Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Long time Gun Control advocate, and NC state senator...indicted for shooting someone...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 04:46 PM
Original message
Long time Gun Control advocate, and NC state senator...indicted for shooting someone...
North Carolina Senator R.C. Soles has been indicted for shooting Kyle Blackburn. A grand jury has indicted R.C. Soles for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious bodily injury, a felony charge which carries a maximum sentence of 31 months in prison. R.C. Soles, 74, shot Kyle Blackburn, a 22-year-old man, in the leg at Soles' house; R.C. Soles claims he was acting in self-defense, and that Kyle Blackburn was trying to break into the house.


R.C. Soles, a Democrat and North Carolina's longest-serving senator, was known for being a gun-control advocate.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100107/ARTICLES...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Lovely...
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just a little hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. ....thus proving himself correct! .............. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. HAH!
Edited on Sat Jan-09-10 05:14 PM by zanana1
One thoughtless shooting is worth a thousand words. I don't care that he was a gun control advocate. It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not really
It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.

It proves no such thing nor could it, being a singular anecdote. It does illustrate what many gun control advocates probably fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control. They would do well to avoid guns themselves; their problem lies in projecting their issues onto society at large.

I don't care that he was a gun control advocate.

Convenient and unsurprising given your expressed viewpoint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. Have you been a gun rights advocate all your life?
I've been a gun control advocate all of mine, except for hunting rifles. I doubt that we will ever agree on the issue, so let
's make a deal. You don't get personally insulting about it and neither will I. I won't stop insulting idiots who are irresponsible with guns or people outside of this forum who are true fanatics about it (like those in NH all pissed off about not being able to carry their guns into the State House). I doubt that you'll stop insulting those outside of DU, either. For my part, I'll do my best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Frankly, I wonder just how serious some gun-controllers are...
Their national organizations are small and weak and growing more so. And there seems a kind of casual joking mentality when "one of their own" really screws up (by this I do not mean the rank-and-file pro- or anti-gunners). There is ample record of gun-controllers having owned guns, or hiring body guards, or having tax-payer-funded personal security. This is an imperious and arrogant position; sort of like some RW GOPer who rails against abortion, but finds the ways and means to obtain one for a loved-one.

I think "gun-control" as an issue has long ago lost its social policy significance. Arguments that such & such measure will ameliorate this or that social policy have been made and largely defeated, yet the culture war continues, using as its main "weapon" prohibition. Culture wars (be they about reproductive rights, ganja, alcohol, guns, GLBT rights, and the up-and-comer, tobacco) are almost always founded on prohibition and criminalization, and go to a strong desire to punish and denigrate. Once the social policy aspects (the proper purview of government) have been found wanting, the "impulse" to attack others remains, almost reflexively.

Some 80 - 90 million Americans own firearms, and the VAST majority of these arms are NOT "hunting rifles." This is a very large group of people to take on in a culture war, especially where critical analysis does not support the controllers' views. Those owning guns can largely conclude that gun-controllers are trying to get at their weapons by any means necessary, and will not lose a moment of sleep in the attempt. It only remains to see which side can inflict the most damage on the other. Any thoughts on which side has suffered the most damage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Very true.. Many of them don't even take their position seriously
Many Gun Control advocates, don't seem to even take their position seriously.

I have seen several, collage aged, gun control advocates, when on a protest, lie in, or at the state house, acting like total children, playing grab ass with each other, or sticking a tongue down their date's gullet in the hallway.... Loud, obnoxious, and demanding, I have even seen one older woman, get in the face of a Virginia state legislator. While making demands, and passing veiled threats about loosing elections, and shaking her bony finger..

When they left, we, along with the legislator, laughed......I must also add, we gun rights folks, had them outnumbered by huge margins...as in the ratio was about 15 to 20 of us, for every ONE of them. Some of them where visibly upset by this fact alone.

During the presentations, when legislators ATTEMPTED to question some of the gun control advocates, they where brushed OFF FROM THE PODIUM, right their inside THEIR chamber..

When that calender year was over, we gun rights supporters, won several items that we came for....and the gun control advocates, got NOTHING....

