• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

History of bumper stickers

WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Bumper stickers are not as popular as they used to be, probably because of the extinction chrome collision resistant guards on vehicles. See I took a single word and turned it into three words, LMAO.

But they were once a very effective form of political communication, to the point, not subtle because a bumper has limited space. Some people should have limited space when they talk, like politicians. We keep hearing this claim that every short to the point post is a bumper sticker. Well I like people who are direct and get the point. I despise most politicians, and especially those that ramble on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Well you get the point, they spew a lot but never really communicate a damn thing, and if they did it strains the eyes to find it. IMO a honest direct, blunt, politician would win in a landslide. People are really tired of windbags, now look I have gone on too long.

FUQ

Since their invention, bumper stickers have become a recognizable part of the way we express ourselves on the road, and they’ve made their impact on popular culture as well.

http://www.navitor.com/blog/brief-history-bumper-stickers/
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Nightmare said:
Hmmpf! Bumper stickers led to bumper sticker politics.

Not every concept can be expressed in three icons on a bumper sticker or a hundred panels of a graphic-novel or a hundred pages of a popularized political science tract.

It is common to assert "I am", "We are", "It is", but few write the negative assertion.

Read Timothy Ferris' The Science of Liberty.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
It seems there are those who would disparage Thomas Paine and the authors of both the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers for being too verbose.

The present thread is truly ironic given that most thoughtful, intelligent voters long for a return to a true Lincoln-Douglas style debate between candidates. There are obviously those who lack the desire or ability to dig deeply into a subject, to explore nuances, to actually move beyond the surface. It is for these poor souls that focus group sound bites (ie verbal bumper stickers) are crafted and used in place of real debate.

On this forum where we are all 90% or more in agreement on RKBA, if we cannot and will not delve beyond sound bites and bumper stickers among our selves, then how can we complain if candidates addressing hundreds of thousands of voters do not give any real details?

Of course, some who claim to like directness and plain talking are, themselves, most often coy (a polite word for engaging in deceit via omission) about their true positions.

Bumper stickers are for sports teams, not for serious political or social discussion.

Bumper stickers belong on Twitter. On an actual forum, populated by educated adults, some depth and detail should be the norm.

Charles
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"...shal not be infringed." sound kinda bumperstickerish to me. How deeply do we need to dig in this subject to find the nuance in that statement? :rolleyes:
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
OC for ME said:
"...shal not be infringed." sound kinda bumperstickerish to me. How deeply do we need to dig in this subject to find the nuance in that statement?
Click to expand...

Then let's shut down the forum. There is nothing to discuss is there. :rolleyes:

And notable, we get to "shall not be infringed" only by ignoring that bit about a well regulated militia, the security of a free state, the people, and what exactly it means to "bear arms".

Some on here actually think that "the right of the people to bear arms" only includes visible arms. They claim the 2nd amendment provides no protections for arms carried in a discrete or concealed manner. Does that warrant any discussion?

What about the extent to which the federal government can properly and/or should protect the individual RKBA against infringement by State and local governments, or even by private entities?

There are those here who seem to believe the feds have a proper role in forcing business owners to engage in unwanted associations with those who are members of minority races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, or religions is ok, but providing similar protections for those who legally carry guns is not.

We are agreed at about 90% or more. But there are some interesting areas for discussion in the fringes where we disagree.

Of course if all someone wants is to have lots of agreement and "me too" and "+1", what exactly is the point of a discussion board.

Charles
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
utbagpiper said:
Then let's shut down the forum. There is nothing to discuss is there. :rolleyes:

And notable, we get to "shall not be infringed" only by ignoring that bit about a well regulated militia, the security of a free state, the people, and what exactly it means to "bear arms".

Some on here actually think that "the right of the people to bear arms" only includes visible arms. They claim the 2nd amendment provides no protections for arms carried in a discrete or concealed manner. Does that warrant any discussion?

What about the extent to which the federal government can properly and/or should protect the individual RKBA against infringement by State and local governments, or even by private entities?

There are those here who seem to believe the feds have a proper role in forcing business owners to engage in unwanted associations with those who are members of minority races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, or religions is ok, but providing similar protections for those who legally carry guns is not.

We are agreed at about 90% or more. But there are some interesting areas for discussion in the fringes where we disagree.

Of course if all someone wants is to have lots of agreement and "me too" and "+1", what exactly is the point of a discussion board.

