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.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Guns Save Lives

This really doesn't need commentary, just listen.

Here's the back story.


guy faulkes said...

The home owner unquestionably did the right thing. The 911 operator did also. Both are to be commended.

Honest Debate said...

Liberals won't say it but if they had there way this woman would be dead.

Sarkazein said...


The libs here, would rely on the goodness of the intruder that he was only there for trinkets and currency and then would be politely on his way.
They would count on the intruder (perhaps too harsh a term) / uninvited guest waiting until the sherif got there to question the uninvited guest's motives, or to get a good description of the long gone poor misguided victim of society from the land-hoarder.

Professor Johnny Rico said...

What can liberal socialist sheep such as POV, Tricycle Lard (Cheerleader), Shyster, or Unbrideled Idiot have to negatively say about this? Bring this same situation to the macro level, and it becomes easy to see why society must be as well armed as the government. If one had asked a Jew in 1937 if he or she, as well as six million compatriots, would be placed in ovens and burned to death, the answer would have been no. And it started with disarmament.

Take the "Terrorist Watch List" or the "No Fly List" that liberal oppressors like Bloomburg and Lautenburg want to use to deny the rights of gun owners. Isn't that something straight out of the Third Reich? Secret lists for American citizens? The public still doesn't know how one is placed on the list, and it certainly doesn't know how one is taken off. And gun rights should be denied due to being on a list? Scary indeed!!!

And now that we are talking about the 911 call and resulting fatal shooting of a criminal with a lengthy rap sheet, what about Castle Doctrine in NC? Democratic Senator Debbie Ross won't allow the Castle Doctrine to be heard which has resulted in a nightmarish scenario for North Carolinians in which they are subject to the whims and politics of District Attorneys who go by different rules in each jurisdiciton. Castle Doctrine makes the rules the same across the state and gives out of control (liberal of course) District Attorneys guidelines that must be adhered to before charging property owners with using deadly force. Castle Doctrine has worked in several other states and will work in NC as well. Funny that anti-gun Democratic State Senator HD Soles used a handgun this past August to shoot an intruder in his home. Aside from the liberal news media blackout, you would think this would cause liberal socialist sheep Ross to allow the Castle Doctrine Bill to be heard.

Then again we are talking about liberal socialist sheep here who like to make American citizens victims in order to increase the power of the nanny state.

Any liberal socialist sheep idiot morons want to take a shot at this (pun intended)? How about it Shyster? Are you still smarting over the shellacking I gave you over your racist remarks in regards to the YouTube Video entitled "No Guns for Negros"? LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I won

PSS I am also hoping the liberal Craig Dudley will show his liberal socialist face and let loose with one of his typically stupid rants. How about it Dud?


guy faulkes said...

Rico makes an excellent point about the Castle doctrine, as usual, but does not go far enough. Other flaws exist in firearms law in North Carolina. 1. You cannot carry a gun to protect yourself into a restaurant that serves alcohol, even if you do not drink. It is perfectly all right for someone to get sloshed in this restaurant, go out , get in his car and drive away under the influence, but a sober citizen is not allowed the most efficient means to defend himself. 2. you cannot carry a gun into a place that charges admission. never mind that crimes occur in movie theaters, concerts, and other venues that charge admission, once again the law abiding citizen is disarmed. 3. One is not allowed to carry in state parks, even though you will bee able to carry in national parks after February. 4. Towns can pass laws that prohibit your being able to carry on public property in their jurisdiction or any proeprty owned by the municipality, either concealed or openly. This means you cannot protect yourself on property that belongs to you as much as the next man.

We would do well to follow our more enlightened neighbor, Virginia; where one can carry openly almost anywhere. It may be the same for concealed carry. I am not certain. Rico posted something about this once. Do you have any more information, Rico?

I wonder what Mr. Tharleton and Mr. Goss have to say about these issues.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

In Texas I can carry in places serving/selling alcohol unless it's total receipts are 51% for alcohol. In other words a bar. A 51% sign has to be posted at the entrance.

No rules apply to places charging admission. Unless it is an amusement park.

One can carry in State Parks and any municipal building not used as a court.

Any building can have a legal only version of a sign (both in English and Spanish) correct size and color restricting the carry. This is rare.

Honest Debate said...


Texas also is pretty serious about the death penalty. With that and all those gun toting cowboys how does the crime rate compare to other states?

Sarkazein said...


Violent crime rate is lower than Charlotte and property
crime is the same. Compare

If all the illegal aliens were gone, the crime rate would half or better.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Sark, that's what I figured. Cool site!

guy faulkes said...

An interesting video:

Honest Debate said...



Sarkazein said...