Now, let me also add, their where "serious" gun control advocates their, who DID, treat the event, with the proper level of respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. I don't agree that we get a kick out of taking guns away....
The point of gun control is not for gun control advocates to "win" and get your guns. Our focus is on safer places to live and work. The rash of gun shootings in public places is proof that there are too many guns out there in less than capable hands. There are gun loopholes out there as wide as the Grand Canyon. (Private sales and gun show sales). Those of us who are in favor of gun control do not believe that "self defense" is a good argument, mostly because some one who wants to kill you will not announce it beforehand; there is little time to reach for a gun if you have no reason to believe that a person is out to commit mass murder. As far as the knife argument is concerned, the killer would have to get up close to a person to kill him or her, unlike using a gun. How many drive-by knifings have there been recently?

I compare the gun industry to the Christian Right. People who don't agree with them (gun control advocates) feel intimidated right now because of the strong organizations (and loads of money) they have. I believe that, like the Christian Right, they will eventually lose alot of their power. I pray that this will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. What would you say to my wife?
You claim that self-defense is not a good argument. She has used a gun to prevent herself from being murdered. Without that gun, on her person at the time, she would now be dead. What would you tell her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. You have made several mistakes.
The rash of gun shootings have all happened in gun-free zones. They don't happen in places where the shooter may encounter armed opposition. In fact, there have been several cases in which a mass shooter was stopped early by an armed citizen.

You assume that taking my guns away from me will somehow disarm the criminal. Mexico has draconian gun laws. Private ownership of gun is all but forbidden. There is only one legal gun store in the country, in Mexico City. Yet, the cartels are fighting with real machine guns, rockets, grenades, and real AK-47s. None of those are available at gun shows. Criminals, by their nature, don't care about laws, and will freely violate gun laws, just as they do now.

some one who wants to kill you will not announce it beforehand; Really? Actually, exactly that happens quite a bit. It is common in domestic violence to have death threats. Muggers will seek to take you by surprise, but if one practices situational awareness you can usually spot the threat (In my wife's situation, she spotted the criminal while he was in the approach phase of the attack.)

Rearding mass shooters. It is true that the shooter will likely be able to get off the first shots, due to surprise. It is unlikely, possible but unlikely, that you will be the first target. Once the shooting starts, you can go for your gun.

CCW holders have compiled a strong safety record. With guns, we are several times safer than the general public. We are even safer that the police. In fact, we are safer than lightning. You are about 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a CCWer.

Regarding knives. I am not worried about drive-by shootings as I don't hang out around gang members or their hangouts. A mugger with a knife is a much greater possibility. Since a mugger is going to try to get close to me anyway, I need something to stop him at a distance. BTW - A fit person with a knife can cover 21 feet and cut you faster than you can react, unless you have already seen him and prepared for the rush.

If taking guns away made places safer, then why does the UK have a violent crime rate that is several times what ours is? Why is Mexico a war zone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Manufactured answers from gun advocates are quite common.
I don't bother addressing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. aka, "Don't pester me with facts, son, I'm on a roll here!" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. IOW, you refuse to discuss. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. You sound EXACTLY like........
The Gun Control advocate that I was referring too when I mentioned the incident in the Virginia State Legislator asked the qestion...

This is very simply, WHY, we continue to steamroll gun control supportert...They are simply "too elitist" to be bothered with defending their position.

And you comparison of the Christen right, being powerful, and being brought down...Kinda like the Gun Control movement in the early 1990's. LOL Most of those orgs, are mear shadows of their former selves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. You seemed very concerned when I didn't answer your question
in a timely manner. Life got in the way; I didn't have time to give the answer I wanted to give an apparently sincere gun control proponent.

Yet you are dismissive of GreenStormCloud's thoughtful response. Sure he uses some "talking points"--shooters don't want to "encounter armed opposition" and taking guns away from him won't "somehow disarm the criminal."

The issue isn't whether the answers are manufactured or not, or whether you've heard them or not. The question is whether or not they are valid. To say the answers are manufactured is about as relevant as to say that they are purple. To pretend offense at purple questions is, well, transparent.

I hope you aren't offended by this plain speaking. You did ask for it.

