Opening, again, a can of worms . . .

[Teresa]

If I get any extra time I will post information on why this article could be used as toilet paper.. .. 
Its exhausting to deal with blind idiots such as Micheal Hart...and not hardly worth the wasted effort it takes to TRY to make people understand. I guess until people like this are actually confronted with a violent act..or their loved ones are directly involved in a violent situation..that could have been prevented with a firearm for self protection..  then they will continue to spout off their ignorance and stupidity on this subject.
But I doubt even then that some would get it...
I could write pages and pages and pages on this subject... but those who are bound and determined to make the gun the evil object and not the user of the weapon the problem.. then to be honest.. those people are way too far down on the food chain for me to give a damn whether they understand.. don't understand... agree ..disagree..
And you are right Jarhead...........These types of people who write this crap are a joke to say the least..Hopefully this guy won't reproduce...I'd hate for the gene pool of this mentality to spread further..

[Teresa]

After "serving" more than 30 years in office as the most virulent anti-Second Amendment activist in the state, North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles . . .

(...wait for it...)

...shot an intruder and potentially stopped a crime!

Clearly, guns cause crime.  Why else would a "keep-the-streets-safe" gun control nut like Soles keep a gun around the house?

Now, the story could get juicier as time goes on.  The two men who tried to kick in Soles's door weren't typical street thugs.

In fact, several media outlets have reported that the wounded intruder is a former client of Senator Soles -- who doesn't exactly have a squeaky clean history.

Wait, wait, wait -- so let's get this straight.

The most vociferous anti-gun zealot in North Carolina used a gun to wound and stop an intruder who wasn't even a thief or common thug -- but someone he knew personally?

This story is fun.... almost as fun as breaking in a new pistol.

You can contact the distinguished Pharisee in a variety of ways. Here's most of 'em.

Email: RC.Soles@ncleg.net

Mail:  NC Senate
      16 W. Jones Street, Room 2022
      Raleigh, NC 27601-2808

Legislative office: (919) 733-5963
Law office: (910) 653-2015

Let 'er rip... 

[Varmit]

Dear Mr. Roper
There are all kinds of arguments—the Second Amendment, defending my home, yada, yada, yada—it is easy to go on at great length, but I’ll cut right to the bottom line point—two points, actually, at the heart of the matter.
Number one:  Owning a gun means you are ready to kill someone at any time that you have access to that gun.  You are willing to kill another human being on purpose—or accidentally.  There are an awful lot of people in this country ready to kill someone.

The same could be said about cars, planes, basball bats, and bare hands.  If someone breaks into my home, yes, I am going to kill them.  I am not going to wait around to see why they are there. 

Number two:  By favoring gun ownership, you are sanctioning all the handgun deaths that fill our newspapers daily.  Whether it’s the little girl washing her dog caught in gang crossfire, a kid who find’s dad’s gun and accidentally shoots a sibling, an off-the-rails father who kills his family and then himself, all those CPS students—the list goes on, it’s really, really long—you are saying very clearly that those deaths are OK.  They are simply the price we must pay for the people who are so frightened that they need a gun; the price we must pay for the people who simply want a gun.

By favoring car ownership you are sanctioning all the needless drunk driving deaths that occur each year.  Why don't we just take away peoples right to bear children.  Afterall, Susan Smith didn't use a gun. 

The Second Amendment
Bottom line, it is outdated.  It was written in a different time.  It was a wild country and there were a lot of things people needed to defend themselves against, including, of course, native people (Why Native Americans, by the way?  It wasn’t America to them.) whose land they were overrunning.
Even if you don’t want to repeal it, how do you get around the “well-regulated militia” clause?  I don’t think the nuts in Michigan or Idaho fit that definition.  And you with a gun in your house and me with a gun in my house (or on the subway or at a political rally) certainly doesn’t meet that definition.

So we can just ban every Constitutional right we feel is outdated?  What if some unelected, crazy judge somewhere feels it is a good idea to bring back slavery?  Or eliminate the right to privacy?  And how dare we actually defend our selves and homes. 

The Militia as defined by GEORGE MASON "consist now of the whole people".  Now while he may not have know just how heated the debate of the 2nd admendment would become, he did understand the threat the system might have to face, "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless-by disarming them."

The ballot box and a free press are our best defenses against government abuse, not guns.  National defense is our protection against invasion.  Red Dawn was fiction.  (Yes, I’ve seen a lot of movies over the years.  Come to think of it, none of the Patrick Swayze obits I saw mentioned that one.)

And when those leaders say, "No we aren't leaving office, we've decided to stay for life." What the hell are you going do, pinhead?  Write a nasty story about them in the newspaper and call for an election that they will ignore anyway?  Quick history question, who said the following..

"The most foolish mistake we could possible make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."   Answer...Adolf Hitler.

