|
|
|
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:
Stupid Concealed Carry Myths About Women
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Here are a few stupid myths that I see thrown around when it comes to women and Concealed Carry for self-defense.
Women Shouldn’t Carry
This is probably the worst myth of the bunch, the idea that women shouldn’t carry a firearm at all in case it is taken from her by an attacker and turned upon her. This is the argument often used by anti-gunners when talking about allowing things like campus carry (Campuses are one of the most dangerous places for women to be due to the exceptionally high sexual assault numbers). |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(10/22/2015)
|
| This is very unreal. As a member of a local gun club, every year we sponsor a "Ladies Day" Any woman can come and be trained on how to handle a pistol, high power/low power, and shotgun. Each participant is paired with an experience coach. We have a good cross section of participants. Considering what I saw after just a short day of experience, I would not like to go against any of these ladies if they were armed. They were not afraid of the weapons, and they were very accurate. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
