This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He 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.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Good Neighbor



The sign reads:

My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns.
Their house is not armed.
Out of respect for their opinions
I promise not to use my gun to protect them

86 comments:

oatz said...

Great IDEA and Sign! I hope Liberal POV is not the guy next door.

guy faulkes said...

I had a neighbor like this once. She changed her mind when I had to shoot a rabid raccoon off of her porch.

I am of the opinion that those that will not live up to their responsibility to protect themselves and their families should be subject to a special tax to reimburse the rest of us for having to do it for them, be it personally or for the cost of increased law enforcement.

Sarkazein said...

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect your neighbors property if they tell you to protect their property. If they don't tell you to, it can be up to the Grand Jury if you do use deadly force. All my neighbors will say "I will be gone for a couple of days, protect my house like it was your own". This gives a defense to prosecution , if you blow away a couple of burglars.
I have two unarmed neighbors. One is a Purple Heart Vietnam vet that promised himself he would never touch a gun again...he hasn't. The other, I am not sure why. Yet both of them say "Protect my house like it is your own" and neither are liberals.

Wolf's Head said...

I for one see no need to risk my life and liberty for those who have tried so hard to take our rights away from us.

If someone is attacked and are defending themselves I'll help. If they are helpless such as children or the elderly I'll help. If they're whiny libs who are trying to destroy America I might call 911 or I might not.

Let the lefties tell their attackers that it's not their fault, that they are victims of a white man based society with inherent injustices and see how well that helps them.

They might get shot just to shut them up.

Johnny Rico said...

Here in North Carolina, one can use deadly force, however the District Attorney will decide if the home or property owner has exercised due diligence in using the least amount of force necessary. Unlike Texas, one of many states to pass the "Castle Doctrine", also known as the "No Retreat Law", North Carolina is saddled with State Congresswoman Debbie Ross who will not allow Castle Doctrine to be heard.

I find Ross's actions amazing, and typically hypocritical, in light of the fact that NC State Congressman HD Soles used deadly force to thwart a home invasion at his residence this summer. Like Debbie Ross, Soles is an ardent anti-gunner who has tried for years to abridge the Constitutional Rights of North Carolinians! Do as I say, not as I do - isn't that the liberal mantra?

Wonder what the two trogyldytes (POV and his puppet Cheerleader) would have to say on this subject. LOL.

John Rico

Kyle

Liberal POV said...

Gun fetish conservatives


Let me speak for Liberal POV. I do believe in anyone's right to own a weapon for hunting or to have in their residents if they do not have a history of violent behavior ( domestic violence ), felony convictions, or mental illness. Some of the blogger here could be denied due to items mentioned above.
That weapon should not be a military or gang type weapon ( assault type weapon )and should have a trigger lock to prevent kids from making a deadly mistake. Shotguns are great for both hunting and home protection.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

The person in this house has just advertised to thieves that this home owner has items with high street value and made himself a target for a break in. Like wish he has told the criminals that his neighbors has no guns to sell on the street and not worth breaking into.

Lots guns in a home indicate you may also have large amounts of cash.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep said"

"if they do not have a history of violent behavior ( domestic violence ), felony convictions, or mental illness. Some of the blogger here could be denied due to items mentioned above."

Here you go again putting constraints on Constitutional, inalienable, God given rights. Did you know that misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence often result from non-violent behavior? With this being the case, why should someone have their rights trampled on by liberal socialist sheep such as yourself if they have never engaged in violent behavior? You see, the so-called domestic violence laws we have in this country include "mental anguish" as a form of domestic violence. Say, for instance, I called my boyfriend a stupid liberal socialist sheep during a heated arguement. After he calls the police and they come over, someone is going to jail. It doesn't matter that I never laid a hand on him, the law sees the mental anguish that I caused him as domestic violence. So, you believe I should not own a gun because I caused my boyfriend (we are getting ready to break up because he is one dumb bastard -oops there I go again) the mental anguish of being called a liberal socialist sheep? Trolls such as yourself should think before you spew ininformed filth such as this.

As for felony convictions, because someone is convicted of a felony, why should their rights to self defense end? Did they not already pay their debt to society? What about white collar felonies such as embezzlement or failure to pay child support? They were not violent in their actions. What about former "convicted felons" who were young and stupid and have come to be good citizens? I know someone who did something stupid when he was 18 back in the 1950s, was convicted of a non-violent felony, and spent 3 years on probation. 55 years and a model life later, this person shouldn't be allowed a firearm? Again, you are uninformed and a dolting idiot of a socialist.