But not all of GreenStormCloud's points can even be imagined to be "manufactured." He can definitely think on his feet. And he clearly and unequivocally refuted your argument:

some one who wants to kill you will not announce it beforehand--{you}; Really? Actually, exactly that happens quite a bit. It is common in domestic violence to have death threats. Muggers will seek to take you by surprise, but if one practices situational awareness you can usually spot the threat (In my wife's situation, she spotted the criminal while he was in the approach phase of the attack.)


Apparently you don't bother addressing it when your arguments have been demolished, either.

Don't take this the wrong way, but people who think they should be answered should answer others. People who want respect should give it. And hypocrites will not be respected long, at least by me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. I see that you can't be civil, even for one post.
I'll no longer bother with you. It would be useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. There was nothing uncivil in his post #38.
We do notice that when your arguments are soundly rebutted, you manufacture an excuse to leave the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You mean that when he said....
Edited on Fri Jan-15-10 03:16 PM by zanana1
"Hypocrites won't be respected long, at least by me"? Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes, son. And he never did answer my original question. It was a very simple and innocent one. He was too anxious to be insulting to answer it.

I won't bother to communicate with that kind of a mind set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. And now a question for you, zanana1:
Do you agree with what I said in post 38?

Specifically, do you agree that

1) People who think they should be answered should answer others?
2) People who want respect should give it?

A penny for your thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
40. Gun shows follow all the same state and federal regulations
as any other place where firearms are bought or sold. Private sales from one state resident to another aren't "loopholes", rather they are the result of US citizens having something called "property rights" which means we can sell privately owned property when we no longer feel like owning it, or want money more than we want the item. I personally feel that either an unobtrusive marking on people's driver's license/state ID that would allow a private seller to quickly determine if the buyer was a prohibited person (mark there) or not (no change to the ID) would be a wonderful way to help ensure that a private citizen does not sell to a prohibited person. The vast bulk of gun owners tend towards being productive members of society who would hate to have unknowingly assisted in a prohibited person getting a firearm and committing some atrocity with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanana1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
28. TPaine--You never answered my question.
Have you been a gun rights advocate all your life and do you think it's possible to discuss guns without insulting one another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Manufactured answers from gun control advocates are quite common.
He probably won't bother addressing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. LOL
I bothered this time, though things aren't looking good for the respectful tone some people claim to desire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Hmmm...
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 04:37 PM by TPaine7
You seem sincere, so I will reply (I actually started to earlier, but real life interfered as it sometimes does).

Have you been a gun rights advocate all your life...


No, I have not. I once took the position that ordinary people were too stupid, racist, hotheaded, careless, evil ...etc. to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms that I now believe in. However, as in other areas of my life, my first impression of things proved wrong. Fortunately, I was honest enough to research the arguments of gun control advocates and gun rights proponents objectively.

For example, I once believed that ordinary people often kill in fits of rage--similar to your "anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly" statement. Here's what researching actual criminological science taught me:

Ordinary People

Another scientific fact: ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely.

Local and national studies dating to the 1890s show that in almost every case murderers
are aberrants exhibiting life histories of violence and crime, psychopathology, substance
abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Looking only to prior crime records, roughly 90
percent of adult murders had adult records, with an average adult criminal career of six
or more years, including four major adult felonies.{37}


We are often told that most murder victims know their assailants. We are supposed to infer that normal,
law-abiding people kill their friends and loved ones because a sudden rageaccompanied by the
availability of a gunis too severe a temptation. This may be true of gang members, drug dealers, and
armed robbers, but it is very rare among normal people. And we are never told the rest of the story
national data on acquaintance gun murders in homes show that the most common victim offender
relationship was where both parties knew each other because of prior illegal {drug} transactions.{38}

The most rational response is to ban felons, the insane and habitual drug abusers from possessing guns.
Harsh general restrictions are inefficient. A National Institute of Justice funded study concluded that there
is no evidence anywhere to suggest that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces
their availability to persons with criminal intent. . . .{39}

Source: My open letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com


do you think it's possible to discuss guns without insulting one another?


In context, this is rich and provocative. It implies that I have insulted you, and that I have done so unprovoked--in short that you are an aggrieved innocent person. Your first post suggests a solution; I should stop personally insulting and you agree to not insult either.

