View Full Version : Anti-gun senator shoots intruder
:lol
http://tpo.net/anti_gun_senator/
Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.
The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen andBrunswick counties..
The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do as i say and not as i do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.
Share |
FuzzyLumpkins
12-29-2012, 05:51 PM
You guys are posting every single anecdote that you can get your hands on. Go buy some guns, fearful one.
I'm actually selling some guns. You should do the same.
CosmicCowboy
12-29-2012, 06:00 PM
That ones pretty funny.
CosmicCowboy
12-29-2012, 06:01 PM
Fuzzy doesn't have guns. In Fuzzys world he can fight off the bad guys with his imaginary big penis.
mrsmaalox
12-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Isn't that pretty old news? Soles hasn't been in office for over a year I believe.
Wild Cobra
12-29-2012, 06:54 PM
The incident was 2009, and he was a supporter of the NRA.
Someone is stretching on this story.
Wild Cobra
12-29-2012, 07:46 PM
Fuzzy doesn't have guns. In Fuzzys world he can fight off the bad guys with his imaginary big penis.
Maybe this is why Fuzzy likes Soles so much:
Says he was 13 when Soles lured him to his home (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=5759)
R.C. Soles accused of taking advantage of troubled teens (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110620/ARTICLES/110629999/1177?Title=R-C-Soles-accused-of-taking-advantage-of-troubled-teens-ex-senator-denies-allegations)
mavs>spurs
12-29-2012, 07:48 PM
it's just like when fatass michael moore talks shit about the 2nd amendment then the fat son of a bitch's bodyguard gets arrested at the airport for carrying illegally in NY where guns are banned by adolph bloomberg. these assholes all have guns and armed guards themselves, they just don't want YOU to have guns.
Wild Cobra
12-29-2012, 07:59 PM
it's just like when fatass michael moore talks shit about the 2nd amendment then the fat son of a bitch's bodyguard gets arrested at the airport for carrying illegally in NY where guns are banned by adolph bloomberg. these assholes all have guns and armed guards themselves, they just don't want YOU to have guns.
Seems to be a common theme among democrats.
FuzzyLumpkins
12-29-2012, 10:04 PM
Only WC can make himself look stupid, classless and undermine the position he and his fellow minions have in one post.
You really went and used the notion of someone being molested as a child as an attempted dig.
Seems to be a common theme among democrats.
Kind of like Repubs with banging gays and children.
As long as third world countries exist, I'll always have multiple weapons and lots of ammo. Additionally, I'm not the type to overestimate America's military dominance. Dominance does get tested. Do I think I'll be defedning from invasion any time soon? No. That said, I still don't think there's any place 100% safe in the universe.
Oh, and I'm not sure how surveys or stats back things up, but I'm one to believe that knowjng your neighbor probably owns guns is discouraging from committing some violent crime with said neighbor. From what I've heard, 9 out of 10 Texans owns a gun, so I know that makes me feel safe, actually...
it's just like when fatass michael moore talks shit about the 2nd amendment then the fat son of a bitch's bodyguard gets arrested at the airport for carrying illegally in NY where guns are banned by adolph bloomberg. these assholes all have guns and armed guards themselves, they just don't want YOU to have guns.
That's what I hate about guns. That's what IMHO makes em worse than nukes. A dreadful virus might kill 99% of the world without a single nuke being launched, and who will have all the guns?
One well versed has essentially unlimited destructive capability with a full auto. Plus I tend to imagine trashcan Man hauling a nuke back to las vegas in his search for heavy weapons.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 05:36 AM
lol Snopes took a gigantic shit on TSA's email.
