowed". Kennesaw's rule (which has had zero prosecutions for voilating it) is for homeowners, not businesses."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #29 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE. Nope. Posts #20, 22 and 25, this thread. (BTW, your selective snipping to change the context was NOT very clever. Sometimes it seems you forget that anyone can scroll back and see what you really wrote, which is different from what you claimed you wrote). Here's the link to #20 for you#22 And to #25.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE. Nope. Post #20, this thread. Here's the link for you You can put whatever smiley behind it you want, you're still lying. Show where Cho was either adjudicated as a mental defective, or involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #31 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE. Nope. Post #20, this thread. Here's the link for you You can put whatever smiley behind it you want, you're still lying. You wrote (post #20): "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." and then asked (#22) What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John?". I quoted your #20 statement back at you (#25) as a response. But you snipped it out in response to my reply, to make the context seem different from what it was. We can all read the thread. Calling me a liar won't fool anyone. Intellectual dishonesty, Mike. Your selective snipping to change the meaning is transparent dishonesty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE. Nope. Post #20, this thread. Here's the link for you You can put whatever smiley behind it you want, you're still lying. You wrote (post #20): "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." and then asked (#22) What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John?". I quoted your #20 statement back at you (#25) as a response. But you snipped it out in response to my reply, to make the context seem different from what it was. We can all read the thread. Calling me a liar won't fool anyone. Intellectual dishonesty, Mike. Your selective snipping to change the meaning is transparent dishonesty. Asking what law he had broken at the time he bought the gun is now advocating "loonies can buy guns"? Looks like pretty transparent dishonesty on your part, to me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #33 January 13, 2010 In response to your edit, (a lame attempt to cover your intellectual dishonesty): Quote Show where Cho was either adjudicated as a mental defective, or involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. You ACTUALLY wrote "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." Here's your answer, from the state of Virginia: www.governor.virginia.gov/tempContent/techPanelReport-docs/8%20CHAPTER%20IV%20LIFE%20AND%20MENTAL%20HEALTH%20HISTORY%20OF%20CHOpdf.pdf Thrash as much as you like, selective snipping to change the context of my reply IS dishonest. The record is in the thread for all to read.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #34 January 13, 2010 QuoteYou didn't answer the question - you dodged it. Please try again. No, I did. You just didn't like the answer.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #35 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? mnealtx, today, this thread. LIE. Nope. Post #20, this thread. Here's the link for you You can put whatever smiley behind it you want, you're still lying. You wrote (post #20): "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." and then asked (#22) What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John?". I quoted your #20 statement back at you (#25) as a response. But you snipped it out in response to my reply, to make the context seem different from what it was. We can all read the thread. Calling me a liar won't fool anyone. Intellectual dishonesty, Mike. Your selective snipping to change the meaning is transparent dishonesty. Asking what law he had broken at the time he bought the gun is now advocating "loonies can buy guns"? Looks like pretty transparent dishonesty on your part, to me. Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou didn't answer the question - you dodged it. Please try again. No, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Well, since you and kallend have now shown up in force with your little games, I can see that this thread will no longer be worth watching. I'm off to look for some honest discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #37 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote You didn't answer the question - you dodged it. Please try again. No, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Well, since you and kallend have now shown up in force with your little games, I can see that this thread will no longer be worth watching. I'm off to look for some honest discussion. Maybe you'll find a thread where mnealtx doesn't selectively snip whole sections to change the meaning of other peoples' responses, and then call them liars on the basis of that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #38 January 13, 2010 Quote The reality is that you will never stop all crime. Yes - and we should try to lower it, despite the full understanding that there always be SOME crime. Quote If you try to stop all crime proactively, by arresting people before they've done anything wrong, or by overly-restricting things that people can own or do, then you'll have a society that is no longer free. "Less free" would be more accurate. It will also make "less free" only those who own guns. For me it wouldn't have any