As for the mentally ill - who are you talking about? Could it be all the returning war vetrans who may have post traumatic stress? Oh wait, that's right, you are supposedly a Vietnam Vet yourself aren't you? Well, by golly, you are probably suffering from PTSD which means you should automatically have your 2nd Amendment rights stripped. And while we are at it, your family should be prohibited from owning firearms for the rest of their lives also since they lived with you. Sounds absolutely crazy doesn't it? Well my liberal idiot of a socialist, it is a sad reality for thousands of vets and their families. The draft dodging, dope smoking, dull eyed slug of a womanizing socialist Bill Clinton helped enact a little known law that places thousands of vets on the mentally defective list due to PTSD and many other supposed mental ailments. And their families too!!! Senator Richard Burr has recognized this glaring denial of basic human rights and is presenting a bill to drop the tens of thousands of vets off the mental list; many of whom don't even know they are on it. So what do you have to say o stupid one?

LOL

I doubt you will answer this, but it is great sport to make you look like the uninformed, stupid, and utterly communist child that you are!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Stacy

PS I won

Liberal POV said...

Guy, Johnny, Sark, Hate addicts

This is for you.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=who's+goina++build+your+wall&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=LagSS6vQDJS1tgfm3eDQAg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBAQqwQwAA#

Sarkazein said...

"That weapon should not be a military or gang type weapon ( assault type weapon )and should have a trigger lock to prevent kids from making a deadly mistake. Shotguns are great for both hunting and home protection."-POV

Laughable. It's hard enough to get up, grab your extra short shotgun (assault looking), or M-4, or pistol, and get to the bad guy before he hears you coming and runs away, only to come back some time when you are not there or when you don't hear him. You feel around and look for your gun-lock key, and your ammo, and run down your hall way and get cloths-lined by your 4' long duck gun trying to go through a 3' door, while you fumble putting the key in the tiny little lock. Typical liberal...telling me how I can live my life.
Hide under your bed Liberal with your tennis racket in your hand, and rely on the goodness of your intruder's heart.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

Your opinion of illegal aliens is obviously lower than mine.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"That weapon should not be a military or gang type weapon ( assault type weapon )and should have a trigger lock to prevent kids from making a deadly mistake. Shotguns are great for both hunting and home protection."

And why should a law abiding citizen not be able to own a semi-automatic weapon? I notice you said military or gang type. Military weapons are select fire, fully automatic capable weapons for the most part which is already prohibited for public use (unless you have the license). So on to the "gang weapon". What is a gang weapon? Is this a weapon designed for gang use in mind? Which firearms company designs and markets weapons for gang use? I am confused by your remarks which make absolutly no sense.

I have several AR 15s, M14s, and M1 Carbines. These weapons do not fire fully automatic and thus do not meet your defintion of military type weapons (assault weapons). Does this mean you agree that I should be able to exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights, as you are doing on this blog via the 1st Amendment, and own and operate these weapons systems? If not, can you put forth an arguement as to why I shouldn't?

Trigger Locks? You are saying the government should dictate what I do in my own home? Do you practice safe sex with your wife or husband? Perhaps I can come over, install a camera in your bedroom and agents of society can monitor it to see if you engage in any harmful sexual behavior. You know, things like sodomy. Sodomy helps to increase the chances of sexually transmitted diseases, and you must be protected from yourself, right? LOL!!!!

Back to trigger locks. These devices render a weapon useless when you need one. What good is a gun unless it is loaded and ready to fire? What do you say to the burgler who is pounding your head in while lasciviouly eyeing your wife who will, in a moment or two, endure a hard, long, and pleasureful (for the perpetrator) RAPE? Do you say, "Gee honey, just grit your teeth and try to enjoy it as it's better to be a rape victim than have a loaded, easily accessible gun in the home to defend yourself with." You know, POV, you live in a bubble. You come to Watauga County, buy some cheap land from some poor hillbilly (can we say exploitation), and now want to change things back into what it was that brought you here in the first place. Do you realize that one of the reasons our county is crime free is because, for the past 300 years or so, most of the homes have loaded, easily accessible weapons? And you think you know enough to say otherwise? Move back to whatever utopia you slugged in from!!! And please don't resort to "for the kids". That is getting old. Gun accidents are at an all time low which is a good thing considering the population has expanded and so has the amount of guns in circulation. How about educating children? Ever think of that? What a novel idea. Like most of my relatives and friends here in Watauga County, I grew up with loaded guns in the house. My brothers, sisters, and I knew what was what, and there were never any problems with guns. Same with the other thousands of families in this once great place to live (great until outsiders like POV moved in and tried to change it). And now you want trigger locks for a non-existant problem?

