Subject: Fw: Anti-gun Senator shoots intruder
State Senator R.C. Soles (D - NC)
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties..
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do as i say and not as i do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
Posts
9 comments:
Without even being able to find Sole's position on weapons via a quick Googling, I'll take a wild stab: He actually supports some sort of regulations on gun ownership, which makes him "anti-gun".
Like a lot of eee-vil politicians, he may also have voted for some sort of traffic regulations, which would thereby make him "anti-car", or voted for some sort of pollution regulation, which would make him "anti-business", or voted for some sort of pharmacutical regulaitons, which would make him "anti-medicine" etc.
Rating on Gun Issues
2008: Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all candidates in 2008, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Soles a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
What an anti-gun nut.
As stated in a prior post, this reichwing conservatarded propoganda has suffered serious declines lately. This one pathetic, but I guess the gunz 'n ammo greedheads didn't feel like paying much for their propoganda, so someone "phoned" this one in.
drrrrrrr.... git yer gunz 'n ammo fer Xmas... jest ta be prepared for those LIEbruls who always wage "WAR on Xmas," whilst we T-tardz act all christiany 'n stuff.
@ferschitz n giggles
For someone who is so into separation of church and state you would think the other articles of the Constitution would have equal running. Gun ownership is a right for all citizens. If you want to tear out the parts you don't like then maybe you should just shut up!!!!
Anon, perhaps you can explain why you feel so protective of your guns? Nobody is trying to take them away.
Well, Anon proves once again that conservatives really can't be *bothered* to actually READ what someone says, analyze it's meaning & then respond intelligently.
Although my comment, above, IS rude, I NEVER said a thing about taking away anyone's gun rights, nor did I imply even slightly that the 2d Amendment should be "tossed out."
Nor did I imply or discuss anything about the separation of church and state.
So, once again we have some T-Bagger who swoops in here with her/his daily RushGlennBillo rightwingtarded talking point, which s/he barfs out in a very meaningless fashion but completely bullying and attacking fashion.
Hey, dude/dudette: believe it or not, I'm not the "enemy," even tho Sarah Palin tells you that every day. Maybe you ought to question the tinpot "gods" that you so love to imbibe from your tv & radio. Unplug yourself from FAKE "nooz" for a few days and try thinking for yourself. You might get to liking it.
Gunz 'n ammo industry: Big win!
Intelligence level of US citizens: big loss!
See, the ONLY reason that we get these anti-government screeds is because the corporations want to tap that money. They can't if it's in the public sphere.
Government = we the people.
Corporations hate that, which is why you guys get the "government is bad" drumbeat all day long.
Turn off FOX and snap out of it, already.
"Gun ownership is a right for all citizens."
Yes, indeed, it is. As are many other things, like freedom of speech, press, and assembly, protection from unlawful search and seizure, property rights, etc.
And all of those freedoms, including, gun ownership, are in some way REGULATED for the public good, and have been since VERY early on in the Republic.
Your freedom of speech and the press does not extend to libel, slander, or falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of assembly is regulated by fire codes. Your freedom of religion is cut off when you claim your god demands human sacrifice or child abuse. Your freedom to smoke and blast loud music does not extend to unlimited freedom to pollute other people's air and quiet. Property rights do not extend to slave ownership or inhumane treatment of animals. And all sorts of regulations are put on certain kinds of ownership - like having to register your car (and get a license before you can drive it), obtain tags for your dog, and insure your house and car. Hell, did you know can't even ride a horse in the public park near me until you pass a riding test and get a "trail card"? You have the freedom to ride a horse on public property - but only if you actually know how to handle one, and won't endanger other people.
Guns are no different - the Constitution does in fact say that you're allowed to own them, and you CAN own guns. But that ownership is REGULATED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY - just like everything else.
The ONLY relevant debate on gun regulation is the same as the only relevant debate on all other freedoms - exactly HOW MUCH regulation is needed to balance private rights with public safety? Reasonable people may disagree about how much any given freedom is regulated, and may reasonably feel that various freedoms are over- or under-regulated. But the idea that "the Constitution says we can own guns so therefore the goverment can't regulate them" is as ludicrous as saying "the Constitution says we have freedom of property and speech so therefore I can own slaves and sell child pornography."
To last Anon post: exactly! I doubt that most/any traditional Democratic voters and/or liberals and/or progressives really give a hoot about gun ownership. However, the ability of the gov't regulate gun ownership is NOT the same as "ohmigawd they're coming to take away my gunz eeeeeeeeeee!"
I would say: Get. A. Clue., but I doubt the wingnut gun crowd is capable of that anymore.
Post a Comment