Latarian Milton
12-30-2012, 06:35 AM
liberals also want to make sex a prerogative of the highest social class only, sex helps transmit AIDS and our society can't afford so many people having sex. polygamy is on the way imho, and baby boys born to middle to lower class families will get castrated right after birth
boutons_deux
12-30-2012, 09:31 AM
one can own a gun and still be PRO gun regulation, even severe gun regulation, but I appreciate this may be too subtle for you bubbas.
mavs>spurs
12-30-2012, 01:04 PM
nothing about you is intelligent or subtle buttons, you're a misguided idiot and a psychopath
mavs>spurs
12-30-2012, 01:05 PM
liberals also want to make sex a prerogative of the highest social class only, sex helps transmit AIDS and our society can't afford so many people having sex. polygamy is on the way imho, and baby boys born to middle to lower class families will get castrated right after birth
symbolic castration with the circumcision which causes a degree of sexual dysfunction and leads to a few less babies perhaps
boutons_deux
12-30-2012, 01:07 PM
m>s and LM trolling each other :lol
lol Snopes took a gigantic shit on TSA's email.
Lol @ you fact checking my link with snopes. When is the last time you've been laid Mr. Internet? And don't answer with another question please.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 02:24 PM
Lol @ you fact checking my link with snopes.Actually I was googling for an update of the more salacious charges. Finding out you are a gullible chain email bot was a nice bonus. Something like that has to be so embarrassing that one would feel rather desperate to change the subject. Case in point:
When is the last time you've been laid Mr. Internet? And don't answer with another question please.Quite recently tbh. I have no similar interest in your sex life.
I could give two shits if the guy turned out to be pro-gun. He still saved his own life with a gun. The fact you are giddy over your snopes find discredits your claim of getting laid "recently".
FuzzyLumpkins
12-30-2012, 03:19 PM
It doesn't at all TSA, but his snopes find labels you as a Darrin-esque email spammer with little in the way of original thought.
Have some self respect and quit getting your political ideas from email spam.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 03:23 PM
I could give two shits if the guy turned out to be pro-gun.
Anti-gun senator shoots intruder
:lol:lol
The fact you are giddy over your snopes find discredits your claim of getting laid "recently".The fact you tried to change the subject to my sex life discredits your claim of not caring about the senator's position on guns.
I didn't feel the need to get into specifics with you -- unless you're really that interested in my sex life.
Are you really that interested in my sex life?
LnGrrrR
12-30-2012, 03:27 PM
I could give two shits if the guy turned out to be pro-gun. He still saved his own life with a gun. The fact you are giddy over your snopes find discredits your claim of getting laid "recently".
That has to be one of the worst attempts at logic I've ever seen.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 03:30 PM
That has to be one of the worst attempts at logic I've ever seen.Give him a break. I doubt he expected to be DarrinSed when he woke up this morning. We've seen it can be a rough experience.
Oh noes my e-rep is crumbling! :lmao
Oh, Gee!!
12-30-2012, 04:19 PM
What were said senator's positions on guns and boys?
It doesn't at all TSA, but his snopes find labels you as a Darrin-esque email spammer with little in the way of original thought.
Have some self respect and quit getting your political ideas from email spam.
You mean like how you rode the "no mass shootings since 1996" claim until I showed you otherwise, and after being prodded on it in every thread you finally admitted you were wrong, of course with the caveat that you were still right? Like that?
Give him a break. I doubt he expected to be DarrinSed when he woke up this morning. We've seen it can be a rough experience.
You're a compendium of pithy remarks but devoid of anything meaningful.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 06:05 PM
You're a compendium of pithy remarks but devoid of anything meaningful.:lol still itching for a fight, aren't you.
Go shoot something, tough guy. You're pithing yourself in rage.
:lol still itching for a fight, aren't you.
Go shoot something, tough guy. You're pithing yourself in rage.
As you stand by for any response, always at the ready. I wonder what your response time actually is? I would guess less than 1 hour.
FuzzyLumpkins
12-30-2012, 06:52 PM
You mean like how you rode the "no mass shootings since 1996" claim until I showed you otherwise, and after being prodded on it in every thread you finally admitted you were wrong, of course with the caveat that you were still right? Like that?
A reduction form 14 to one is not AS significant as a reduction form 14 to none; however, it is still a significant reduction. Because it is still significant, it speaks to the efficacy of the Australian ban.
Now hypocrisy not being a valid argument against an idea aside, the entire argument of the email is that this senator was for gun support yet he still used a gun to protect himself. Since he is a hypocrite we will do the guilt by association gig and conclude we shouldn't list nor trust those that support limiting gun rights.