Let me ask you, idiot, what other government controls do you want on your personal freedoms? A nanny state able to make all your decisions for you perhaps? Do you really want to have the government in your OWN HOME judging you? I can only think you are stupid enough to want that very thing which I find seditious. Instead of a trigger lock law, we should come up with a "Un American law" in which seditious fools like yourself would be deported to places like England, France, Mexico, or Kenya where the firearms laws are really working!!!!

LOL!!!

Your ole pal again
Johnny Rico

PS Were you born stupid or did you just get that way?

Heather

guy faulkes said...

POV, as the Supreme Court has decided keeping and bearing arms is my individual right, you do not have the authority to tell me what type of arms I can or cannot have. The next case before the Supreme Court is whether states can limit this right. Fortunately, North Carolina's Constitution also contains the identical wording as does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (It does limit the right to carry concealed, but we have a "shall issue" permit that allows people to do so.) This is a very fortunate circumstance as it not only helps us protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists such as you support, but also from a tyrannical government such as you propose. In other words, it protects us from you.

You have inadvertently admitted that those that own guns are usually better educated and more financially successful than those that do not. Take your posts for example. It is residence, not residents. A residence is a home. Residents are those that live in a home. Also it is "some of the bloggers" (plural), not "some of the blogger" (singular) unless you wish to preform an amputation on Blogger. While I frequently make mistakes as to spelling and typing, I usually can get the proper word.

You ignore the fact that a criminal's worst fear is encountering an armed citizen. In most cases, a police officer tries to catch a criminal after the crime has been committed. If a criminal meets an armed citizen, then he is probably going to be stopped in the commission of his crime. Sometimes, he is shot.

Honest Debate said...

"I do believe in anyone's right to own a weapon for hunting or to have in their residents..." -LiberalPOV

You're sick man.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep:

Something more on the trigger lock thing. Extreme ANTI-GUN Democratic State Senator HD Soles shot a burgler in his home this past summer. Wanna bet this hypocritical idiot didn't have a trigger lock on his weapon? Again, it is do what I say, not what I do - this is the liberal socialist sheep mantra isn't it?

Oh, and why did you not answer to my original post concerning the Castle Doctrine and NC State Senator Debbie Ross's efforts to defeat it? Is it because you do not agree with the Castle Doctrine? If you don't agree with Castle Doctrine, then shouldn't State Senator HD Soles be prosecuted for not fleeing out his bedroom window instead of using deadly force?

Tough questions, tough questions.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS When I shut Watauga Watch down in about 5 minutes, it was due to questions like this that never got answered. LOL!!!!!

PS This ought to be interesting!!!!

Sarkazein said...

To each his own.

Johnny Rico said...

And finally Liberal Socialist Sheep POV,

The reason the 2nd Amendment exists and the reason Americans need to own actual, honest to good assault weapons (full auto), is so the people can be as well armed as the government. This prevents government oppression from occuring. Things like 10 million citizens burning in furnaces across a country doesn't happen when the citizens are able to defend themselves.

Did you hear in England that Boy Scouts will no longer be able to carry pocket knives while camping or at any other scouting event. What do you think about that? LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS The tough questions just keep coming don't they?

Heidi

Johnny Rico said...

Wow,

Ladies and gentlemen, that was a first class battering of Liberal Socaialist Sheep POV. Talk about converging on the poor idiot; this was first class!!!!!!

Good stuff!!!!

guy faulkes said...

Sark, what do you suppose it would cost to shoot a 100 round course of fire with a tank? That would be FUN!

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Re-arranging the junk yard (plinking!) might be expensive, but worth it.

Liberal POV said...

Gun Fetish Conservatives

How many of you meet the non violent behavior ( domestic violence ),non felony convictions, or sanerequirement? Some of the blogger here could be denied due to items mentioned above.

How many times have you had to shoot an intruder or been in a situation your weapon was required and you had no other options?

I'm sixty three and traveled all over the world and never found myself without other options, but I do own a couple of guns some where.

Liberal POV said...

Gun fetish freaks

I believe there's a connection between men with small endowment and the need for big guns.

Liberal POV said...

Gun fetish freaks

I believe there's a connection between men with small endowment and their need for big guns.
Only you folks with a gun fetish would know but I suspect you would lie about it any way.

Liberal POV said...

Johnny

"Did you hear in England that Boy Scouts will no longer be able to carry pocket knives while camping or at any other scouting event. What do you think about that? LOL!!!"