Now, just how do you suppose he would have responded when the jews called for his resignation??

Let’s try an experiment.  The latest thing that gun advocates have been pushing is right-to-carry.  Maybe they can get a moderate sized city, say Tulsa or Boise , to pass a right-to-carry law.  Let that go for a year or two and see how it works out.

Many states do have a right to carry, wheres the skyrocketing murder rates?  Wheres the huge leap in violent crimes?...anybody?...Oh, yeah, thats right...IN COUNTRYS THAT HAVE BANNED GUNS!  England, in 1997 banned guns.  From 1998 to 2005 the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340%.  The use of handguns in crimes rose 40%.  Now why do you think that is?  Could it be that criminals don't care about gun laws?...you freakin pinhead.

[Tobina+1]

I'm sure there are the actual stats out there, but didn't Florida's crime rate go down once they passed the CC laws?

[srkruzich]

do a search for prof john lott. he has done extensive study on crime and right to carry states and how the right to carry has effected the drop in crime rates.  The conclusion is more guns = less crime.

[Teresa]

Tobina.. Flordia still has a horrible crime rate.. but yes..it did go down some..  
Crime always goes down in states that has CC Laws....

Common sense that can't be argued with................
Food for thought:

You are a person who is hell bent on committing a crime of theft or rape..or whatever..
You go to a location or area where you know you have scored in the past and where you know will be easy targets..
you get there and all of a sudden you realize that part of these people are CC holders....
hmmmm..Are you going to stop and think about which one has a gun and which ones don't?
The "easy pickings"  just became 'not so easy'..........
Will you..as a criminal  take a chance on doing your bad deed here? or decide to go to a location where you KNOW that the people are unarmed and vulnerable.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out..

Criminals might be bad asses and ready to take chances.. but most are smart enough to try to look for easy victims..
Those "victims"  that might have a gun on them do not make a criminals life easy..

Conceal Carry is just that..
Conceal your firearm.. and carry it undetected. Its not bragging rights to let anyone know you have it..  But be familiar with it. when you carry it you shouldn't even know its on you..it should be that much a part of you....and no one else should be able to detect that you have it either.  . also.. in a bad situation..do everything in your power so that you DO  NOT have to draw that gun.. and I mean EVERYTHING! Don't play a hero....
If you or your family is in jeopardy..and if you see no other alternative and you have to pull that weapon........
remember.. IF you draw it.. there is no going back........ you have to mentally and physically be prepared to pull the trigger...and you shoot to kill!   You can not second guess.. to second guess could be you and your family's death.. Criminals have nothing to lose.. they go into the situation armed and without any care or regard for human life..

There is a huge responsibility in carrying a firearm on your person..  One I do not take lightly..

[Diane Amberg]

What do you do when the CCs start shooting each other? In the section of Wilmington that I do not go near, they all carry, everybody knows it and they shoot each other anyway. They all think they'll get the first shot off, but they are so bad at it they seem to shoot everybody except who they were aiming for. They had 3 more shootings just last night.They know the police are always armed and they shoot at them them too. Those bad guys are usually high on crack so they aren't using "common sense" anyway.

[frawin]

What do you do when the CCs start shooting each other? In the section of Wilmington that I do not go near, they all carry, everybody knows it and they shoot each other anyway. They all think they'll get the first shot off, but they are so bad at it they seem to shoot everybody except who they were aiming for. They had 3 more shootings just last night.They know the police are always armed and they shoot at them them too. Those bad guys are usually high on crack so they aren't using "common sense" anyway.

Diane I have been involved in Concealed Carry in both Texas and Oklahoma and I have studied the CC laws and requirements in several states as I travel quite a lot, I can tell you that Convicted Drug users cannot get a CC permit in any state .  I do not believe that law abiding CC permit holders are shooting each other and sure not at the Police. I belong to a group of CC holders that live all over the US and I am going to have the ones in Delaware check with the Wilmington Police Department on this. This kind of stories is what causes people to be anti-CC and Anti-Gun.

[sixdogsmom]

Frank, not all CC are legal, and I think this is what Diane was speaking about.

[Cheyenne]

When the CC was first past in KS the Gazette had a big article on it. A local bondsman was featured and said with her job she feels that it is necessary to have it. I personally am not familiar enough with guns to be comfortable with a CC, I mostly have just shot for fun and a couple of skunks (bad idea by the way, had to leave the house for the night). I don't think I could think rationally enough in that moment to not make a mistake. Somebody correct me if i'm wrong but I believe you have to have a certain amount of hours in training as well as pass an accuracy test. With the CC laws I do not feel any less safe and actually would hope if I am somewhere where some wiseass decides hes gonna go on a rampage that the guy behind has one and is levelheaded enough to use it.