|
|
|
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:
Under Armour Drops Sponsorship of Wife of Hunter Who Speared Bear
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On August 18, Under Armour confirmed they were ending sponsorship of Sarah Bowmar, wife of Josh Bowmar, the American hunter who recently made news by killing a black bear with a spear in Alberta.
Breitbart News reported that Josh Bowmar affixed a GoPro camera to a spear and videoed himself hunting bear in dense wilderness in northern Alberta. The Edmonton Journal reported that Alberta officials condemned Bowmar’s hunt on August 15, describing it as “archaic” and “unacceptable.” And they “asked fish and wildlife officers” to investigate details of the hunt to see if Bowmar did anything illegal.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(8/20/2016)
|
| Its a good thing he did not use a gun or the leftists would really be angry. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/20/2016)
|
| I don't own any Under Armpit clothing and this action by them guarantees that I never will. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/20/2016)
|
| I don't own any Under Armpit clothing and this action by them guarantees that I never will. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(8/21/2016)
|
| Bow and arrow OK, but spear not ? He may be nuts, but spears. have killed lots of animals before . Black powder shooters/bow hunters want to do it the old ways - so why not spear hunting ? I'd say the bear had good odds ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