If you and Guy weren't so extreme I could support you on some things.

When I was 15 I opened a gas stations with a loaded revolver alone. The gas station set out in the country along a major highway and had been robbed several times.
My brother and I would come home from school and that a shotgun and go hunting alone.

We never had gun fetishes.
There is a hugh gap between that childhood and today's kids. We played along the railroad tracks and understood if we did something really stupid we would die. We rode in the back of pickup trucks and in trucks not only without seat belts but without doors.

Yes today I strongly support seat belt laws and restrictions on kids not riding on the highway in the back of pickup trucks.

Some where there's a strong arguments to let kids have more freedom.

guy faulkes said...

POV, I already answered your questions about how many times I have used a gun for self protection. Quit using the same lame questions as it makes you look like even more of an idiot.

Once again you resort to bumper sticker talking points. You allude that those that like guns have a problem with the length of their penis. In doing so you give evidence to two things. One is that you apparently suffer from some kind of penis envy. The other is that you are a bigoted sexist. It might interest you to know that women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners.

You make a point, but you do not realize the point you make. Young people used to be taught that they are responsible for their own behavior. Unfortunately, due to the liberal upbringing they have had, a large number of adults no longer know this irrefutable fact. We used to punish our children when they misbehaved. From this they learned there are consequences to unacceptable behavior. Under the liberal process of child rearing, there is no punishment for misbehavior or no reward for exceptional behavior. Everyone gets a trophy, so the trophy means nothing. Idiots like you have only delayed this lesson from being taught, because sooner or later, life will teach it to you. Even if you are successful in obtaining your socialist agenda, life will still teach it to you. The support these liberal adults gave Obama is now teaching them the lesson and as the polls show, they are learning it.

It is especially telling that you accuse members of this blog of crimes such as domestic violence, of misdemeanors, and of not being able to pass mental health checks. You do not like us, so you make accusations with no proof. On the contrary, many of the bloggers on this site have stated they hold concealed carry permits, which check for all of the charges you make. What a pathetic bigot you are.

We really must have struck a nerve. Your multiple asinine responses certainly indicate this.

Do you have Alzheimer's? You should be able to remember better and post more logically if you are only 63. Adult dementia would explain a lot about you. If so, please accept my apologies for calling you an idiot. It may be true, but you can't help it.

Anonymous said...

Guy

" You allude that those that like guns have a problem with the length of their penis.

No, just those with an obcession with guns or fetish like you. Sorry if I hit a nerve.

I don't remember to day you and your gun saved the day. Was it you shot at a stray dog or wild animal?

The word's elude, I to sometimes foget to use spell check.

bridle said...

Those people must not be Christians. It was Christ who said " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..."
"That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
There was other stuff along the lines of "blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful."
Those people in the photo must be too mean to be Christian. But that's OK. We are a diverse country and mean people can live here too as long as they don't break any laws.

Sarkazein said...

POV- You are making me uncomfortable by your fantasizing about my privates.

Sarkazein said...

Bridal- how do you think it got it's name?

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous , are you POV? You must really have Alzheimer's if so. Try to remember to sign your post.

I believe allude is the correct term. Pronunciation:

Allude
\ə-ˈlüd\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): al·lud·ed; al·lud·ing
Etymology: Latin alludere, literally, to play with,
Date: 1533
: to make indirect reference


Elude to which you refer is to avoid.

Elude
Pronunciation: \ē-ˈlüd\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): elud·ed; elud·ing
Etymology: Latin eludere,
Date: 1667
1 : to avoid adroitly : the mice eluded the traps, managed to elude capture

Your word does not fit the context of the sentence. Nice try, but no cigar if your aim was to disassemble. If not, you need help with your vocabulary.

Are you sure you are not BB in hiding? The post reads more like him.

Bridle, I seem to remember Jesus throwing the money changers from the temple and also telling his disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword if they did not have one. The neighbors in the photo apparently ignored the latter instruction, as a sword was the mainstream military weapon of the time. You do not get to pick and choose what part of the Bible makes you a Christian.

Good point Sark. There are different types of people that make and keep the peace. I guess Bridle is for disarming law enforcement officers.

Sarkazein said...

An estimated 1,382,012 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2008, showing a decrease of 1.9 percent from the 2007 estimate. Per FBI stats.

According to POV, since it didn't happen to him personally, then the need for deadly force self-defense is silly and only for the unendowed.
The Left has always been the most short-sighted, selfish, shallow thinking and heartless group of people in America. And Liberal POV is the poster child.

Sarkazein said...