If he is not really anti-gun then that whole house of cards falls down and it only becomes yet another anecdote.
We have discussed this several times and I am getting to the point where I feel I am giving you too much credit as for how intelligent you are. This is not an 'easy' concept but neither is it difficult.
A reduction form 14 to one is not AS significant as a reduction form 14 to none; however, it is still a significant reduction. Because it is still significant, it speaks to the efficacy of the Australian ban.
Can you explain the 43 years between the 1928 mass killing and the subsequent 1971 mass killing? What laws or bans enabled that span of no mass shootings? What changed? What is to prevent another mass shooting since firearms are still available and you can kill someone with a .38 and a 10 round magazine, in fact you can kill 10 people without reloading, so it wasn't the absence of firearms.
Now hypocrisy not being a valid argument against an idea aside, the entire argument of the email is that this senator was for gun support yet he still used a gun to protect himself. Since he is a hypocrite we will do the guilt by association gig and conclude we shouldn't list nor trust those that support limiting gun rights. I don't care about the email. It doesn't matter if the senator was for or against guns, he was a hypocrite and pointing out that politicians are dishonest is a wasted endeavor.
If he is not really anti-gun then that whole house of cards falls down and it only becomes yet another anecdote.
Except that he defended himself successfully with a firearm. The rest, I agree.
We have discussed this several times and I am getting to the point where I feel I am giving you too much credit as for how intelligent you are. This is not an 'easy' concept but neither is it difficult.
Like I said.
ChumpDumper
12-30-2012, 10:53 PM
As you stand by for any response, always at the ready. I wonder what your response time actually is? I would guess less than 1 hour.Sorry I kept you waiting. I know it's very important to you that I respond.
Gave you time to clean your pants though.
LnGrrrR
12-30-2012, 11:50 PM
Oh noes my e-rep is crumbling! :lmao
We can tell how much you don't care by how you keep posting in this thread.
FuzzyLumpkins
12-31-2012, 12:00 AM
Can you explain the 43 years between the 1928 mass killing and the subsequent 1971 mass killing? What laws or bans enabled that span of no mass shootings? What changed? What is to prevent another mass shooting since firearms are still available and you can kill someone with a .38 and a 10 round magazine, in fact you can kill 10 people without reloading, so it wasn't the absence of firearms.
I don't care about the email. It doesn't matter if the senator was for or against guns, he was a hypocrite and pointing out that politicians are dishonest is a wasted endeavor.
Except that he defended himself successfully with a firearm. The rest, I agree.
Like I said.
It's not about what you care about you megalomanical douche. The OP was by TSA not your racist ass. You did not make the argument and the response was to the OP. This isn't about you although you are intested in showing your ass to everyone this holiday it seems.
And you want to talk about moving the goalposts. Now you bring up pre 1970. I don't know. That is interesting to say the least/
I think that argument has merit though. The argument I would have made in your shoes from the get go would be that mass shootings are so rare relative to the time frames and populations involved that it would be impossible to make any commentary one way or another as to the efficacy. I have been waiting for a couple of days now for you to make that argument but you instead back into it from what I am guessing is a mailer.
I only wanted to point out that making the distinction from zero to one really did not posit much in your favor. I wanted to point out that you suck at picking your battles so to speak. The point still stands that there were no events for a decade following the ban and only one for all the time since. Myself, I am more interested in the larger sample sizes like the crime rates, gun accidents, deaths, crimes etc for our NATO allies. They seem to do better than we do in terms of gun policy as evidenced by them being in much better shape.
Less crime, less death, less accidents and so forth. This holds true for UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
It's not about what you care about you megalomanical douche. The OP was by TSA not your racist ass. You did not make the argument and the response was to the OP. This isn't about you although you are intested in showing your ass to everyone this holiday it seems.
That's it, ignore the points because you cannot address them. Ad hom attacks don't impress me.
And you want to talk about moving the goalposts. Now you bring up pre 1970. I don't know. That is interesting to say the least/
So lives weren't important pre 1970? What's the statue of limitations?
