NC Gun Control Democrat RC Soles Shoots Intruder

Ak_Man4Jesus · 10-25-2009, 10:19 PM

NC Gun Control Democrat RC Soles Shoots Intruder

74-year-old N.C. state senator shoots, wounds intruder at his home

By AP

Published: August 24, 2009

TABOR CITY, N.C. — A sheriff says a North Carolina state senator shot one of two intruders at his home and hospital officials say the man is in fair condition.

Multiple media outlets reported that Columbus County Sheriff Chris Batten said that 74-year-old Sen. R.C. Soles of Tabor City shot Kyle Blackburn late Sunday afternoon.

A spokeswoman at Loris Community Hospital in South Carolina said Monday that Blackburn was in fair condition.

Batten says the shooting occurred when two men went to the senator’s house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.

The sheriff’s office said the State Bureau of Investigation was handling the case. A call to an agency spokeswoman was not immediately returned. There was no answer at a number listed for Soles’ home.

The Democrat has been in the Senate 32 years.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/ne...me/287987/P10/

Here we go again!

Raleigh Constituentalerts us to another Democrat hypocrite armed with a firearm who defends himself after a career of gun control advocacy. So Senator, is your life worth more than We, The Peasants?

As posted on the in- state 2nd Amendment Civil Rights Organization Grass Roots North Carolina website 2008 Voter Evaluation Guide Senator Soles voting record on the Right To Keep And Bear Arms was evaluated at *ONE* Star.
CLICK HERE

Now, it could have been worse, most diehard Democrats in North Carolina are proud of their *ZERO* star rating. It remains unknown as to how many of them own home defense firearms.

http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009...oots-intruder/

**thesteve** · 10-25-2009, 10:30 PM

The blog is flawed. A 1-star rating in the GRNC equates to a pro-gun stance of at least 60% of votes. In 2008 his actual numerical rating was 68 out of 100. While this isn't an excellent score (in terms of the pro-gun lobby), it's not what I would describe as a gun-control advocate.

Kentl · 10-25-2009, 10:30 PM

How’s that for irony?

JerryLove · 10-26-2009, 06:18 AM

We'd need to see his actual positions on the issues to know if this is more than just hype. Does he actually oppose personal ownership of firearms, or is this just someone who signed on the anti-assault rifle, or anti-large-magazine bills? Or for that matter, any number of even more reasonable bills.

Ax · 10-26-2009, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerryLove

We'd need to see his actual positions on the issues to know if this is more than just hype. Does he actually oppose personal ownership of firearms, or is this just someone who signed on the anti-assault rifle, or anti-large-magazine bills? Or for that matter, any number of even more reasonable bills.

Look Yank, yer either fer guns er yer agin 'em. Ain't no In-betweens..

jthomas1600 · 10-26-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax

Look Yank, yer either fer guns er yer agin 'em. Ain't no In-betweens..

LOL, it does seem that way at times. Here's my take though, politicians on both sides need to take a public stand that's more extreme than their actual stand so they have some tools to negotiate with. I think many politicians that take an anti gun stand probably think it's OK for law abiding citizens to own personal fire arms as long as they're not collecting automatic assault rifles with thirty round clips. If they came out and said that though, they would have no leverage to try and remove assault weapons.

**Epaphras** · 10-26-2009, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

LOL, it does seem that way at times. Here's my take though, politicians on both sides need to take a public stand that's more extreme than their actual stand so they have some tools to negotiate with. I think many politicians that take an anti gun stand probably think it's OK for law abiding citizens to own personal fire arms as long as they're not collecting automatic assault rifles with thirty round clips. If they came out and said that though, they would have no leverage to try and remove assault weapons.

I think this is exactly right.

There is more to gun-control than a small firearm for self-defense against an intruder. For those on both sides, it's about the principles. It's not that gun-nuts want or need automatic weapons or large magazines (well, some do I suppose...), it's that they can because it's within their rights. It's a principled stance.

**redbaron** · 10-26-2009, 10:42 AM

jthomas: people only believe you can collect automatic weapons because the media paints it that way and that's what the Brady campaign claims as they cry a "Helen Lovejoy" I mean "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!"

I'll give you a clue, automatic weapons were outlawed in... 1934 with the NFA, but it was pretty recent so I understand why there might be some confusion there.

The problem is, there's no such thing as an "assault" weapon that you can buy. Even the preposterously bad ban passed in 1994 didn't ban any actual assault weapons (Since the NFA in 1934 and the further ban in 1988 already did that)- All it did was ban look-alike weapons. Oh, they were scary looking alright. Oh, but they are way more expensive, and vastly more likely to be had by collectors or sportsmen than criminals in the first place.

That is really neither here nor there here. I'd like to see what this RC Soles guy actually voted on, and his voting record. If he's only wrong 32% of the time, it might not be the worst stuff, but then again...