Oh, that is just the reported violent crimes that made it to the FBI. The FBI does not get them all.

Carry a revolver, you may not want to leave spent casings around.

bridle said...

Oh...I see. Jesus really meant to blow your enemies away. Funny they didn't mention that interpretation in Sunday school when I was growing up.
Funny thing that about the money changers. You would almost think Jesus had something against poor capitalists just trying to make a buck.

Liberal POV said...

Gun fetish Folks

Despite al the insults you failed to answer the question.

How many times have you had to shoot an intruder or been in a situation your weapon was required and you had no other options?

Now if you're an officer of the court, parole officer, judge, attorney or deal in drugs you may need to care a weapon that I understand.
Those like Guy and Sark maybe just compensating for other short comings.

Honest Debate said...

"How many times have you had to shoot an intruder or been in a situation your weapon was required and you had no other options?" -LiberalPOV

How is that question relevant? It means nothing.

How sure are you that you will NEVER EVER EVER have to defend yourself or your family?

Sarkazein said...

POV-
One of the problems with liberals making federal laws, is the laws apply to all. Not only the people of Happy Village, but also the people of all the other places in the country. This is one of the many reasons the Founders did not give the federal government the power to regulate individuals all over the country.

I can play stupid questions also. How many times have you been shot by a law abiding citizen while she was defending her self or her property or her children or husband?
What do you say to the 1,382,012 victims of violent crime, that were not as crafty or as fast at running away as you?
So we have 1,382,012 to 1. Shame on your selfishness.

Sarkazein said...

"How sure are you that you will NEVER EVER EVER have to defend yourself or your family?"-H.D


Reality says he cannot be sure. This concept escapes liberals.

guy faulkes said...

How many times have you had to shoot an intruder or been in a situation your weapon was required and you had no other options? - POV

POV you appear to think the only way to defend yourself with a gun is to shoot someone, You do not think a successful defense has been made if the assailant runs off. This has happened to me three times. I have also had to kill several vicious and / or rabid animals.

I can believe that POV wrote this last post due to the poor syntax of the sentences. (POV, you really need to get some help with your ability to communicate with the written word.) The previous post by Anonymous does not seem to be the work of POV as it shows a more correct sentence structure, if a poor vocabulary. In any case, how about answering the question I asked you? Do you have Alzheimer's? This is not an insult, but a reasonable question when one takes the quality of your posts into account.

I have refuted everything you said. You have made the same lame arguments you started with. Yawn.

Bridle, maybe you need to do a little more Bible study. The moneychangers were not capitalists. They were charlatans and con men running gambling (the casting of lots) in the temple. They did mention that in Sunday School when I was growing up. In other words, they were likely liberals.

bridle said...

Guy, Your Ann Coulter face is showing. Are you trying to outnasty the queen of mean? Just because she and the rest of those wing-nut crazies make millions being nasty doesn't make it a decent or honorable way to behave.You should learn that sarcasm (comes from the phrase "to tear flesh") isn't the same as intelligence.
Those Ad hominem attacks on LPOV only demonstrate the shallowness of your thoughts.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, I have not attacked POV. I have asked legitimate questions as to whether he posted under the name Anonymous and gave reasons for my skepticism of this having happened. This is the manner one should follow in presenting an opinion. Do you refute what I have said about the quality of the posts? If so, why?

What was your comment concerning Jesus and capitalism if not sarcasm? Why are you allowed this form of communication at the same time you say it is mean while accusing others of using same? Exactly what did I say that you consider sarcastic? Why do you consider it so? What I have said may not have been as tactful as you like, but it was not sarcastic. To bad for you.

Did you do any Bible study yet?

Johnny Rico said...

My my, it looks as if Liberal Socialist Sheep POV is a bit plussed!! LOL!! And then we have an Anonymous and Unbridled Idiot posting also. Mmmmmmmm. Makes one wonder about multiple personalities and such. Funny, Liberal Socialist Sheep POV and his personalities have done what most liberal socialists on the run do - resort to emotion and name calling to redirect the arguement.

Liberal Socialist Sheep; I posted three posts with some tough questions in them. Why are you unable to answer even one? Is it becasue you are a blithering idiot or is it because you can not defend your beliefs. I think it is both!!!! LOL!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Susan

PS Faulks and Sark just ate you lunch (again). You have nothing to come back with except emotion. Poor Liberal Socialist POV - someone give him a sucker for his well worn mouth!!!! LOL!!!!

Professor Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep:

And what do you think if State Senators Ross and Soles? You never answered as to the hypocrisy of those two. Why not!!! LOL!!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Liberal POV said...

