|
|
|
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:
GA: Gun Supporters Rally Around Waitress
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A local waitress who fired her gun at three fleeing robbers and lost her job over it is finding support from other gun owners.
Heather Burkinshaw-Stanley, known as “Shorty” to her friends and customers, had been working third shift for the Waffle House on 1363 S. Highway 29 [Newnan, GA] for almost two years.
On Thursday morning, Stanley was doing prep work when a man approached the cashier after finishing his meal. Along with two other men, he produced a note demanding money from the cashier or everyone in the restaurant would be shot, according to Stanley. ...
Stanley stopped what she was doing, ran to her car in the parking lot and grabbed a 9mm pistol and fired a single shot toward the fleeing robbers.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(1/2/2017)
|
| What Waffle House could've done is give the poor woman a day off and a paid gun defense class. She fired a shot in the air, Joe Biden tactic? At least she prevented and/or discouraged a present and future threats to human life. Don't be a heartless pc org Waffle House. You'll just get some letters, bad publicity, and lose business. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
