This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

!


51 comments:

guy faulkes said...

This post is not directly involved with gun control, but it does fit the cartoon. For anyone that is interested and has not heard, Hannity is going to interview Zimmerman on Fox tonight (Wednesday July 18) at 9:00 P.M.

It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

USS Rodger Young said...

Zimmerman should be given a "Community" medal by hussein obama at the White House. Zimmerman did the nation a favor that fateful night when he defended himself from a drug crazed, violent, psycho-path. Zimmeran should be exonerated immediately and the Florida prosecutor put in stocks for a week or two and then whipped in public.

Let's hope someone on that jury refuses to yield to pressure from the judge, government, or pesky bureaucrats. The government would love a guilty verdict to prevent riots. I hope he is found innocent. I could care less about riots.

And, again, riots won't occur in Florida. Riots occur in victim disarmament zones like New York, LA, and Chicago.

Sarkazein said...

Anyone would have done the same, use deadly force to stop someone from banging your head on the concrete, but Zimmerman has two problems in his legal defense.

1. He got out of his vehicle (observe and report).
2. He took his gun to a possible conflict, not a crime in progress.

Those two things, along with a scared prosecutor and hostile press, may be insurmountable for his defense team.

Sarkazein said...

This is where jury nullification may save the day.

USS Rodger Young said...

Sark,

It's not illegal to get out of one's vehicle. The police dispatcher told him not to, but dispatcher's are civilians who have zero authority anyway. The dispatcher wasn't on the ground with Zimmerman and should be fired for telling him how to conduct his assigned community watch duties.

Taking a gun to a conflict. The potential for conflict is everywhere. That's why we have concealed carry laws. He was observing and reporting, not causing or believing he would become embroiled in conflict. Luckily the gun saved his life.

But you are right, they will use the two above points to convict him. I'd give a million dollars to be on that jury and announce jury nullification the day of deliberations. Wouldn't that piss off the prosecutor?

USS Rodger Young said...

The Florida mass shooting will put gun control in the spotlight. If Hussein Obama goes back in, kiss your high capacity magazines and semi-autos goodbye!! If he can pass health care during his first term, then gun control will be no problem whatsoever for a lame ducker!! This and much more are coming folks, and there will be nowhere to run and hide. We are he last great free nation, and if this idiot goes back in, you're neighbors will be illegal aliens, gun control will be mandated by the UN, and YOU will be paying double the taxes you pay now so liberals like pov won't have to work. Given the apathy of Americans, it won't surprise me at all if this happens.

Sarkazein said...

The Zimmerman trial will be a complicated trial. The prosecution will throw everything against the wall.
Another thing making this situation so bad, is there was no Grand Jury as is normal in these cases. Zimmerman is being railroaded, no doubt.

Anonymous said...

Whackomole, Which mass shooting in Florida are you referring to at 9:58 am today?

guy faulkes said...

I the shooting under discussion took place in Colorado.

The loons are already calling for gun bans because of the actions of one man who also used gas attacks and bobby trapped his apartment with explosive and incendiary devises.

As they left says, never let a crisis go to waste, especially if they can use the actions of a very few to infringe on the rights of many.

NewGuy said...

And, of course, ABC rushed right out with info that the shooter "may" have been a member of the Tea Party.

They retracted it later when they confirmed that it wasn't so, but they sure rushed to get that possibly "important" information out.

I wonder if he turned out to be a member of the Democrat party and, if so, did ABC report that?

USS Rodger Young said...

The left called the Colorado shooter a Tea Partier. Didn't, um, Liberal POV, say the same thing about Jared Laughtner right after the Giffords shooting?

Amazing how the left loves to stereotype and classify people to fit their agenda.

Bloomburg is already using the shooting as a platform for gun control. Mr. Bloomburg, shouldn't you allow the bodies to cool and families to grieve before you capitalize on an event like this? Typical liberal.

Anonymous said...

Whackomole, Which mass shooting in Florida are you referring to at 9:58 am today?

Sarkazein said...

A'mouse- See, you came up with a screen name... "Mole".

USS Rodger Young said...

I see Lautenburg is already clammering for magazine restrictions. What Lautenburg and other liberal socialists don't realize, is that Cinemark Theatres already outlawed the carrying of guns in their theatres several years ago. Ergo!, the problem was solved.....uh, until the Colorado shooting.