Let's look at your post...

One thoughtless shooting is worth a thousand words. I don't care that he was a gun control advocate. It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.


and my reply...

It just goes to prove that anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly.

It proves no such thing nor could it, being a singular anecdote. It does illustrate what many gun control advocates probably fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control. They would do well to avoid guns themselves; their problem lies in projecting their issues onto society at large.

I don't care that he was a gun control advocate.

Convenient and unsurprising given your expressed viewpoint.


Let's address the substance. You claimed that this singular incident PROVES that ANYONE with a gun can become enraged and deadly. The fallacy that any ordinary person is a potential murderer is wearisome to those of us who actually know the criminological, scientific facts. We've addressed this error before. It's tiring.

Besides not being backed by the scientific evidence, your point is logically flawed. You apply reasoning to guns that you would not apply elsewhere. I have a term that encompasses this "special logic" that applies only to guns--"the gun control reality distortion field."

Let's use your "special logic"--a single anecdote proves that anyone can do the same thing given the same tools or equipment--and see what we can come up with:

The history of Jeffrey Dahmer just goes to prove that anyone with kitchen utensils and a stove can become hungry and cannibalistic.


If you insist that your logic in post 4 was sound you must accept this result. I think you are much smarter than that.

There is yet another problem with your conclusion--anyone with a gun can become enraged and deadly--it is a broadbrush characterization of all gun owners. They all could become "enraged and deadly" and are thus a menace to society, at least potentially. (You probably make an exception for police, soldiers, and government agency employees in spite of the fact that many of them have killed innocents too, but you didn't say that so I just mention it in passing.)

In response to your broadbrush characterization I made a much narrower counter characterization:

It does illustrate what many gun control advocates probably fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control.


This is apparently what you think an insult, but you are mistaken. This was not addressed at you personally. I do not have an opinion on whether you fall into this category; when I wrote it, I had only ever read one of your posts. Furthermore, if I wanted to insult you personally I could do much better than that. Trust me.

I said precisely what I intended to say. The incident "illustrates what MANY gun control advocates PROBABLY fear, given their awareness of their strong criminal impulses and lack of self control." Note a few things about what I said:

1) It was not a broadbrush characterization of a group that I don't approve of (as was yours).
2) It is based firmly in what I understand. (I have PERSONALLY HEARD AND READ GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES SAY THAT IF THEY HAD HAD GUNS THEY WOULD HAVE KILLED/SHOT SOMEONE.)
3) It expressed my opinion as an opinion. I extrapolated from my direct personal experience of hearing gun control advocates to an opinion about what PROBABLY motivates MANY of them.
4) It was logically consistent. I would apply the same logic elsewhere, and so would many rational people; I didn't employ special logic for the occasion.

The other substantive issue was your dismissal of gun control hypocrisy:

I don't care that he was a gun control advocate.


It was, as I put it, "convenient and unsurprising given your expressed viewpoint." I really hope you weren't insulted by that; it is simply the truth.

It may be that you don't care about hypocrisy in general, that you wouldn't care about it in a gun rights advocate. I haven't read enough of your posts to tell. But even if you are honest and evenhanded in your lack of concern about hypocrisy, it is convenient.

You see, hypocrisy is a big issue in gun control:

Americas Core Value

A monstrous principle animates gun control. Unspoken and unspeakable, it alone fits the facts. Simply put,
the people‟s servants have judged their masters and found them wantingnot in skill or knowledge, but in
basic human worth. Gun control‟s self-evident truth is that all people are not created equal.
Once you accept its premise, gun control makes sense. Special peoplethe Eliteare entitled to special
treatment, along with those who serve them.

Take Dick Heller, of the Heller case, for example. He carried a gun daily as a security guard for the
Supreme Court Annex. Those who imagine the purpose of gun control to be keeping guns from the unfit
will have difficulty explaining the rapid deterioration of his skills on his commute. By the time he arrived
home each evening he could not possess a functional gunlest he shoot himself.

When we recall his servant role, however, Heller‟s limitation made sense. With no inherent right to selfdefense,
his fitness to bear arms was rooted in his job. Off duty, he no longer served the Judicial Elite.

