Senator who shot intruder now being indicted

[dutch]

Remember the Senator who shot an intruder last year and was supposedly an anti-gun guy?
Now he's being indicted on assault charges, who knows what really happened but ironic in a way.

http://coloradohuntandfish.blogspot.com/2010/01/government-they-created-comes-back-to.html

COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC (WECT) - North Carolina's longest-serving lawmaker turned himself in to authorities after being indicted by a Grand Jury Thursday on an assault charge.

State Senator R.C. Soles drove himself to the Columbus County Detention Center just before 11:15 Friday morning.

Soles declined to comment, saying it wouldn't be appropriate at this time and directed the media to speak to his attorney.

 

[RELH]

You would be very surprised to know just how many anti-gun politicians and celebrities own firearms.
These people consider themselfs to be above the common peon and gun restrictions should not apply to them, but they feel it should apply to us.

RELH

 

[Hardway]

Alot of cops think that way too with all of there exemptions and special priveledges. Glad your not one of them.

"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."

 

[RELH]

Hardway;

I do not know what area you are from, but the area of N.CA. and alot of officers I met from different areas at training classes, were about 90-95% pro gun rights for citizens. These training classes were thoughout the state and included officers from Southern CA. Most of the anti gun cops are members of the higher adminstration, the street cops are by far very pro gun and for the citizen being able to protect himself and family.
The small percentage I met that were anti-gun for citizens were normally from big city areas where they were born and raised in that way of thinking.
As for our liberal democrat congress, they do not even trust retired police officers to carry guns based on their voting in the past on allowing armed retired officers on airlines and cross state traveling.

RELH

 

[Hardway]

> As for our
>liberal democrat congress, they do
>not even trust retired police
>officers to carry guns based
>on their voting in the
>past on allowing armed retired
>officers on airlines and cross
>state traveling.

That right there is what I'm talkin about. Do you think just because a guy is retired leo that he should some how be trusted MORE than the average citizen? Sounds no different to me than you complaining about special priveledges for poloticions. As far as I'm concerned, its a job and should carry no priveledges (RIGHTS) not afforded to the average citizen. "Hey we got ours...good luck" is not pro gun.

I'm not shooting this right at you relh, one of my best friends is a cop and he thinks the same way. I know its a tuff job and I apreciate it, but extra rights and priveledges is BULLCHIT unless its the same for all.


"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."

 

[dutch]

I'll never forget about rosie O Donnel speaking about gun laws and more control.
Than she was escorted off the stage by her bodyguards who I'm sure were packing guns.

 

[RELH]

Hardway;

I have seen a lot of citizens that I would be in fear of my life or limb if they were allowed to carry or use firearms in the same area that I may be in. You have to figure these idiots into the picture along with citizens who are well trained in firearms use.
Most of them have no clue about when they have a right to use deadly force and would not even give it a thought about what is down range when firing at a perceived threat. You would be singing a different tune if you or a family member was the one downrange and got hit by a stray bullet.
Even retired, I must qualify on a yearly basis and carry proof of that qualification with me If I pack outside of my state.
If you have problems with that, start writing to your Congressman on a regular basis and take your complaints to where it will do the most good.

RELH

 

[Hardway]

So should all those "citizens" lose there other constitutional righs as well because they dont have the same training as a law enforcment officer? Thats why sherrifs and other agencies always oppose "shall issue" ccw legislation in CA....because they think they should be able to decide who deserves one. Dont get me wrong, some sherrifs will willingly hand them out to average citizens for self defense (and I would put you in that boat), but they still oppose having the power to decide taken away.
And dont worry I do alot of emailing and faxin, I dont think you should'nt be able to carry....I just think every law abiding citizen should without the need for a "permit".

"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."

 

[RELH]

Hardway;

There is too many anti gun forces out there that you will never see every law abiding citizen have the right to pack without a permit. It is wishing for the moon and stars to think so in this day and time.

This is one battle you have to take a step by step as the anti gun forces did in taking away alot of firearm rights. Trying to go whole hog at once will only turn off most citizens who normally would side with you if you did it in increments.

During the time various law enforcement agencies and the NRA was fighting Congress to enact a bill allowing retired officers to pack out of their state, it also included citizens who possessed a CCW to be allowed also.

Congress, after several turn downs finally consented to allowing officers, but did not want to include citizens with a CCW. The next step is to put pressure on your politicians to reconsider citizens with CCW because it can be shown that they have a good history of being responsible and adhering to the laws in the use of their firearms.

I remember the anti gun forces in fighting the right for retired LEOs and CCW citizens to pack out of state, brought in several anti gun police chiefs to argue against granting them the right to pack in their jurisdiction. The excuse given was those lame brain politician-chiefs wanted to know who is packing guns in their jurisdictions.

Those so called chiefs made no bones about lumping retired LEOs and CCW citizens into the same bunch for not having the right to pack in their jurisdictions. You can bet the patrol cops working for those chiefs did not agree because that would include them also when they retired.

Heck, even in the days of the wild west, there was restrictions on packing guns within the city limits. Most of the old wild west towns such as Dodge city, Abilene, Tombstone had laws that would not allow the carrying of firearms within the city limits in order to curb violence.

I know where you are coming from and I agree to a large extent, but you are picking the wrong fight if you expect to win any more gun rights. Lets get the CCW citizen the right to pack in all states first. It is the next logical step in the program.

RELH