I wonder why those gun-ban signs posted at Cinemark didn't ward off the shooter? Was it because he couldn't read? No, that couldn't be it, because he was in graduate school so he could probably read fairly well. Gosh, I would've thought a gun ban sign would prevent a crazed loon from entering an area and shooting people. What was I thinking? I mean, why didn't he pay attention to that sign? I just don't understand why the signs, which disarmed everyone else, didn't disarm this crazed coward?

Can any of you liberal socialist sheep maybe help me out with this one since you're all claiming to be so smart about gun bans and such? LOL! This ought to be interesting.

USS Rodger Young said...

The gun ban signs in the area parks, will those signs be enough to ward off an attacker armed with a gun? I mean, all the law abiding folks will give up their guns to comply with said signs, so won't the bad guys as well?

USS Rodger Young said...

They rushed as fast to say the Colorado shooter wasn't an Islamist terrorist as they did to implicate the Tea Party and conservatives. Amazing how racist and divided the liberal socialists have made this country.

USS Rodger Young said...

Nothing to come back with eh you liberal socialist sheep? You're slugs of the lowest order. The simple fact you would deny Americans liberty and freedom suggests your upbringing was less than satisfactory. What a bunch of slimy, buggared sheep.

guy faulkes said...

Have you ever noticed that whenever there is a gun control measure soon to be decided, there is always a multiple shooting that the left uses to try to panic people? The first example I can remember was the Tower shooter at the college in Texas.

Anonymous said...

Well, Guy, I am glad that you are catching on as to the procedure. It's called "false flag" or the original term was Hegelian Dialectic or problem, reaction, solution, which always results in more centralized control.

This strategy is used not only within a country but is used internationally.

It is obvious that if this shooting was just a spontaneous act of an unstable mind, the media would not be hyping it. They will hype this tragedy for a longer period for a reason.

Now, the authorities will use this terrible act to push for the UN small arms treaty; that is, even more disarming of the American people.

Happily Married said...

You people are paranoid delusional. I challenge the site operator to keep these comments and repost them 4 years from now if Obama is elected and see how many of these ridiculous predictions will be true. Just like the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the health care law, the supreme court will never allow the ban on hand guns. AR 15's maybe - but not handguns. Here's a thought. What if we started having a discussion of issues from the center and then try to reach some reasonable solutions. Your typical approach is the same problme thta congress has today (and why they are so unpopular) You people (Sark, USS, etc.) are so far one sided and disparaging of any one elses opinions that you are offensive and no one wants to deal with you. You represent the problem - not the solution.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- The "middle/center" is the quasi-socialism that got us into this huge national debt and deficit. The push is by utopian-socialists who if nothing else are persistent. The formation of this quasi-socialism is the pulling away from what made the USA great. It's worth the fight to to bring it back from "middle" (quasi-socialism). The "center" will do nothing but put the country in a deeper malaise.

Sarkazein said...

LIberals are weird people. Happy includes in her comment calling those who disagree with her "paranoid delusional" and then goes on to insult Sark and USS for "disparaging anyone else's opinion".

The dangerous "center".

guy faulkes said...

Historically there is always a well publicized event that somehow occurs before any vote on gun control.

HM, guns have already been banned, though a little at a time. Even so the issue is dangerous for politicians that want to be re-elected.

Banning the importation of guns is what caused Bush the elder to lose his bid for re-election.

This is one area in which the left is losing mightily. The AR15 "assault rifle" (it is really only a semi-automatic sporting rifle) is a case in point. They are so main stream that there are more of these for sale at the local WalMart than any other make and model of rifle.

Let me propose a solution from the center. Issue everyone over the age of 18 a gun. require them to qualify with it and carry it. This would be somewhat analogous to Switzerland's policies.

USS Rodger Young said...

Happily Dumb,

Who made you God? You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with a liberal socailist lemming sheep (you) is wrong. Take a look in the mirror to see what infects this country. Then take a gander at this site and see the potential solutions to fix what you tards screwed up. Anyone in favor of the government mandated purchase of products, goods, and services is a fringe left extremist (you).

USS Rodger Young

USS Rodger Young said...

Happily Dumb,

The theatre in Colorado was posted against carrying guns into the theatre. Why didn't these signs stop the crazed gunman who killed 12? Can you explain that?

And why did it stop lawful Americans from carrying guns into the theatre for self protection? Can you explain that?

Tough questions, tough questions....


USS Rodger Young

guy faulkes said...

Maybe the owners of the theater should be sued for a civil rights violation. After all, they deprived the public of the means to defend themselves.

Happily Married said...