Rosie O'Donnell, a champion of gun control, said in 1999 that anyone who owned a gun should be
imprisoned.55 To those who see gun control as an effort to keep guns from civilians, it is hard to justify her
allowing a would-be criminala man applying to carry a gunto protect her son in 2000.56

The initiated, however, see no hypocrisy. Rosie and her children are Socially Eliteperfectly entitled to
the protection of arms.57

Bloomberg's confusion about carrying guns also makes sense. His armed detail protects the Political Elite;
the retired police officer he was talking about had no higher purpose than self-defense. Why would he, with
so meager an excuse, carry a gun? After all, guns kill people.

Katrina momentarily peeled back the veil on Financial Elitism. In the horrific circumstances following the
storm, police deserted their posts. Some were filmed apparently looting in uniform.58 The government took
decisive action:

At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National
Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into
homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents.
No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns, says P. Edwin
Compass III, the superintendent of police.59


Mr. Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near anarchy in the city,
no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms
of any kind. Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons, he said. 60


Under color of law, officials took personal property at gunpointa clear violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Louisiana‟s Constitution received similar contempt:

Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary
conditions. One statute says that after the Governor proclaims a state of emergency (as
Governor Blanco has done), the chief law enforcement officer of the political
subdivision affected by the proclamation may...promulgate orders...regulating and
controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other
dangerous weapons and ammunition. But the statute does not, and could not, supersede
the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that The right of each citizen to keep and
bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to
prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

The power of regulating and controlling is not the same as the power of prohibiting
and controlling. The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language,
which refers to prohibiting price-gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations, but
only to regulating and controlling firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent's
order prohibiting firearms possession is beyond his lawful authority. It is an illegal
order.61


From the gun control perspective, ordinary people should be disarmed in emergencies. So Mayor Nagin
who, incoherent and weeping, fled to Baton Rougecourageously defied the highest legal authority.62
He was not so bold, however, as to defy his fellow Elite:

That {disarmament} order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards
whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The
guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly
carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.


Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans
to make them give up their weapons. 63

If you are rich and fear for you{r} property, your employees may carry fully automatic (true) assault weapons;
your property rights will be respected. If you are average and you fear that roving gangs may want to
entertain themselves with your wife and children, you are out of luck. The Constitutions, federal and state,
are impotent. This is an emergency!

Source and to read the footnotes: www.obamaonsecond.com


So not caring about hypocrisy in a gun control advocate but taking his actions as proving what anyone with a gun can do is very convenient. It is also not surprising, at least to me.

To return to your original question, no, I was not always on this side of the fence. I have diligently studied the issue of gun rights from legal, practical, moral, political and criminological perspectives. What I found astonished me. In every area, almost without exception, the gun control position was distorted, exaggerated or outright false. That is not to say that gun control advocates had no legitimate points or that gun rights advocates had no BS, but when comparing the best of each side's arguments the gun rights advocates consistently won.

If you are interested in a basic expose of the fallacies of gun control hitting on many areas--law, history, public policy, safety, etc.--you can read my open letter cited here. If you prefer a less biased and / or more official source (my bias comes from research, but it may turn you off) consider the Brief of the Law Enforcement Trainers (the officers and other professionals who train police officers in things like tactics and use of force) available at http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/1... . Pay special attention to the "Summary of research data" starting on page 3 (or 13 on the PDF pagination).

Yes, it is possible to discuss guns without insulting one another. I haven't insulted you, to my knowledge, nor was I particularly offended by your broad characterization of what "anyone with a gun" is capable of doing. I will, however, insult condescending stubborn ignoramuses as I see fit (within the rules, of course). And I will not make a deal to change my entire behavior on this site at the invitation of someone with whom I am having my first conversation. (This has nothing to do with your post volume, you could have been here since day one as far as I am concerned, it would make no difference.)

Unlike many here, I have come here to have my ideas challenged. If you do not insult me or others or behave boorishly, I will not insult you. (Or at least if I do I will admit to it and apologize.)

