Thought of the day.


Oleg Volk
May 3, 2005, 11:09 PM
Once I streamline the phrasing, this will become a poster.

Freedom means acting on one's own authority, not as an agent to another. The right to arms is a reward for taking responsibility for own actions. Those not responsible for themselves -- infants or mentally incompetent people -- cannot possess weapons without posing a danger to themselves or others. All others cannot be barred from possessing and bearing arms without being being treated as infants or incompetents, a condition indistinguishable from slavery.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought of the day." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 3, 2005, 11:18 PM
"The right to arms is a reward for taking responsibility for own actions."

Just who/what "rewards" us? And on what authority?

Self-defense is a natural RIGHT ; NOT a reward for being a good little boy. :mad:

Self-defense being a natural right, the right to bear arms is a logical; indeed, necessary adjunct to that right. The right to the tools of implementation are inherent in the right itself, as ballots are to voting, papers and the airwaves are to free speech and parks and halls to free assembly.

Do NOT call it a reward, which is merely a privilege with delusions of grandeur. Privileges exist at the whim of the grantor; RIGHTS do not! :scrutiny:

Oleg Volk
May 3, 2005, 11:31 PM
I might have to think about the phrasing of this...but the reward I mention is self-awarded. Probably not being very clear...

Phantom Warrior
May 3, 2005, 11:52 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I don't think this quote is a good choice for a poster. It's long, it's wordy, and the ideas involved are complex. It doesn't lend itself well to a short, catchy poster.

Perhaps if you skipped the whole discussion about rewards and eliminated the first part? Just put the last two sentences on the poster. They form a complete idea, that being denied arms is the same as being treated as if you can't take care of yourself. Just a thought.

Randy in Arizona
May 3, 2005, 11:57 PM
Not being Irish, or gifted with either a silver tongue or the gift of blarney, I sometimes find that stripping a thought down to its bare essentials and still having the elegant turn of phrase that I am seeking is most difficult.

Try restating the thought that you are trying to advance with different words.
A Thesaurus is your friend!
I really enjoy your posters! :D

May 3, 2005, 11:59 PM
''Freedom means acting on one's own authority, not as an agent to another. The right to arms is sacrosanct. Those however incapable of self determination, infants and mentally deranged, may be deprived such right thru the perceived danger to selves and others. No others shall be barred from possessing and bearing arms, without being being treated as infants or incompetents. A condition indistinguishable from slavery.''

Just thinking aloud Oleg - and anyways - I do think this sorta length of text could be self defeating. The ''short'n'sharp'' messages with appropriate images speak loudest. I do know what you mean here tho. :)

May 4, 2005, 12:00 AM
I think you are possibly confusing freedom with anarchy (not that you probably do not realize the difference, but by way of your wording others may see what you are saying to be so). You can be free and act under the authority of others. We in the USA act under the authority of majority rule yet we have freedom even if in the minority. If each individual acted upon one's own individual authority, sure I guess each person would be expressing a sort of freedom but, it would almost certainly be anarchy. That is unless they banded together and, if they decided to accept the authority of some sort of governing or legal authority. Then you would have what we in essence already have. We by the authority of the people acquiesce to the authority of the majority and of the law thereby in essence all becoming agents of our own country when we obey the laws, follow our leaders, vote for our own government and so forth. After all our government is truly : We the people... Lots of individuals, but we do not all do our own thing without the limitations of government and law.

As far as others being banned from keeping and bearing arms, it is a fact of law that others besides infants and the those ajudicated mentally deficient can be so barred - for example convicted felons. They have by effect of their committing and being convicted of a felony lost the luxury of being able to enjoy certain of their rights. Yes it is in fact a luxury so long as someone can prevent you from enjoying them and in as much as you brought such upon yourself by your actions if you are a felon. I kind of agree with the law on this issue, I could not see Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, or many others being allowed to keep and bear arms ever again, even if they are ever set free. Some other conviced felons - maybe they should be allowed to keep and bear arms if the felony was not violent and so long as they were only a one time offender - but I am none too certain of that - just a thought.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms being a reward for taking responsibility, I do not agree. It is a right not a reward. Of course having a right stripped away by the government such as in the case of a convicted felon is a form of punishment. So I guess you could stretch it to sa that our government protecting our rights and not taking them away from law abiding citizens is sort of a good citizenship award but it seems quite the stretch to me since it is a something granted to us not for doing good but just because it is a right and it is our due.

Best regards,
Glenn b

May 4, 2005, 12:13 AM
I think your over thinking on this one. It seems to contain too many thought lines. The Right to keep and bear arms, eveyone not physically or mentally incompetent should be able to excersise their right, and not being allowed to excersise your rights is like slavery.

I really love your work and use many of your posters as wallpaper on my desktop.

How about something real simple like "The Second Amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms. It reaffirms it."


May 4, 2005, 01:08 AM
Slavery = "the state of being under the control of another person"
Freedom = "the capacity to exercise choice; free will"

Which is consistent with exercising the Right to keep and bear arms?
Which is consistent with infringing that Right?

May 4, 2005, 01:16 AM
I'm not sure that the length is a problem. We are innundated with soundbites and "bumper sticker philosophy"--blipverts, if you remember Max Headroom. You have made a goodly number of these short-and-sweet presentations, and they are wonderfully effective. (The posters you have created, on your various sites, attracted me here in the first place. They are very useful to determine how honest the left-leaning "tolerant" sort are. Highly illuminating when the free-speechers and others rallying for a Free Tibet/anti-Starbucks attack an image suggesting a higher level of personal accountability & protection than they are are comfortable with.)

Personally, it would be a welcome thing to see a carefully worded, complete thought in a mass media format. (That said, it may also be an oxymoron.)

May 4, 2005, 01:57 AM
Who gets to decide the definition of "mentally incompetent"?

May 4, 2005, 06:57 PM
I think it will make a good poster, with some editing.

I'm thinking here :banghead: : Shadow photo of a farmer behind a plow and horse (side view), carring a rifle, with the quotation in white/light color (contrasting) overprinted.

Not your usual style, Oleg but it would work.

May 4, 2005, 07:06 PM
Just my opinion, not that it counts for anything, but, I honestly agree with the theme's of the poster...but as you have oft heard said, it...well, its wordy, and since it's america...most of us (not me, thank you, Lord.) don't read above a 3rd grade reading level. A lot of the words you used would go way over any americans' head. (my parents, however, strongly approved of improving my vernacular at a very young age, and am therefore competent when it comes to reading, or dealing with vocabulary^^). I don't think that you should bother with the poster thing. We have enough people who do that kind of thing in newspapers. Its called a "political cartoon." I'm NOT dissing your poster, but, I don't obviously have not kissed da blarney stone, might wanna get some friends to help refine it.


Sharps Shooter
May 4, 2005, 09:17 PM
I just can't get my mind around the right to keep and bear arms being a "reward." Self-awarded or not, a "reward" is not something I already have. For instance, freedom of speech is not something I awarded myself after working hard to graduate college. The Bill of Rights is a list of natural, or God given rights that our government is not suppose to be able to take away, not a list of things we, or someone else can "reward" us with.

May 4, 2005, 09:56 PM
Freedom is the reward for taking resposibility for one actions and security. When you rely on another for your security, you become a slave to another.

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought of the day." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!