RE: Swiss gun video.

Their closeted guns and the Allies protect their freedom, while they stayed neutral. Maybe they are aware now.

No European country remained truly neutral during WWII. Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland all worked to some extent with the Axis. In Switzerland, the people who lived through the war wanted to believe that it was their army and fortifications that kept the Nazis out. Historical research and documents clearly show that if the Nazis wanted to invade Switzerland, it would have been quick and relatively easy. The reason Germany spared its tiny neighbor to the south was because Switzerland proved much more useful as an independent state than as a satellite. The Swiss made many useful weapon components (aluminium for the Luftwaffe, spark plugs for jeeps taken from the Russians, timing devices for bombs, among other things), and thus their factories were not bombed every night. The Swiss National bank bought gold from the Reichsbank, the Reichsbank was given Swiss francs in exchange, and used them to buy cobalt, nickel and tungsten from the other “neutral” countries. The Turks, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish, who were all under heavy pressure from the Allies not to accept direct gold payment from the Reichsbank, then exchanged the Swiss francs for gold. The problem was that the German gold came from the Belgian National bank reserves (not from concentration camps as some sensationalists would have it) and the neutrals knew it. Finally, the Swiss allowed trains to carry food and non-weapon supplies from Germany to Italy, with dozens of trains every day on their way to Africa. But did Switzerland have any other choice? Probably not. Totally surrounded by the Axis, most of its coal supply came from Germany every week, and all of its exports had to go through Axis controlled territory. For a landlocked country with no natural resources, this meant the Swiss had to work out some form of accomodation with their neighbors. The problem is that the postwar generations have been raised to believe that it was the Swiss army, and not the country’s usefulness to the Germans, that protected it from the wrath of war. The Swiss are now coming to terms with this part of their history, as for example the people of France and Japan have. As a foreigner, it is best to avoid passing judgment on them and giving lessons, at the risk of offending your hosts.///

Sarkazein said...

This is an interesting site showing stats on licensed gun carriers as compared to non-licensed Texans involved in crime.

Liberal Lies

guy faulkes said...

Excellent posts, Sark. You showed me some tings I had not realized abut the Swiss and the Nazi's. I had long been of the opinion that Germany could have taken Switzerland if they had wanted to, but the the Swiss would have been a hard nut to crack and were not worth the expenditures that would have been required. However, their low crime rate and high gun ownership was the point I was trying to make. Your second post reinforces this point.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

I agree the known rifles would help deter criminals and do.

What got me with the video, is the Swede talking about the old lady and the Holocaust and how he never would be in that situation. Yet his pappy and gran-pappy sat there dusting and polishing their rifles during WW2 and never leveled one on a Nazi to stop the Third Reich. That's why his ancestors rifles were in such good shape.

guy faulkes said...

This brings up an interesting moral question. If you have trained and armed yourself so as to be able to defend your self, are you legally or morally obligated to defend those that did not, especially if this will likely cause your death?

Several self defense schools teach not to get involved unless the altercation involves a family member or close friend. Never for a stranger.

Anonymous said...

Guy Faulkes-

The add in the paper read:

WW2 French rifle for sale. Never fired and only dropped once.

I think the moral question would be answered by the little voice in the head telling you what to do as the situation presented it self. I think the family or close friend thing is right, if it is a decision you make while not seeing the incident. In other words, going out of your way to get involved might be wrong. But if you see someone being beat to death and you are carrying, the little voice would tell you if it was right or not.

But speaking as defense of your country or humanity, the "no man is an island" thing kicks in.
There is no doubt Hitler would have taken over Sven's guns and country if the Allies had not done his work for him while he lazed around in the sauna eating pickled herring and acting above it all.
I am anti-neutral.

Sarkazein said...

Damn, I gave away my Hillary character, and after only one other comment. (above)

guy faulkes said...

This says it all.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- Great link. People have asked me why I carry. My answer is "Because I can" or "It's for political reasons".

If they don't understand, I won't be able to explain it to them.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, I usually tell them that I carry because my friends' lives, my family's lives, and my life are worth more than the life of he scumbag that is trying to harm them.

It doesn't do any good unless you ask them if they had to choose between shooting a man and letting him kill their child, which would they do. Sometimes if it is made personal to them they have a glimmering of understanding.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

I can tell by the expression and tone of voice on whether or not they want or deserve a serious answer.
Usually, an anti-gun liberal's face will usually at least slightly pucker up as they ask their question.

Simon Jester said...

Sark, be glad they are wearing pants. An armed free citizen causes other parts of an anti gun liberal to pucker.

Honest Debate said...

Sark and Simon J, chuckle chuckle respectively.