Charles
Click to expand...
ALL of the BOR are short, to the point, without a lot of windbaggery, that was added later by the courts, politicians, and lobbyists.
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
WalkingWolf said:
ALL of the BOR are short, to the point, without a lot of windbaggery, that was added later by the courts, politicians, and lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Who is it that holds:

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as the arms are visible. "

Anyone? WalkingWolf?

It isn't just the courts, politicians, or lobbyists who try to add asinine garbage to the Bill of Rights. And for some, it doesn't take much volume to add a lot of stink.

Given such a position it is no surprise that some folks would rather conceal their real beliefs behind a guise of brevity, rather than explore them in any details. Just like today's lying, cheating, cowardly politicians.

Charles
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
utbagpiper said:
Who is it that holds:

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as the arms are visible. "

Anyone? WalkingWolf?

It isn't just the courts, politicians, or lobbyists who try to add asinine garbage to the Bill of Rights. And for some, it doesn't take much volume to add a lot of stink.

Given such a position it is no surprise that some folks would rather conceal their real beliefs behind a guise of brevity, rather than explore them in any details. Just like today's lying, cheating, cowardly politicians.

Charles
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
WalkingWolf said:
Actually not, because I have a sense of humor, and I am brutally honest, and I do not believe in boring people to death. You post just like Obama speaks.
Click to expand...

Must be horrible to have to read all of my posts. Oh wait. You don't.

Let it go.

Charles
 
Rusty Young Man

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
utbagpiper said:
Then let's shut down the forum. There is nothing to discuss is there. :rolleyes:

And notable, we get to "shall not be infringed" only by ignoring that bit about a well regulated militia, the security of a free state, the people, and what exactly it means to "bear arms".

Some on here actually think that "the right of the people to bear arms" only includes visible arms. They claim the 2nd amendment provides no protections for arms carried in a discrete or concealed manner. Does that warrant any discussion?

What about the extent to which the federal government can properly and/or should protect the individual RKBA against infringement by State and local governments, or even by private entities?

There are those here who seem to believe the feds have a proper role in forcing business owners to engage in unwanted associations with those who are members of minority races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, or religions is ok, but providing similar protections for those who legally carry guns is not.
SNIP...
Click to expand...

You are correct: there are not enough discussions mentioning that "regulated" may have meant something different than "with many obstacles, whims, and hoops to jump through", as well as thinking that "arms" means anything less than firepower on par with military might (read: "military-grade", not "military-style", seeing as the rifles and muskets owned at the time were undoubtedly "military-grade", else old blunderbusses would have been required for every man, but I digress).

Likewise, there seems to not be enough discussion on the fact that the Bill of Rights is not meant to restrict the People or the States, but the Federal government ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")
 
Last edited:
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Well regulated militia...hmm. If I were in a militia I would hope that I were well regulated. So, being a member of "the people" I have the absolute right to peacefully carry, without the threat of a penalty or infringement, a firearm.

"Shall not be infringed" is the foundation of reasonable and intelligent discussions on how to mitigate infringements, or to eliminate them all together. A free man must not be compelled, by the state, to pursue permission to peacefully exercise his right, to avoid criminal sanctions for the peaceful exercise of his right.
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
OC for ME said:
Well regulated militia...hmm. If I were in a militia I would hope that I were well regulated. So, being a member of "the people" I have the absolute right to peacefully carry, without the threat of a penalty or infringement, a firearm.

"Shall not be infringed" is the foundation of reasonable and intelligent discussions on how to mitigate infringements, or to eliminate them all together. A free man must not be compelled, by the state, to pursue permission to peacefully exercise his right, to avoid criminal sanctions for the peaceful exercise of his right.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

+1

Me too.

Did I miss anything?

And just to be verbose, I firmly believe this is true whether the firearm or other weapon is visible or carried discretely, so long as it is carried peacefully and not in a manner that a reasonable man would perceive as a threat against his rights.

Anything else to discuss?
 
J_dazzle23

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
I'm going to start talking in bumper sticker speak. Only instead of exclamation points I will start drawing those dumb stickers that tell everyone how many people are in your family.

Also, I think every person should have a signature bumper sticker on their sig line. For example, we can give wolf and charles those "coexist" stickers.


😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
J_dazzle23 said:
Also, I think every person should have a signature bumper sticker on their sig line. For example, we can give wolf and charles those "coexist" stickers.
Click to expand...

LOL

+1

Sign me up. My brother and I need to bury the hatchet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top