But please, be my guest. Smack my ideas around if you can. If they can't handle it, they deserve to be replaced with valid ones.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. zanana1--I took the time and effort to answer your questions.
Were my answers complete?

Did they make sense to you?

Do you have any comments or follow up questions?

Let's discuss the issues you raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Anyone with a knife or a car can also become enraged and deadly.
Do you want to ban or regulate those too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Seems to show that A. RC Soles is a jackass
who can't be trusted by his constituents (for his attempts to deny them the same right to self defense he feels he is worthy of), and B. RC Soles has some work to do to clear this up.



Oh and C.He cannot be cleared of this charge without credibility. Guess what he did to sacrifice ALL of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. "anyone with a gun" - except for
LEO's, military, and since you endorsed possesion by them...hunters?

Nice generalization, you'll do well here when it comes to civil rights :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sounds like a domestic.
he had been buying lots of boys toys. Who knows, strange case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Let's Google and see what we can find.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100109/ARTICLES...

For years, residents say, state Sen. R.C. Soles' questionable relationships with young men in Tabor City were an open secret in the small Columbus County town.

SUMMARY OF NEXT FEW SENTENCES. Soles was giving money to young men, one of whom claimed Soles molested him as a minor. Said young man has since recanted. He helped buy a house for Strickland, age 18, who then burned it down.

A few weeks after the SBI started looking into Scott's allegation, police say Soles shot 22-year-old Kyle Blackburn, one of Soles' law clients, on his property.

Another man, B.J. Wright, was with Blackburn at the time of the shooting. Soles has admitted to giving money to Wright, another law client, while Wright was in prison.


From another site one learns that Blackburn was in constant trouble with the law.

This does NOT look like a sudden fit of anger over a domestic argument on Soles' part. It looks like Soles was being blackmailed. Like many people who are blackmailed, they can't go to the police for fear of their secrets becoming open.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-15-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. Sen. R.C. Soles' home at center of dozens of police calls (AP | October 2009)
Associated Press

Published: Friday, October 9, 2009 at 11:32 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, October 9, 2009 at 11:32 a.m.

Tabor City | Neighbors of state Sen. R.C. Soles Jr. made dozens of emergency calls in recent years telling police they heard gunshots, screams and loud arguments coming from his home or law office, a newspaper's analysis found.

Records show police responded to at least 40 emergency calls to Soles' Tabor City home and law office in the past four years, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Friday. Most of the Columbus County 911 calls came from Soles' neighbors reporting attempted burglaries, suspected assaults and complaints of young people on mopeds circling Soles' house ...

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091009/articles...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. He should not have access to a weapon
Civilians have no business owning tools that can so easily kill. Good to see he is being charged for his negligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Using your logic, civilians shouldnt own cars, knives, hammers, etc...
Those are also tools that can so easily kill.


And you would know what makes a tool, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
29. I have DEADLY ASSAULT CHAINSAWS!1!1
And I'm not afraid to use them!!!!

I've got about 2 cords of wood in the yard that needs to be bucked into stove lengths.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Ordinarily I'd disagree with you, but THAT civilian? Ok.
Guess he really was a case of projection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Negligence??? Assault with a deadly weapon is "negligence"?
Are your claiming that the gun acted on its own?

Soles pulled the trigger. That isn't a crime of negligence.

He probably did it because he was being blackmailed, but shooting someone is not an acceptable solution to blackmail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. What other rights shouldn't we have access to?
Voting, religion, what?

Your post is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taurus145 Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Cut, paste and delete the Bill of Rights to suit yourself often?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-09-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. Not surprising.
Authoritarians are often hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Exactly. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Feinstein easily comes to mind - "do as I say, not as I do"
Serfs don't need weapons, but me and my bodyguards...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. That's the heart of gun control. (They won't ever admit it.)
"Serfs don't need weapons, but me and my bodyguards..."

And that's why the grabbers hopefully never get the laws and measures they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taurus145 Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. I'm too lazy to look it up, but
this guy has had problems along this line before as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-10-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Predictable
Just the resultant drama from having a procession of teenagers smoking dope on your couch .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OttavaKarhu Donating Member (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
26. But he IS a gun control advocate. Of other people's guns. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC