It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Gun N. C. State State Senator Shoots A Home Invader

page: 4
69
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Anti Gun N. C. State State Senator Shoots A Home Invader



North Carolina State Senator R.C. Soles,


I think someone just read Democrat and equated it to "Anti-Gun"

What a great example of partisan junk.....

Why not research before doing a cut and paste from "free republic" etal???

BTW...the NRA gives Senator Soles an A for his Pro-Gun voting record!!!

www.votesmart.org...

Senator Robert Charles 'R.C.' Soles, Jr. (NC)
2008 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all candidates in 2008, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Soles a grade of A (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 



Good catch. Starred and flagged.


Yes, I agree with you, it is extremely infuriating how the gun-grabbers want American citizens to be disarmed, yet they themselves are armed and would use their weapons as this example shows.

There was not too long ago another example in which a gun-grabber, can't remember who it was, was also caught using a gun yet this man was a gun control advocate.

These people are showing that they want ownership of firearms to be a priviledge only by the few, and by the police, and military they can control, and these people are some of the most Unconstitutional politicians that exist.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

On the other hand, there's this evaluation of him: link

He's given a one star rating on gun rights, meaning that about 60% of the time he supports gun rights. For my money, either an elected official is 100% pro 2nd, or they're not getting my vote. You can argue he's not 'anti-gun' because he about half the time he isn't, but in my book that's not good enough.

source

This guide estimates where candidates stand on gun issues by comparing their views with those of a control group of gun owners. As noted below, a "4-STAR" candidate agrees with pro-gun voters on at least 90% of gun issues, a 3-STAR agrees on least 80%, a 2-STAR on at least 70%, a 1-STAR on at least 60%. A 0-STAR candidate agrees on less than 60% of gun issues.


I guess it boils down to which group you trust more: The NRA (a lobbyist group) or an independent group such as the one above.

60% may be okay with some people, but it's not good enough for me.

$0.02


TA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by maybereal11
 

On the other hand, there's this evaluation of him: link

He's given a one star rating on gun rights, meaning that about 60% of the time he supports gun rights.


Just as I thought... hardly ANTI-GUN.




For my money, either an elected official is 100% pro 2nd, or they're not getting my vote. You can argue he's not 'anti-gun' because he about half the time he isn't, but in my book that's not good enough.



Well that makes sense that it's not good enough for your vote. But it's good enough to show that this isn't ironic at all. Might as well had a headline saying "Man against pollution takes deep breath!"



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 




Just as I thought... hardly ANTI-GUN.


'Hardly' still counts in my humble opinion. Everyone else can have a "you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem" stance on their various pet issues, I can as well. If he were 'hardly' or 'barely' pro-life, he would still be considered pro-life by most.


TA




[edit on 25-8-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Nobody who is 100% pro-2nd Amendment will make it into Congress. If somebody were "100%" then they would be perfectly fine with convicted murderers owning nuclear weapons, as in the 2nd Amendment doesn't distinguish between any specific types of "arms."



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


For crying out loud with the "everybody owning a nuclear weapon" red herring....

Nuclear weapons ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE.... not to mention that you need a particle accelerator, as well as other expensive equipment and the know-how on how to produce such weapons... Then there is the fact that you can't store "nuclear weapons' in your fridge.....

For crying out loud the people that keep making this red herring can't seem to understand what in the world they are talking about....



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 

Semantics...

60% is still a little low for me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don't think he's pro-gun-control, then great.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



For crying out loud with the "everybody owning a nuclear weapon" red herring....

Exactly...





TA




[edit on 25-8-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Exactly...


TA


I wanted to say something else, but that wouldn't have been polite and would have warranted a warning by the mods.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


We have a decommissioned missile silo outside of town, you know, just in case you needed some off site storage.


I have said it before and I will say it again, if they outlaw all guns only Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguards will have guns.

link

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Ahabstar]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
heck they could only get Americans to give up their gun for what one day maybe two and from then on it would be ... there they are shoot...

Off with their heads is gonna come real soon - if they keep down this current road... whats really troubling is ... this:
Rothchild keep buying more and more opposition until you go broke or get whacked which ever is cheaper. I use to think it was CIA and then Jordan Maxwell said they are British and Click... a lot of things makes sense including isreal.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
i say shoot the next person who says they are anti-gun in the leg, then i bet when they get out of the hospital they get a gun so next time they say they are anti gun and someone goes to shoot them again they can actually shoot back



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Ah, well thank you for your feigned politeness and for taking the more backhanded approach to launching a personal attack against me by openly and pointedly stating that you kept it to yourself. And what made you so angry again? Your own politically charged, knee-jerk reaction of following of your chosen party? Why? I've done nothing to you. It sounds like you have anger issues. I'd get it looked into, if I were you.