The problem that people don't seem to get, is that protecting all freedoms, including the ones you don't like is ridiculously important.

"when they came for the..."

nolidad · 10-26-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I think this is exactly right.

There is more to gun-control than a small firearm for self-defense against an intruder. For those on both sides, it's about the principles. It's not that gun-nuts want or need automatic weapons or large magazines (well, some do I suppose...), it's that they can because it's within their rights. It's a principled stance.

Epaphras you are right- owning any type of firearm is a principled stance. The second amendment does not restrict the citizenry from any type of arms. The only ones that can be kept from the citizenry are ones that carry top secret parts. Heck even jets are "techinically" allowed to bew owned by citizens.

If they want to ban certain types of weaponry like assault arms or large clips then they need to do it the legal way- amend the constitution. The founding fathers gave the common folk enough sense to know what to do- our modern politicos should do the same

**Epaphras** · 10-26-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

Epaphras you are right- owning any type of firearm is a principled stance. The second amendment does not restrict the citizenry from any type of arms. The only ones that can be kept from the citizenry are ones that carry top secret parts. Heck even jets are "techinically" allowed to bew owned by citizens.

If they want to ban certain types of weaponry like assault arms or large clips then they need to do it the legal way- amend the constitution. The founding fathers gave the common folk enough sense to know what to do- our modern politicos should do the same

I actually interpret the Second Amendment to mean each state has the right to bear arms (i.e. national guard), not necessarily every citizen. Of course, taking this to its extreme, you end up with militia movements ("Who says the militia has to be state-sanctioned?"). I do not actually agree with my statement above; I just know that's the reasoning used, I know that's how it's understood.

Anyhoo, it doesn't really matter to me. I never plan on owning a firearm. If I feel my safety is threatened I'll buy a tazer or some pepper spray. The chance of accidental discharge of a weapon, missing an intruder and shooting through a wall and hitting my wife or kid, or the unarmed intruder overpowering me and taking and using my self-defense firearm on myself or my family, not to mention the unlikelihood of me (or anyone) actually being able to functionally prep, aim, and lethally fire a firearm in an intense split-second situation, are all reasons why I'd rather not own a firearm. It's not a video game or a movie. In a high-adrenaline high-stress situation, unless you are highly-trained the chances of aiming and firing a lethal shot at a moving target who is also targeting you or charging you are minuscule. I have to ask myself, could I tolerate this deterrent being turned on myself or my family?

I would hope and pray that God would grant protection and wisdom in such a situation. Perhaps the intruder could be deterred supernaturally through a word or phrase that "came" to me. There are several anecdotes of people receiving a word or phrase in a situation that disarmed an intruder long enough to get the weapon away from them, or spook them off. It happened to a friend of mine actually. One popular anecdote is the elderly lady who was inspired to tell her rapist, "Your mother forgives you" during the ordeal, which was enough to disarm him emotionally and allowed for her to get away.

**slap_j** · 10-26-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

The second amendment does not restrict the citizenry from any type of arms.

But it also doesn't grant the citizenry the right to possess just any weapon. I think it's fine and dandy to be able to protect your family with a firearm but I don't find it unreasonable or unconstitutional to regulate certain things. For instance, weaponized sarin gas.

nolidad · 10-26-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

But it also doesn't grant the citizenry the right to possess just any weapon. I think it's fine and dandy to be able to protect your family with a firearm but I don't find it unreasonable or unconstitutional to regulate certain things. For instance, weaponized sarin gas.

I agree, but the founders left it vague.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I would argue ( as the armchair laywer

) that any weapon in the arsenal of a standard national guard or reserve brigade is open to be had by the people. There was very powerful and cogent reasons they included this, and those reasons are just as valid today.

JerryLove · 10-26-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

I would argue ( as the armchair laywer

) that any weapon in the arsenal of a standard national guard or reserve brigade is open to be had by the people. There was very powerful and cogent reasons they included this, and those reasons are just as valid today.

It was to allow militias to defend themselves from government troops.

But OK. You believe that nuclear weapons, and cluster bombs, and drones with the same is "open to be had by the people"?

**Role Modlin** · 10-26-2009, 06:02 PM

And now for the rest of the story.

N.C. Sen. R.C. Soles' Tabor City home at center of dozens of police calls | StarNewsOnline.com | Star News | Wilmington, NC

nolidad · 10-27-2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leboman

And now for the rest of the story.

N.C. Sen. R.C. Soles' Tabor City home at center of dozens of police calls | StarNewsOnline.com | Star News | Wilmington, NC

Well nothing like real life intruding on noble ideas to ring reality back into focus. I would love to see a world not need guns- but until the Lord returns- I will seek to want to defend my family from those who would do deadly harm to them.