Gun fetishers

You can own a weapon to defend your home or in certain occupations, attorneys, officers of the court, bail bondsman, drug dealers carring a weapon on your person may be needed. What I'm hearing from Guy, Sark is they just want to feel more powerful and have an obcession with that feeling of additional power to compensate for other short comings.This would be a gun fetish.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

So the drug dealers need guns and granny with coveted prescription drugs in her medicine cabinet living on the same street doesn't?

As to the fetish thing, let's accept your ridiculous inane premise. So what? Who cares? Is it wrong to "want to feel more powerful" than murderous thugs? In your world must one dislike guns to own one?

Honest Debate said...

"Mmmmmmmm. Makes one wonder about multiple personalities and such." -Johnny Rico

They may have multiple monikers and personalities but their views are carbon copies of each other. To know those views just check the DNC talking points.

Liberal POV said...

HD

All of my comments have included the right to have a gun in your home if you don't have a history of viloent behavior or criminal record.

I didn't say a drug dealer should have a gun but that a drug dealer had a need for a gun as that would be a dangerous profession. I don't believe Guy, Sark or you have such dangerous professions but too much Fox news.

Honest Debate said...

No Lib,

The right to own a gun is not in question. Your statement was on the need for a gun.

Make the case that granny doesn't need a gun. Make the case that granny shouldn't feel the power of safety. Try to give a reason more significant than "I'm sixty three and traveled all over the world and never found myself without other options".

BTW, I don't believe you are 63, I'm guessing 23.

Honest Debate said...

And another thing Lib,

How do you define "need"?

Law abiding citizens hope they never have to shoot anyone but that doesn't mean they don't need a gun.

You may go through your whole life without ever getting a flat tire. Does that mean you don't need a spare?

Liberal POV said...

HD

There a difference between gun ownership and gun fetish.
At the age of 15 when I would go to open the gas station I had a gun along with the money box.
I own guns now but they are store some where in my house unloaded covered in dust.
If I was ever threatened I'm sure I would get the dust off.
I don't live in fear and forget to lock my doors most times. I don't expect to find myself in a gun fight going to Lowes.
Gun fetish people need that extra feeling of power that a gun gives. It's not about security it's the power to overcome other short comings.
If it is about fear than the fear media has your world out of prospective or you live in a drug infested neighborhood.

Sarkazein said...

I am guessing more convenience store clerks are killed or wounded every year than are lawyers, but the ultra limited POV writes that lawyers have more reason to carry than the store clerk. Forgetting the obvious, who is more deserving, it is the retail clerk that is more often in need of self-defense.

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

Leave the psychology to Blogger. You're not making sense.

guy faukes said...

Bridle, do you have no answers?

POV, if you are serious in your stance about the need or lack thereof for a gun, maybe you should compare it to other insurance policies. You do not need them very much until you need them badly. You never know when the day you need them badly is going to arrive. I hope you never need the gun you have somewhere in your house, because, if you do, the criminal is going to harm you while you look for it. (I have to believe you have a good idea of where the gun is, maybe in your nightstand. I also hope a drunk at a gas station does not try to mug you, as happened to me.)

It must really bother you that the status of your opinion on the rest of us owning or carrying guns does not matter. You can do nothing about the fact we have a right to do so.

Congratulations on your last posts. They were much improved. Might I suggest you try to work on your conjugation? Also, do not post when you are mad. If I do that, I am sure to make many mistakes.

Anonymous said...

I sure hope somebody cares enough about open discourse to post a thread here about Mike Huckabee's all-but-dead political future. While I'm sure he and his supporters will spin it as a "voluntary decision," that deadly coffee clutch in Tacoma yesterday pretty much did him in.

Honest Debate said...

Nonnhy,

By "somebody" I take it you mean Blogger or me. By "cares enough" I assume you are implying that if there is no thread then Blogger and I don't care. I further assume you think we reserve our criticisms for liberals only and therefore will give Huckabee a pass. We don't roll that way. That's the lib's game.

From what we know at this early stage it seems that Huckabee is indeed as toasted as Dukakis was after Willie Horton and that is just.

Feel better?

Sarkazein said...

I missed the Huckabee thing. What is it?

Sarkazein said...

I just read the Huckabee thing... stick a fork in him, he's done.
If it is the same guy, there is a long line of people after Huckabee responsible for him being on the streets also.

guy faulkes said...

Although Huckabee probably is done as Sark says, I would like to know the reasoning he used when granting the pardon. Do you happen to know the facts, Anonymous?