Here's the thing,

I am being called dumb, tard, liberal socialist lemming sheep, weird, and then being admonished for for writing paranoid delusional. The main feature of delusional disorder is the presence of delusions -- unshakable beliefs in something untrue. Guns will not be banned, be confiscated or anything remotely similar, even if Obama is elected. My comment had basis - your comments are simply insults. What you don't understand is that I am a proud gun owner and firmly support the right to bear arms (yet I am being labeled as liberal?). I also think that bearing arms is not a right that should be handed out like candy. I am fine with issuing everyone a gun - as long as it is paired with cutting our defense spending (we spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined). If everyone had a gun, why would we need the defense. Th concept of personal protection can be handled with a handgun (I have 3). AR-15's are military type guns. Why not let them go through the same rigors as automatic weapons? What is the justification of typical US citizens having one. To defend ourselves against outside enemy forces (is that not why we pay for the US military?) To defend ourselves against our own government (when are we finally going to start trusting this great country and the democratic systems that have been put into place). I personally have a 12 ga pump to defend against a zombie apocalypse. What exactly is everyone worried about?

Sarkazein said...

People like you with the right to vote.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- The Second Amendment is an inalienable right, not "a right you are kinda OK with". So who's supposed to "issue" these guns on your approval?

Anonymous said...

"sark" the ever present optimist hoping to get America back a to a simpler time. When only white males could vote.

"People like you with the right to vote."

Tell me "sark" what should determine somebodies eligibility to vote ?

Anonymous said...

The trolls are busy today.

Happily Married said...

Sark -Guy Faulkes said to issue guns to all - ask him. You are trying to distinguish a right to be either inalienable - incapable of being transferred and I suggested no different. That does not mean that restrictions based on safety should not apply. Here is the perfect opportunity to debate something from the center. Acknowledging that I firmly believe in the second amendment, I also think that reasonable safety restrictions should apply. Do you believe that felons convicted of violent crimes should be able to own an uzi? If not, then we agree that some restrictions are reasonable - the debate is where those restrictions lie. Keeping track of guns does not mean restriction of rights - it means guns are being kept track of. It does not mean the gov is going to confiscate your guns (remember the paranoid comment) it means some restriction or record keeping for safety purposes is acknowledged. If gun owner cold acknowledge these things, and help pass laws that would appease the anti gun movement, everyone might get along (see comment earlier on how debates like this are simply being stalled at congress because no one wants to start from the center - it seems to be either all or nothing and that is exactly what gets done (guess which))

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Your "center" is Left. Ask the countries who did gun registration (which we have here on most new guns purchased) what happened to their gun rights... australia and Canada for instance.

You say handguns are OK. It is only recently that States started the Shall Issue laws. Before, most States allowed rifles but handguns were heavily restricted. Now you want rifles restricted and not handguns. So State liberals could vote, again, and outlaw handguns. One could only own rifles and shotguns which are extremely difficult to carry around.

So I don't want to leave my inalienable rights to confused liberal voters who will and always will been try to have the government ALLOW an inalienable right with your version of what's OK and what's not OK.

Out of the top five mass shooting, only one was in the US. The others were in countries with heavy gun restrictions.

This is why your voting is scary.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Look what it took to get NY and Illinois and DC to have to admit the Second Amendment is an individual right. Note all three have some of the worst crime rates in the country. Those governments got away with it for decades and are still fighting it even after the Supremes verified the 2nd.

Sarkazein said...

I think a felon, if he served all his time, should be allowed to purchase and vote. "He paid his debt to society".

Happily Married said...

Sark,

A convicted felon who was in for a violent crime should have the right to purchase an AR 15 with a 30 round clip? You understand that serving time is not the same as rehab and that he might have just served 15 years brewing over the unjust sentence and the damage one person can do? And you call my vote scary and my ideas left? Your ideas are certainly not center. The supremes did verify the second but also in dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. We obviously disagree in that I say restrictions (in accordance with the supremes) are valuable and should be instituted and it sounds like you say no restrictions should be ever be imposed. I will repeat myself for the sake of those who do not read. Left is to outlaw guns - something I do not want to do. Right is to allow absolutely no restrictions (sounds good to you) I believe guns should be allowed with reasonable restrictions for safety. Now, can we have a center based conversation on what are reasonable restrictions?

guy faulkes said...

What the anti gun loons do not understand is that man fights with his mind, not a gun, knife or any other inanimate object. The availability of these objects make it easier for the law abiding to defend themselves but the absence of them does not keep a criminal from harming people. The anti gunners are perfectly happy with a 200 pound man being able to do anything he wants to a 100 pound woman or that a tyrannical government can do anything it wants to the citizens it oppresses.

