Skip to comments.74-year-old N.C. state senator shoots, wounds intruder at his home....I thought he was Anti-2A?
Posted on 10/02/2009 1:21:40 PM PDT by mikelets456
ublished: 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 senators house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.
The sheriffs 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.timesdispatch.com ...
But,, why didn’t he just call the police? This was clearly a matter for the authorities. And doesn’t he care that his gun was more likely to hurt a child or household member?
What about all those things he tells us?
A liberal gun-grabber and a hypocrite too? Well that’s just beyond belief, ain’t it!
I'd like to be on THAT jury. Let the SOB senator live with the politically correct BS he espouses!
Make him pay about $5 million for assaulting the intruder.
But as a liberal, his life is IMPORTANT! We who make up the sub-classes are expendable.
Good for the old geezer.
The same thing will happen to anyone who intrudes inside my house.
You don’t understand -
it’s not “hypocrisy”.
They believe that they are the nobility, and we are the serfs.
They have totally different rules than we do.
It’s all about who’s castle is getting defended. That is truly peeing on your leg and telling you its raining.
They need to reflect upon what the serfs eventually did to Louis and Marie.
Post from that site “This guy has voted against guns and gun ownership
for as long as he has been in politics. What a hypocrite!
Do as I say not as I do seems to define his values.
An anti-2nd Amendment hypocrite...well there’s something you don’t
see every day (/SARC)
Reminds me of the late and UN-GREAT Carl Rowan. Who had to flash
the race card to justify his possession and use of an UN-REGISTERED
pistol at his domicile in Washington, D.C.
Of course, he never really paid a price for violating gun laws of
the lawless D.C.!!!
Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot
a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was using Rowan’s swimming pool
in Washington, D.C.. Rowan used an unregistered .22 LR pistol.
Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate.
In a 1981 column, he advocated “a law that says anyone found in
possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the
law goes to jailperiod.”
In 1985, he called for “A complete and universal federal ban on
the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns
(except for authorized police and military personnel).”
Immediately after the shooting, Rowan offered several conflicting
accounts about where he got the handgun. He first said that he had
purchased the gun himself in response to threats on his life (which he
later claimed had been made by the Ku Klux Klan). He also initially
claimed that the gun had been properly registered. However, when
District of Columbia police disclosed that the gun had not been
registered, Rowan changed his story, claiming that the gun belonged
to his son, who “was an FBI agent and did not have to register
it [because it was] properly registered federally.”
Police officials pointed out that under D.C. law, all guns must be
registered locally; failure to do so was punishable by up to a
year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
Rowan was tried but the jury was deadlocked, the judge declared
a mistrial and he was never retried.
In his autobiography, Rowan said he still favors gun control,
but admits being vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy.
It is the same with the seeming disconnect between being pro abortion and anti death penalty. They cannot possibly be affected by abortion because they are already born and adult and abortion serves a "useful" purpose. But they, having only a very tenuous conception of cause and effect and thinking of Death as being applied randomly, fear that they could be on the wrong side of a death penalty judgment because people older than themselves sometimes receive it.
Where have you been, this happened in August.
You don’t want to know the rest of the story... very unpleasant.
They have reflected. Thats what homeland security is for. And the sound cannons and the nuke your insides cannon, all the paramilitary, errr swat teams, police armies in our midst. Dressed in black armed with noknock and the patriot act.
You’re missing the point. This hypocrite is against private citizens owning guns, but allows for the ruling class to be able to do as it chooses. That’s the difference.
Guns belong in the hands of the government. You little people will just have to suffer.
That’s the view of the leftist politicians and this guy is no exception.
The anti-gun left is anti-gun because owning a gun instills a sense of independence in the person possessing the gun. A gun owner is much less likely to cower in a closet dialing 911 and whispering into the phone but the left wants all of us to do this.
As the left sees it, if you ban guns the sheeple will be less likely to see themselves as independent self-sustaining people and will instead see themselves as meek and mild and in need of big brother government.
Banning guns increased peoples dependency on the police, and by extension, banning guns increases peoples dependency on the government and that’s exactly why leftist politicians are always calling for more gun laws.
That story does have a very high ewwwwwwwwwwwww factor.
Comment: “Gaydar set for stun.”
You obviously don’t understand the Liberal mindset (which in a way is a blessing, but I digress...). The elitists have no qualms owning guns themselves. It’s the peasants having guns that bothers them.
Published: August 24, 2009
It’s a truly scary thing - various governments over the last say, 250 years, with guns, have killed more people, than anything else. It’s a curious dichotomy when someone says “only the government should have guns.” Didn’t say I liked it, but c’mon!
Rules for thee, but not for me.
dollars to donuts the shooter senator knows the door kickers - there’s bound to be more to the story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.