This does deserves a thread. In it we can also discuss the lack of enforcement mandated by Homeland Security that resulted in the death of Agent Rosas. Will this effect Obama or has it been effectively hushed up? After all, all kinds of administrative decisions cost lives.

Now maybe we can get back on topic with this thread.

guy faulkes said...

Does deserve a thread. It is not fair for me to chastise poor POV and not correct my own mistakes.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You become the english teacher when your arguments are weak.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, HD.

guy faulkes said...

No, POV, I get embarrassed for you and try to help when your posts are incomprehensible.

Were you Anonymous? I really doubt it.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"No, POV, I get embarrassed for you and try to help when your posts are incomprehensible. "


You should be far more embarrassed by your own opinions of supporting unnecessary war, torture, injustice, Fox prapaganda and paying workers less than a living wage.

guy faulkes said...

POV, we have differing political viewpoints. That is perfectly acceptable. If there were no one like you to be wrong, then people like me would not be needed to be right.

The embarrassment I feel for your posts is the same embarrassment felt by those members of an oral reading class in elementary school when it takes some poor kid five minutes to read one sentence after having to be told every other word. That kid needed the same kind of help I am trying to give you. If you become more comprehensible and actually post something other than your bumper sticker talking points that you can back up with facts or logic, maybe you would do better in your debates. Did you notice Bridle had nothing to say about the quality of the posts? Keep trying, you are getting better.

Trying to help POV is helping me. Please bring my many mistakes to my attention so that I can improve myself.

bridle said...

So here's a question I really wonder about. At what point would all you hard-line conservatives (you know who you are) draw the line on weapons? Presumably there is a line where a shotgun is ok but a nuclear arsenal is not. Where would you draw that line? RPG's? Machine guns? Mortars? If someone in your neighborhood is stockpiling weapons, when would you start to get really nervous? Is any regulation OK or do you believe "anything goes"?

BikerBard said...

Faux:
You wrote, "Residents are those that live in a home."

The correct term should be "who" not "that." And you wouldn't know an intransitive verb if it came up and kicked you in the ass.

But keep on correcting others, you smug turd.

turd (noun)
1. a highly offensive term for a piece of excrement or dung
2. a highly offensive term for somebody who is seen as contemptable
3. another term for "Guy Faulkes"

Liberal POV- A question: would you put a gun in the hands of Rico or Faux?

Honest Debate said...

BB,

I'll bite but I'm no grammarian. Wouldn't "residents" be the object of the transitive verb "live" whether "who" or "that" is used? Enlighten me.

Liberal POV said...

BB

"Liberal POV- A question: would you put a gun in the hands of Rico or Faux?"

Yes, under the US Constitution even fools may own guns.

I'm not sure Johnny can make the cut for not having a history of violent behavior or that Guy won't someday shoot himself in the foot.

The biggest problem I have with the gun fetish people is most would give up their children's future for the right to own a collection of useless weapons to fight off the boogie man. These are the Rambo and Dirty Harry want-a-be.

I have no problem with responsible people owning hunting rifles, shotguns and one or two pistols for home protection.
I don't want these fools at the local bar, sporting event or family dinner looking for an opportunity to blow someone away.

The sad part every year children thousands of children get one of these loaded weapons and kill or injure themselves, sibling or the neighbor's child.
This common accident for out weights the rare occasion where a bystander or home owner stops a robbery because he or she had a weapon.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

All the weird stuff you write about gun owners comes from your own weird thoughts. You don't get much response to your beliefs, because only you can relate to them. Just because the thoughts you write of have gone through your mind, doesn't mean they are in the thought process of normal people.

guy faulkes said...

BB, you need some vocabulary context lessons. Either who or that would be acceptable. The word is being used as a conjunction in the contest of the subject sentence.

You have proven once again that I own you.

Fortunately, neither Bridle, POV, or BB have opinions that matter in the least when it comes to one exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Bridle, with the exception of a nuclear weapon, one can own any of the weapons you mentioned. It only requires two things. Obtaining the proper permit is one. The permit is usually not more difficult to obtain in North Carolina than a concealed carry permit. Being able to afford the weapon is the other.

Until a person commits a crime, it is neither my business nor yours how he decides to arm himself.

guy faulkes said...

context not contest. I am a poor typist.

Honest Debate said...

In 1980 I was building a road up a mountain in Flat Springs. I would drive to Spruce Pine and with only a drivers license I could buy a pick-up load of dynamite. My how times have changed.

Bridle, as Guy says you can't have a nuclear arsenal but Iran can.

bridle said...