HM, do you have a problem with mandatory service for every law abiding citizen in which he is issued a gun along the lines of the Swiss policies? If so, why?

Sarkazein said...

Happy- You start your comment with Leftist theology. How is that center? Until Democrats started to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of Blacks, there really wasn't much regulation. Your whole comment here wants to START with the idea we must further regulate (way Left of Center)... I won't play.

guy faulkes said...

The brother of one of the Colorado victims just made the same point as I made at 6:39 on Fox news.

In addition, he indicated it was wrong to use the incident for politically calling for gun control.

USS Rodger Young said...

Happily Dumb,

You're even dumber than I originally thought. Safety in any form has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. We must, via the 2nd Amendment, maintain a balance of power in this country. Any sway in that balance desecrates the public liberty. Loose gun laws are in keeping with what made and makes this country the free land it is. Perhaps some will abuse it, but that should not matter to those concerned with freedom. Our founding fathers understood this very simple concept thinking it important enough to enshrine it in the law of the land.

Time erodes values, virtue and morality, especially among liberal sheep such as yourself, but the Constitution is a framework designed to keep US from changing, not the other way around.

How is a right restricted and then still able to remain a right? Playing pretty in the sandbox might be your way of getting through life, but liberty minded Patriots like Wolf's Head, Faulks, the late Bushrod Gentry, New Guy, and sometimes Blogger know better. Better to make difficult choices now than be chained by good intentions of idiots later.

Wake up Happily Dumb. Quit being so naive.

USS Rodger Young

USS Rodger Young said...

So called assault weapons (a misnomer applied by uninformed liberals like Happily Dumb) have a place in America. The fact is, we've always had assault weapons in our society, from the Revolutionary War period to the present. The Kentucky Long Rifle was the assult weapon of its time as was Colt's revolver. An improvement in design is always going to occur, and I don't know about you, but I wish to remain relevant when it comes to personal armament. The public liberty demands it.

Do the liberals ever pause from their incessant babble to realize that mass shootings didn't occur until about 25 years ago (the Texas University shootings being the glaring exception)? But we had assault weapons via mail order back then with no problems. Heck, our Grandfathers remember when the corner Hardware right here in Watauga County sold silencers and Thompson Submachine guns. No problems with REAL assault weapons back then. What's changed? Weapons are harder to come by compared to back then, so what's the problem?

The public morality has eroded. No corporal punishment in schools, spoiled kids, an expectation of success without having to earn it, no hard times to build character, no hard work for kids, and on and on.... Do you liberals ever stop to think it may be the very policies you advocate that causes these shootings. It certainly isn't assault weapons as history has shown. The weapons haven't changed. In fact, they are more mundane now than back in Grandpap's day. But the social structure isn't there anymore.

You libertards ask yourself this. Would it be possible, even remotely, for a punk to walk into Boone Drug in 1950 and use the F-Bomb in front of women and children? What would've happend to said individual? Would someone have called the police, or would the community take care of the situation with little fear of police reprisal?

Fast forward to today. The F-Bomb can and is used in front of women and children. If society dares intercede, police reprisals, not against the perpetrators of the F-Bomb, but against the interceders, will be swift and final. Is the system better today or in 1950? And you idiots are trying to blame it on assault weapons? What a bunch of libertards.

USS Rodger Young

USS Rodger Young said...

Happily Dumb is busy banging assault weapons when we have illegal alien gang members threatening violence on Watauga County schoolchildren for the FIRST time in Watauga County history.

Not a peep from the liberals. Happily Dumb, you say assault weapons are a problem, but illegal alien gang members ready to violently assault Watauga County schoolchildren isn't? Strange.

More people (nearly twice as many) died in the United States from fists and feet than assault weapons. Not a peep from liburturds on banning fighting. Assault weapons account for an extremely small percentage of gun homicides in this nation, yet, for some odd reason, the liberal sheep want them banned. Could it be because they fear freedom and individual responsibility more than anything else? Well, Happily Dumb, do you?

LOL!! Class, we've given the liberals entirely too much to chew on this evening. Will they buck up and try to answer or run away? My guess is they will cut and run (again). LOL!

USS Rodger Young

Happily Married said...

