|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NE: Nebraska Democrat Smears Veteran Who Committed Suicide As White Supremacist After Alleged Self-Defense Shooting
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Without offering any evidence, Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt accused an Omaha man who committed suicide Sunday of maintaining white supremacist ties because he shot a black man who had been allegedly involved in attacking his business. Jake Gardner, a white Omaha bar owner and former U.S. Marine, committed suicide on Sunday after he was indicted by a grand jury last week with “manslaughter, attempted first-degree assault, terroristic threats, and weapon use” for shooting a black man, James Scurlock, on May 30. At the time, Gardner was defending his bar, The Gatsby, against protestors and rioters who threw objects at the windows.
|
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(9/22/2020)
|
| This state senator is ignoring all the video evidence in this case, Scurlock instigated the attack and died for his efforts. Mr. Gardner acted appropriately, and I am sorry to hear that he took his own life. He would have beaten this is any court in this state. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
