|
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:
AL: Police: Worker shot man who opened fire in IHOP
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Huntsville Police Department on Thursday identified the two people killed in the Wednesday night shooting as IHOP employee Roy Brown and customer Roderick Turner. Brown was 56. Turner was 25.
In a statement, police said Turner was picking up a carryout order and became “disruptive and loud regarding the service at the business.”
After a confrontation, police said Turner pulled a handgun and started firing at employees, striking Brown and another worker. Police said the wounded employee “then pulled a handgun and shot the customer-shooter in self-defense of others.” |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(1/18/2019)
|
Yet another case where someone fell through a crack; Turner had been arrested for assault & battery and no - billed by a grand jury TWICE. Ignored by the legal system, twice Turner had severe anger control issues and should have been disqualified from carrying firearms.
He SHOULD have been serving time for felony assault.
And we are told we need to give up our guns.
Oh.....the son of the manager was shot in the arm....and responded by pulling HIS OWN GUN and shooting Turner.
So ended this version of "The Turner Diaries." ;) |
|
|
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) |
|
|