I think that argument has merit though. The argument I would have made in your shoes from the get go would be that mass shootings are so rare relative to the time frames and populations involved that it would be impossible to make any commentary one way or another as to the efficacy. I have been waiting for a couple of days now for you to make that argument but you instead back into it from what I am guessing is a mailer.
No, I've purposely avoided it, because rare or not does not negate it's frequency if you call all other events noise. It would be casually dismissing the shootings. Instead, I wanted to focus on the "before there were many" part and see just how many and what the frequency actually was instead of just taking someone's word for it. To go 43 years without a mass murder is amazing, assuming it actually happened and someone wasn't hiding the truth. Then you have 3 or 4 of these things in a couple years, that really skewed the results. Outside of that anomaly, shootings were spaced 4 to 5 years apart, and the one in 2002 followed that trend being spaced 4 years from the Port Arthur shooting but only 2 years from the mass murder by arson.
I only wanted to point out that making the distinction from zero to one really did not posit much in your favor. I wanted to point out that you suck at picking your battles so to speak. The point still stands that there were no events for a decade following the ban and only one for all the time since. Myself, I am more interested in the larger sample sizes like the crime rates, gun accidents, deaths, crimes etc for our NATO allies. They seem to do better than we do in terms of gun policy as evidenced by them being in much better shape.
No, I feel safe in saying that the gun ban did not have that great of an effect on mass shootings, if any. Just judging by how these shooters have planned and carried out their attacks, it's not like they had guns laying around and one day decided to use them. They acquired guns for that purpose. They stocked up on ammo. You can still do both in Australia, you just need to concoct a reason. You can get illegal weapons. You're going to kill people, how legal do you need to be? There are surely people who would sell you their firearm and call it stolen for 2x what they paid for it. Surely there are still strawman purchases there. But that raises another question; how honest are they compared to us on average? How likely are they to skirt the law and sell things to people in an illegal fashion to make a profit, if they think they won't get caught?
I remember sitting at a cafe in Finland around 2am and there were three girls standing across the street waiting for the cross walk signal to change. It was -20 or something absurd and they just stood there, in tights, until the light changed. There wasn't a car in sight. I asked one of them about it when they entered the cafe and she said that they all regard laws in the same way, that if you don't always abide by them they are useless. That they are not to decide when and when not to obey laws. In the US people get run over for crossing a street 20 yards from an intersection. People intentionally go in and out the wrong doors. They drive off the interstate and onto the access roads on a whim, through the median. Many many people feel that laws are for other people, and they just want to sneak on through as if the machine won't know, as if they aren't part of society, that it exists around them only. Many other countries aren't like that at all. We are a self entitled nation, we often don't give a damn about others despite our lip service to the contrary. In many countries, if you tell someone "hey, why don't you come over for dinner sometime?" you will probably see them that night because it's taken literally. Here's is a passing "get the fuck away from me" said in a nicer tone. You probably won't see each other again until the next chance encounter.
Just saying we are not comparable to them, so why keep using them as a measuring stick?
However, the shootings are rare, but something else was happening at that time that's not happening now other than those shootings. I just haven't pinpointed it. It could be a statistical anomaly like how you can get 7 heads in a row with a perceived 50/50 chance each flip. You might try all day and not get 7, but then one day it might happen. It just does not make any sense that mass shootings would be affected by legal moves UNLESS we consider that a large percentage of the mass shooters were law abiding citizens prior to their romp, so perhaps they would be discouraged from attempting to acquire guns. I really doubt that though.
Less crime, less death, less accidents and so forth. This holds true for UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
The crime rates are largely socioeconomically related. If gun opponents would say "deaths" instead of "gun related deaths", it would at least sound meaningful. If you get rid of anything you will lower the deaths related to it. That's a no brainer. It doesn't mean you lower crime related deaths. We should never consider suicide as a gun related death, not for accounting purposes, as it's a decision by an individual to exit the game, and they are just picking the easiest method they know.
Wild Cobra
12-31-2012, 03:52 AM
Fuzzy doesn't have guns. In Fuzzys world he can fight off the bad guys with his imaginary big penis.
Wrong...