So Guy and HD, Suppose your neighbor is a Muslim, has an Arabic name and a collection of rpgs, mortar launchers, and semi-automatic weapons. Are you still ok with that?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

No, I'd kill him first, confiscate his collection, burn down his house (important to confiscate prior to burning), sell the collection and use the money to pay the increased cost in ammo since Obama won the election.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Just kidding, our neighborhood doesn't allow non-Christian whites.

Sarkazein said...

correction: non-Christian, non-white, non-heterosexual, non-....you fill in the rest.

bridle said...

Sark - It's a legitimate question, no? The whole point of living in a civilized, just, society is having laws and regulations to protect us that are enforced equally. In a free society, such a ours, we have to tread a difficult balance between protection and regulation. So if there is a rpg hoarding Muslim living near an Airforce base, and an rpg-hoarding Christian in the same neighborhood, we would have to treat them equally. My prediction is that if the Muslim shoots down the fighter jets, you would be screaming negligence. But if the Christian shot down the plane you would be strangely silent. (Please remember all the terrorism committed in the name of Christianity throughout the ages before replying).
By the way, I do support the second amendment. Particularly the "well regulated" part.

bridle said...

Sark - I just now read your first post where you talk about blowing away a couple of burglars. You may know that a lot of high school kids are incredibly immature still, and are responsible for a lot of stupid type burglaries where houses are broken into and the refrigerator ransacked and stuff strewn around. How would you feel if you "blew away" a couple of 15 year olds on a tear( let's make them white and Protestant, maybe your neighbor's kids, or your second cousins). Is property that valuable to you?
Wouldn't it be better to call 911 and not shoot unless you are personally threatened?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote-By the way, I do support the second amendment. Particularly the "well regulated" part.

I am glad you like Militias.


Bridle also wrote- Sark - I just now read your first post where you talk about blowing away a couple of burglars. You may know that a lot of high school kids are incredibly immature still, and are responsible for a lot of stupid type burglaries where houses are broken into and the refrigerator ransacked and stuff strewn around. How would you feel if you "blew away" a couple of 15 year olds on a tear( let's make them white and Protestant, maybe your neighbor's kids, or your second cousins). Is property that valuable to you?
Wouldn't it be better to call 911 and not shoot unless you are personally threatened?

answer- It depends on whether or not they were wearing their hats backwards.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Your questions assume racism on our part. They also imply a lack of compassion and common sense. I don't blame Sark for not dignifying your questions with a serious response (he is a hoot though). I won't either, use you head instead of your cold cold heart.

Honest Debate said...

"Please remember all the terrorism committed in the name of Christianity throughout the ages..." -Bridle

That's sure unnecessary and distasteful but typical.

When has Christianity endorsed terrorism? Try to keep you example in this century...or the last...or the five before that.

bridle said...

Can't come up with a good answer? I didn't even call anybody insulting names!

bridle said...

Some of the acts of terrorism committed by Christians, in no particular order:
crusades, pograms, witch-burnings, the inquisition, the IRA, the brutal conquest of Latin America and the justification of slavery (to bring God to the heathens), the reformation and counter-reformation, Guy Fawkes (the original), the holocaust (justified because Jews killed Christ), bombing of women's health clinics, St Bartholomew's Day massacre, the klu klux klan, Eric Rudolph, .......
It's not just Christians though; religious nuts of all persuasions are happy to justify violence toward other religions or belief systems.

Honest Debate said...

First you said "committed in the name of Christianity" now you've changed it to "acts of terrorism committed by Christians".

There's a difference.

Honest Debate said...

I'm not sure I get your point. You seem to be saying only Republicans are Christian, they use there faith to justify acts of terror and it's as big of an issue as the threat of radical Islam is today. Or is your point that because of the crusades Muslims are justified and we that want to live free just aren't enlightened enough to understand? You know, like Rev. Wright said of 9/11, "The chickens have come home to roost". Or in other words, the terrorist have a point.

Cut to the chase and skip the BS. Bottom line it for me. What's your point? Say it.

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, age has nothing to do with deadly criminal activity. Teenage gangsters are some of the most vicious criminals in the world. They certainly deserve no more leeway than does any adult if deadly force is necessary. As a matter of fact, they may deserve less, as they may lack the maturity to stop their actions during a robbery from escalating to murder.

Sarkazein said...

Good point Guy Faulkes. And very true. Chances are they would only get probation and go on to do bigger and more destructive things. Anyone with the mind-set that breaking in to someone's home is a source of entertainment, is short for this world anyway.
The libs should look at it as a late late term abortion. This term would make it more acceptable.