negative effect, pretty much as prohibition for private persons to own nuclear rockets unlikely has any effect on you. And regarding "not being free", this is fine with me too. Those who want to see how a absolutely free society (libertarian ideal) works, have an option to visit Somali, and see it themselves. No rules, no taxes, no courts, no questions asked. Quote You can post a soldier with an M-16 on every street corner with orders to shoot to kill anyone that appears to be a criminal, and that will surely stop crime. But is that the kind of society in which you wish to live? Not necessary. As far as I see, Europe does not have soldiers on every street corners, or masses of armed individuals, and somehow they're not experiencing the same number of shooting sprees like here. Quote So if you want to be free, you have to accept some level of crime. You and I have obviously different opinion about what it means to be free. Mine does not include gun ownership at all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #39 January 13, 2010 Quote Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different. Funny thing that some time ago Mike admitted it himself, that indeed, Cho should not have been able to buy guns.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #40 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuote Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different. Funny thing that some time ago Mike admitted it himself, that indeed, Cho should not have been able to buy guns. Indeed. He also stated that Cho lied on his form: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3497170#3497170 All you need do is compare post #25 with post #27 to see how Mike dishonestly attempted to change the context by selective snipping in order to defend his position. He seems to forget that these threads hang around for a long time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 January 13, 2010 Quote In response to your edit, (a lame attempt to cover your intellectual dishonesty): Quote Show where Cho was either adjudicated as a mental defective, or involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. You ACTUALLY wrote "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." Here's your answer, from the state of Virginia: www.governor.virginia.gov/tempContent/techPanelReport-docs/8%20CHAPTER%20IV%20LIFE%20AND%20MENTAL%20HEALTH%20HISTORY%20OF%20CHOpdf.pdf GCA 68 stipulates that being adjudicated mentally defective or admitted to a mental institution is a bar to purchase. From your link: QuoteThe evaluator completed the evaluation form certifying his findings that Cho “is mentally ill; that he does not present an imminent danger to (himself/others), or is not substantially unable to care for himself, as a result of mental illness; and that he does not require involuntary hospitalization.” The independent evaluator did not attend the commitment hearing; however, both counsel for Cho and the special justice signed off on the form certifying his findings. Shortly before the commitment hearing, the attending psychiatrist at St. Albans evaluated Cho. When he was interviewed by the panel, the psychiatrist did not recall anything remarkable about Cho, other than that he was extremely quiet. The psychiatrist did not discern dangerousness in Cho, and, as noted, his assessment did not differ from that of the independent evaluator—that Cho was not a danger to himself or others. He suggested that Cho be treated on an outpatient basis with counseling. No medications were prescribed, and no primary diagnosis was made. So, Cho wasn't judged mentally deficient and wasn't admitted to a mental institution. What was supposed to trigger NICS to prevent his purchase? Too bad the psychiatrists didn't have your future crime machine. QuoteThrash as much as you like, selective snipping to change the context of my reply IS dishonest. The record is in the thread for all to read. Since we're on the subject of 'changing context' - tell me how 'what law was broken' is now "it's okay if loonies buy guns", which was the question I asked if not those exact words. I noticed that you snipped MY reply to change the context, John - why is that?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different. Funny thing that some time ago Mike admitted it himself, that indeed, Cho should not have been able to buy guns. Indeed. He also stated that Cho lied on his form: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3497170#3497170 All you need do is compare post #25 with post #27 to see how Mike dishonestly attempted to change the context by selective snipping in order to defend his position. He seems to forget that these threads hang around for a long time. Yes, I did state that - that was BEFORE you provided the information that he was NOT considered a danger to himself or others by the psychiatrists. You provided the info to take your own argument out of the picture.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 January 13, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote You didn't answer the question - you dodged it. Please try again. No, I did. You just didn't like the answer. Well, since you and kallend have now shown up in force with your little games, I can see that this thread will no longer be worth watching. I'm off to look for some honest discussion. Maybe you'll find a thread where mnealtx doesn't selectively snip whole sections to change the meaning of other peoples' responses, and then call them liars on the basis of that. Also where kallend lies about someone's motivation for making a post, and falsely equates a question about a law into a statement of support that was never made. After that, he then snips the question about that out of the post - how convenient (and dishonest).