This is his Tommy Gun:
http://walyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Cool_Rubber_Band_Gun_10.jpg (http://walyou.com/rubber-band-gun-designs/)
ChumpDumper
12-31-2012, 04:50 AM
Ad hom attacks don't impress me.That's funny because you rely on them so often.
Latarian Milton
12-31-2012, 05:05 AM
No, I feel safe in saying that the gun ban did not have that great of an effect on mass shootings, if any. Just judging by how these shooters have planned and carried out their attacks, it's not like they had guns laying around and one day decided to use them. They acquired guns for that purpose. They stocked up on ammo. You can still do both in Australia, you just need to concoct a reason. You can get illegal weapons. You're going to kill people, how legal do you need to be? There are surely people who would sell you their firearm and call it stolen for 2x what they paid for it. Surely there are still strawman purchases there. But that raises another question; how honest are they compared to us on average? How likely are they to skirt the law and sell things to people in an illegal fashion to make a profit, if they think they won't get caught?
i bet you wouldn't sell any of your guns even if i offer 10x the amount of cash you paid for it, and you're stupid to think the cops would believe your "i don't know" bullshit and let you walk free of charge. as long as you're the legal owner of the guns you should be responsible for keeping them from being accessed by ill-minded thugs, and you would also need a lawyer in the court of law if someone committed a crime with your guns tbh
i bet you wouldn't sell any of your guns even if i offer 10x the amount of cash you paid for it, and you're stupid to think the cops would believe your "i don't know" bullshit and let you walk free of charge. as long as you're the legal owner of the guns you should be responsible for keeping them from being accessed by ill-minded thugs, and you would also need a lawyer in the court of law if someone committed a crime with your guns tbh
I'd sell every gun I own for just 2x what I paid. I'm pretty sure you couldn't afford any of them and I'm not sure you're legally allowed to own one.
Your other senseless yapping is pointless, since the conversation is about Australia.
I am not for sucking dick but It would be interesting to hold one in my mouth until it goes limp.
ChumpDumper
12-31-2012, 02:55 PM
I just proved ChumpDumper right.
Again.
mavs>spurs
12-31-2012, 07:25 PM
Lol jacking off to your e-persona. Did you really just refer to yourself in the 3rd person while declaring e-victory? You liberals are weird.
Koolaid_Man
12-31-2012, 08:08 PM
Lol jacking off to your e-persona. Did you really just refer to yourself in the 3rd person while declaring e-victory? You liberals are weird.
Hey...Hi you doing Joe The Plumber...:lol you making 250k / yr yet or are you still stuck at 40k... hahaha "we in the state o Mississippi"...voting republican hasn't worked but it could :lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY
ChumpDumper
12-31-2012, 08:43 PM
Lol jacking off to your e-persona. Did you really just refer to yourself in the 3rd person while declaring e-victory? You liberals are weird.I don't think you know what I did there.
Don't worry about it.
DUNCANownsKOBE
12-31-2012, 08:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY
holy shit :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
Koolaid_Man
12-31-2012, 09:46 PM
holy shit :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
The best vid online tbh. Maher is a genius a visionaire...:lol
DUNCANownsKOBE
12-31-2012, 09:58 PM
The best vid online tbh. Maher is a genius a visionaire...:lol
Maher is the best political mind on TV.
LnGrrrR
12-31-2012, 11:24 PM
Tbh, making fun of ignorant Mississipians is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Maher is the best political mind on TV.
I disagree. He's intentionally obtuse when it comes to anything that goes against the far left. He's dishonest and relies on shock journalism. I'd take Jon Stewart 10 to 1 over Maher.
Wild Cobra
01-01-2013, 03:18 AM
Tbh, making fun of ignorant Mississipians is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Still, I wonder how many people they interviewed before choosing the clips they did.
Latarian Milton
01-01-2013, 08:58 PM
I'd sell every gun I own for just 2x what I paid. I'm pretty sure you couldn't afford any of them and I'm not sure you're legally allowed to own one.
