|
|
|
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:
Why You Don’t Want To Put A Pro 2A Bumper Sticker On Your Car
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I’m an advocate of the Second Amendment (2A), but you’d never know it if you look at my car.
My sister told me that a local firearms trainer in her city recently recommended that women should put bumper stickers on their vehicles that read, “I’m protected by the Second Amendment,” or, “I’m protected by Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson” – you get the idea. The trainer even told her to put that bumper sticker right on the driver’s door. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/27/2016)
|
There are 2 main reasons I will not support the 2A with a bumper sticker.
1. I don’t want to reveal that I might be a concealed carry holder and that therefore, I might be packing. Talk about giving up the element of surprise.
2. I don’t want anyone to think I may have a gun stored in my car. Think about it. You leave your car parked in a parking lot somewhere – especially an airport or stadium. Why would you advertise that you might have a firearm in your vehicle?
1. You aren't the only one who fantasizes about using the 'element of surprise' to get the drop on the perp(s) who just ambushed you. Too bad it's just a fantasy.
2. You've got a good point there.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