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #44 January 13, 2010 From post #25 Quote mnealtx: Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK: Well, THAT explains how Cho couldn't buy a gun. Oh, wait - he DID -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mnealtx: What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John? Other than triggering your future crime machine, that is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK: (Quoting mnealtx) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mnealtx, today, this thread. Do you deny that in post #27 you snipped out the entire section in red in the above quote? Do you deny that YOU previously told us that Cho lied on his form?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 January 13, 2010 QuoteFrom post #25 Quote mnealtx: Show me just WHERE I've said that 'loonies' should be able to get guns? You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK: Well, THAT explains how Cho couldn't buy a gun. Oh, wait - he DID -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mnealtx: What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John? Other than triggering your future crime machine, that is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK: (Quoting mnealtx) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mnealtx, today, this thread. Do you deny that in post #27 you snipped out the entire section in red in the above quote? Nope, sure don't. Now answer the question that was left, since you still haven't done it. Or, you could just LIE again, and try to twist my asking 'what law was broken at the time of purchase' with 'it's ok if loonies buy guns'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #46 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different. Funny thing that some time ago Mike admitted it himself, that indeed, Cho should not have been able to buy guns. Indeed. He also stated that Cho lied on his form: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3497170#3497170 All you need do is compare post #25 with post #27 to see how Mike dishonestly attempted to change the context by selective snipping in order to defend his position. He seems to forget that these threads hang around for a long time. Yes, I did state that - that was BEFORE you provided the information that he was NOT considered a danger to himself or others by the psychiatrists. You provided the info to take your own argument out of the picture. Nice cherry picking on your part. He was ruled "mentally ill" by Special Justice Barnett. "Mentally ill". In case that phrase doesn't ring a bell, YOU wrote "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." and then asked (post#22) "What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John?".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #47 January 13, 2010 Finally an admission that you selectively snipped large portions of my post. That's good, you'll find that admitting your intellectual dishonesty is the first step to overcoming it. Have a good night.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Mike, it is YOU that is guilty of selective snipping. My meaning was perfectly clear BEFORE you snipped to make it seem different. Funny thing that some time ago Mike admitted it himself, that indeed, Cho should not have been able to buy guns. Indeed. He also stated that Cho lied on his form: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3497170#3497170 All you need do is compare post #25 with post #27 to see how Mike dishonestly attempted to change the context by selective snipping in order to defend his position. He seems to forget that these threads hang around for a long time. Yes, I did state that - that was BEFORE you provided the information that he was NOT considered a danger to himself or others by the psychiatrists. You provided the info to take your own argument out of the picture. Nice cherry picking on your part. He was ruled "mentally ill" by Special Justice Barnett. "Mentally ill". In case that phrase doesn't ring a bell, YOU wrote "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill." and then asked (post#22) "What law had he broken at the time he bought the gun, John?". Unfortunately for you and the VA tech students, Cho wasn't adjudicated mentally incompetent nor admitted to a mental institution, which are the triggers for GCA 68 for a NICS check in that regard. VA state law triggers on 'involuntarily admitted', evidently, so again, no triggers from state police records on a NIC check. As for the form, since he was not adjudicated mentally incompetent nor admitted to a mental institution, Cho did *not* lie on the ATF Form 4473.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 January 13, 2010 Quote Finally an admission that you selectively snipped large portions of my post. Unfortunately, still no admission from you that you LIED about what I said, not that I really expected one. QuoteThat's good, you'll find that admitting your intellectual dishonesty is the first step to overcoming it. Talk about your irony score...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #50 January 13, 2010 So were you lying when you wrote "You also know damn good and well that Federal law prohibits sales to the mentally ill" , or when you wrote 2 years ago that Cho lied on his form? At least you've now admitted altering what I wrote so you could call me a liar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