Your other senseless yapping is pointless, since the conversation is about Australia.
a strict gun control may not have any significant effect on gun crimes overall but it'll certainly lower the rate of mass shooting since most criminals of such cases got their guns from legal resources like the one who killed 26 innocent people at sandy hook.
a strict gun control may not have any significant effect on gun crimes overall but it'll certainly lower the rate of mass shooting since most criminals of such cases got their guns from legal resources like the one who killed 26 innocent people at sandy hook.
Those guns were illegal to use since they were stolen. Is stealing guns "getting them from legal resources"?
Latarian Milton
01-01-2013, 09:23 PM
Those guns were illegal to use since they were stolen. Is stealing guns "getting them from legal resources"?
but the gun used by adam at sandy hook was not bought from a black market and that's what i mean by legal resource tbh, your once again trying to divert the discussion into a wrong direction but im not gonna buy your trick. if the legal owner of the gun had fulfilled her responsibility of taking care of the gun n keeping it out of the reach of her son who was known to have mental disorders, the tragedy at sandy hook would probably have never happened in the first place. a strick gun control will make gun owners more responsible for the firearms they possess imho
but the gun used by adam at sandy hook was not bought from a black market and that's what i mean by legal resource tbh, your once again trying to divert the discussion into a wrong direction but im not gonna buy your trick. if the legal owner of the gun had fulfilled her responsibility of taking care of the gun n keeping it out of the reach of her son who was known to have mental disorders, the tragedy at sandy hook would probably have never happened in the first place. a strick gun control will make gun owners more responsible for the firearms they possess imho
Even when the black market acquires them, originally they came from legal manufacturers.
Latarian Milton
01-01-2013, 09:55 PM
Even when the black market acquires them, originally they came from legal manufacturers.
the discussion hasn't been derailed enough so you're pushing it one step further, ok. even if they were not legally manufactured, the iron ore that they're made from have no sin
the discussion hasn't been derailed enough so you're pushing it one step further, ok. even if they were not legally manufactured, the iron ore that they're made from have no sin
The weapon itself is never illegal. It's possession that's illegal. Once Adam Lanza stole the weapons, he was in illegal possession.
You're trying to draw arbitrary lines to suit your argument. Doing that doesn't lead to anything constructive, though it might make you feel better.
Latarian Milton
01-02-2013, 08:55 PM
The weapon itself is never illegal. It's possession that's illegal. Once Adam Lanza stole the weapons, he was in illegal possession.
You're trying to draw arbitrary lines to suit your argument. Doing that doesn't lead to anything constructive, though it might make you feel better.
but it was the legal possessor's duty to keep his/her gun from getting into a fucker's hands illegally, right? i mean if someone steals your gun and commits a crime with the gun, you should also take responsibility for forefeiting your duty imho. a strict gun law would make gun owners like yourself more responsible for the firearms they own so that it would lower the likelihood of similar tragedies happening, you can't argue against that i guess
Kind of hard to blame the legal owner since she was fucking murdered.
ChumpDumper
01-02-2013, 09:04 PM
Kind of hard to blame the legal owner since she was fucking murdered.If one takes that tack, she can be blamed for that too.
ChumpDumper
01-02-2013, 09:36 PM
Well, the argument might be this -- if she was going to put the crazy kid away for being volatile, it may have been a good idea to keep the guns out of the house until he was out of the house.
Bill_Brasky
01-02-2013, 10:36 PM
Kind of hard to blame the legal owner since she was fucking murdered.
Yeah, with a legal gun that she was careless with and let fall into the hands of her psychotic son. Real responsible.
Wild Cobra
01-03-2013, 03:09 AM
I still want to see evidence that this senator is anti-gun.
Anyone...
FuzzyLumpkins
01-03-2013, 03:26 AM
The weapon itself is never illegal. It's possession that's illegal. Once Adam Lanza stole the weapons, he was in illegal possession.
You're trying to draw arbitrary lines to suit your argument. Doing that doesn't lead to anything constructive, though it might make you feel better.
Let's obfuscate the conversation by splitting hairs regarding the word 'illegal' and then accuse someone else of drawing arbitrary lines.
Jeez, is there any argument that you do not degrade down into semantics?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.