Once again, I have been called names and ridiculed when I asked for a simple dialogue on finding a center. You people do not seem to be capable of constructive dialogue.
1) I simply reference the AR-15 as the weapon of choice of the latest killer - I have no particular qualms with it over another gun
2) I am a firm believer that guns do not kill people - people kill people.
3) I am not perfectly happy with a 200 pound man beating up a 100 pound woman I think they should be hung by their testicles.
4)I have no problem with mandatory service with a gov issued weapon.
5)I have a big problem with any gang members threatening violence in our schools - illegal or not. This thread is about gun control not illegals.

You people represent the worst in democracy and it is reflected in you peers at all levels of government. I am interested in dialogue - no names called in this post. If you are capable, please respond. If USS calls me Happily Dumb one more time, it proves his inability for constructive dialogue and proves my point that his approach is the problem. I look forward to some considerate dialogue on finding ways to meet both sides in the middle of this issue.

Sarkazein said...

"You people represent the worst in democracy"
"You people are paranoid delusional."
"delusional disorder"
"You people represent the worst in democracy"

Who said that?

USS Rodger Young said...

Happily Dumb,

You asked for dialouge and then complain when you're given dialouge. Typical liberal socialist. Could it be the dialouge doesn't fit YOUR moderate stance. And perhaps your "moderate" stance is so left of center to be laughable. In fact, you are laughable.

ANY breach of freedom is to be suspicioned. ANY attempt at abrograting God given, inalienable rights is to be treated with due caution (which I did in your case).

You have not been called names my liberal socialist sheep of a friend. The monikers used to describe you do just that, describe you. Don't take it personal or anything, but you're a LIBERAL. That's not name calling but simply a reference to your condition. Calm down.

As for the rational discussion you seem to want so bad, I just gave you a rational discussion on societal breakdown replete with examples. I also explained, quite clearly, that assault weapons have been in existance in this country for hundreds of years. It wasn't until about 20 years ago that mass shooting occured. So it can't be the dreaded assault weapons which, again, are less effective than they were in 1930.

Balls in your court you liberal lemming. Try and argue why I need to give up an essential right and see the literary pounding you will recieve. LOL!!

Liberals, all of a like - Try and take rights away and whine when someone doesn't let you. And, by the way, violence purported by illegal aliens does have a discussion on this blog. They might use one of the dreaded assault weapons you want to ban so bad. Instead of attacking the problem (illegal aliens in Watauga County), you attack the solution (guns). Amazing ignorance of the highest order.

Any other liberals want to join in and give HD some help?

I may have to call our other Patriot, Johnny Rico from her sabatical to see what she thinks.

Happily Married said...

point made and proven. Im out

guy faulkes said...

Thank you for your concession to Rodger, HM. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong.

USS Rodger Young said...

Thanks Guy. Did I not call it or what. The coward cut and ran when he was unable to come back with anything. So typical!!

Happily Married said...

Guyy and Roger,

If you had bothered to read, I am leaving because you are incapable of civil discourse without name calling. I have name called in the past on this site as it seemed to be the tone set by Sark and USS. I presented an opportunity to try to have an actual discussion. You people are obviously incapable. I did not cut and run, I am simply leaving because there is not point. "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig". I will reiterate it is your approach to civil discourse that is the problem with gov at all levels. Washington is deadlocked because of your approach. I tried to have a center based conversation and you cant even define center on this issue. You think absolutely no regulation is center. If that is the case where is your right perspective?

guy faulkes said...

HM, you indicated Rodger's point had been made and proven. You made no rebuttal to his well written posts.

What name did I call you other than HM?

Good By if that is your decision. However, I suspect we will hear from you again as this is the second time you have left on the same thread.

You are like LPOV. You cannot help yourself. You will continue to post but maybe under another name.

USS Rodger Young said...

Washington is deadlocked because of my approach. No. Washington is deadlocked because of YOUR approach.

When the questions get too hot, you quit. The liberal socialist parasite politicians in DC are the same. They create gridlock to draw attention from the real problem.

Tax tax reform. Liberal socialist lemming sheep, such as yourself, are scared to death of a flat tax and doing away with the IRS. Politicians in DC purposfully create gridlock to muddle the issue. I include Republitard RINOs in this equation as well as they are liberal socialists even worse than Democratic liberal socialists (you).

You yourself, Happily Dumb, are creating the same gridlock of sorts on this very post. You're scared to death to engage me on several tough questions and use name calling as an escape route. Toughen up you parasitic, welfare sucking slug. Toughen up and battle it out on this post.

Which question exactly brought you over the edge? My guess is the illegal alien gang member question. That always silences a liberal.

USS Rodger Young


Shine the name, shine the name...Rodger Young