I think you should also look into my posting history on gun rights. I'm one of the most pro-gun people on this web site. If you're going to refrain from all these things that would have warranted a warning from the mods that you "wanted to say," then you are not such a great person for wanting to say them in the first place. It's seriously... sad. I just can't think of another word for it. Having such a deep rooted desire to be rude to strangers, just because they don't have a face to you... huh.

For my part, I'm sorry for whatever insulting thing I said about you that made it so hard for you to keep the rest of your angry outpouring bottled up inside.

 


As for nuclear weapons... cost is irrelevant, technically. Rights are not bound by cost. In spite of your rhetoric, my statement stands: To be 100% for the "right to bear arms," you would have to be for the right to bear 100% of arms. That's what 100% is. That's what 100% means: Everything. Should Bill Gates be allowed to have a nuclear bomb? I'm sure he could pony up the dough. Should the Rockefeller family be allowed to carry suitcase nukes in their car? After all, if cost is the only thing we have to prohibit nuclear proliferation among the public, well, that would be a right that the filthy rich could exercise, right?

I suggest you take my comment into perspective, before assuming it was an outright attack on the Second Amendment. I was commenting on the idea of somebody being "100% Pro Second Amendment," not attacking the argument that we have those rights. In fact, I never even stated *MY* opinion on gun control. I was actually discussing R.C. Sole's stance on the issue, and making a point as to why I feel he is not, in fact, anti-gun.

So do tell, why are you so worked up? I'm honestly curious what horrible things you'd have to say about me, and why, considering you and I have never spoken to each other by my recollection. Feel free to IM it if we'd be drifting too far off topic.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..

Originally posted by projectvxn
I wonder how this experience will change this man's mind on the issue.



It will change his mind to. "I can have a gun to defend myself and you sheep can't."

This is not new. They exempt themselves from the laws they write for 'you'.


Exactly. Most of our elected officials are corrupt to the core. Dodging taxes, grabbing guns, doing drugs, stealing tax payer money and funneling it to themselves and their friends. Look no further than any congressman and senator for the past 30 years. Mostly all dirty....from dust dirty to full blown aids infested hooker in a sewer dirty.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Spock Shock
 


No one is blaming him for incapacitating the criminal, apparently this was a man that rallied for Americans to not be able to have access to guns, yet he had one himself....



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Maybe this was an enlightening moment for the individual either he is a complete hypocrite or he will change his mind on gun control.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
In Lennons' song Imagine,he never mentioned that people should not be able to defend themselves.

In fact,I think that the world would be a very much nicer place if EVERYONE KNEW that there were a distinct possibility that if they gave someone # because they were having a bad day, that they would possibly get a lead injection.

It is too late to vote the double standard criminals out of office,nobody gets close unless they tow the line long before there is a vote at all.

I am amazed that anyone would not want to be able to defend themselves in a world such as this.....especially bureaucratic criminal trash,or is there a double standard?..

Same old crap as always.

I have noticed a pattern here,the old and infirm who cannot defend themselves are usually supportive of those who promise to do it for them.

Broken promises.

Anyway..........

You and I are under a different set of rules and laws than "they" are,study and find out yourself,or just sit on your thumbs and let them take your guns,and shoot you up with untested vaccines and drugs that do more damage than good.........



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by desertdreamer
 


Apparently, no he did not. As I've posted, he actually rallied for Americans to be allowed to shoot intruders in their home, and as another poster pointed out he has an "A" rating with the NRA, which means he's quite supportive of the Second Amendment.

The group that called him anti-gun and gave him one star is probably just some anti-liberal group out to discredit him in order to get a God Fearing Republican into his Senate seat. For all we know, the 40% of things he voted "against" guns on where just things that changed the way the red tape works on existing laws.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
60% is still a little low for me, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.


Are you as obsessed with the 2nd as to vote down a candidate who's 60% pro-gun and has wonderful track record and has a lot of promise for the state or the country? I'm not saying that's Mr.Soles, but somebody else that qualifies.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join