Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?


PDA






Oleg Volk
September 17, 2008, 12:55 AM
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/25476-2/samerights7906.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nolo
September 17, 2008, 12:57 AM
Gremlin!
Nice Webley/Enfield.
I want one.

scrat
September 17, 2008, 12:57 AM
Thats a good poster. Nice job Oleg

Just Jim
September 17, 2008, 01:00 AM
Problem is today we have bigger government that supresses our rights. It comes with too much civilization, the price you pay.

jj

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 01:07 AM
Good job on the black and white motif on the left.
Should the modern woman have a gun in her hand in some symbolic pose?

yenchisks
September 17, 2008, 01:15 AM
No she should have a cellphone,calling 911, the operator will say, the police will be with you shortly 5-10min,try to scach your attacter so we can get dna,we will do all we can to find your murderer.

Treo
September 17, 2008, 01:20 AM
That is a good poster

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 01:22 AM
No she should have a cellphone,calling 911, the operator will say, the police will be with you shortly 5-10min,try to scach your attacter so we can get dna,we will do all we can to find your murderer.

You are a clever devil.:evil:

TAB
September 17, 2008, 01:23 AM
oh you mean like being able to eat anywhere we want?

I hate to say it, but over all we have more rights now then we did back then.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 01:25 AM
I hate to say it, but over all we have more rights now then we did back then.

Who are we,TAB?

TAB
September 17, 2008, 01:29 AM
poeple in the US...

If you don't think we have more rights now then we did 100 years ago... you are very much mistaken.

VPLthrneck
September 17, 2008, 01:36 AM
Great poster. I like the contrast of B&W/Color, it seems to add to the message.

Would have been neat to see the cat in both pics, IMHO.

Oleg Volk
September 17, 2008, 01:40 AM
TAB,

If you don't think we have more rights now then we did 100 years ago... you are very much mistaken.

I agree with you overall. We never had a utopia. However, the mix of recognized rights we have now is different from what we had in the past. The right to bear arms in IL and WI has been lost. Other rights have been gained. I argue that we shouldn't give up recognized rights in exchange but rather add recognition for other rights.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 02:00 AM
poeple in the US...

If you don't think we have more rights now then we did 100 years ago... you are very much mistaken.

You are evading the question,TAB.I did not give an opinion, so whatever you saying in the above quoted message, you are not quoting me.
Again I simply ask, who are "we",TAB?What people?

TAB
September 17, 2008, 02:03 AM
I gave you my reply... you just missed it... or you just read what was quoted by another poster.

bogie
September 17, 2008, 02:04 AM
I would change "legally carry" to "legally protect herself" - gunnies understand "carry," but ordinary folks will be more comfy with "protect."

Zoogster
September 17, 2008, 02:19 AM
I think the message is just fine. Open and concealed carry was the right of most Americans for hundreds of years.

Later on concealed was made out to be dishonest, the type of thing done by assassins. So open carry continued to be legal in the majority of the US with far fewer restrictions than even legal concealed carry has today, but concealed was frowned upon or restricted in some.
Over time even open was slowly restricted in some places, off limits in saloons (bars/restaurants that served alcohol, sound familiar?) and similar places. Where it was off limits spread to more and more 'reasonable' locations in many states, and some places even tried to restrict where guns could be carried in town leading to some historical moments like the famous OK corral. Eventualy the right and practice of carry in public became foriegn in some states and regions.

Suddenly not that many years ago some had the nifty idea to extend the privelidge (no longer the right) to purchase a license with qualifications and a tax (the fee) that almost gave as much freedom to carry concealed as everyone had enjoyed for most of American history just by being a citizen. It spread through a number of states and now we have all the right to carry states. That caught on and was the 'pro gun' success it is viewed as today.
Now we see new places added progressively to even where that purchased privelidge is no longer valid (though sometimes those places are removed in pro gun victories.)

Rights turned into gradualy restricted rights, that then become purchaseable state allowed privelidges. Now where that privlidge is valid is being increasingly regulated.

The message is good, a woman once could carry anywhere in America, and the government could not infringe on that. Now she cannot, and in those places she can it is a purchaseable privelidge not a right.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 02:28 AM
I gave you my reply... you just missed it... or you just read what was quoted by another poster.

I didn't miss anything.Just go back over the dialogue.
I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you.
I'll be explicit.Are you talking about women,blacks,homosexuals,immigrants,abortion,segregation,gun rights,etc.?

As Oleg Volk pointed out there has been a definite trade off.
Are we ahead or behind 1908?
It depends very much on a personal perspective.We can talk all night about those perspectives of blacks,whites,women,etc.
I was just trying to get some insight into your idea of rights 2008 vs 1908.
That's all TAB.
Peace,Duke.:)

TAB
September 17, 2008, 02:31 AM
Every one in the US has more rights now then they did 100 years ago. That better?

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 02:36 AM
Every one in the US has more rights now then they did 100 years ago. That better?

Every one?Who are they?These everyone.Just curious.And what are those extra rights?

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 02:41 AM
Every one?Who are they?These everyone.Just curious.
I believe "everyone" he is referring to would be all 300+ million residents and citizens of the United States of America.
Which I agree with, to a scientifically acceptable margin.
Of course, people are more liable to notice rights they don't have, than ones they enjoy...

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 02:49 AM
Which I agree with, to a scientifically acceptable margin.

Fascinating!Explain scientifically acceptable margin.I love this New Age Jargon.Hey,that rhymes.

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 02:52 AM
Fascinating!Explain scientifically acceptable margin.I love this New Age Jargon.Hey,that rhymes.
Basically, I mean that any who actually do have less rights (probably South Carolinians with aristocratic heritage, most likely, though there is some argument to be made for those of Middle Eastern descent) are of such a small percent (less than one, possibly less than 1/10th of one percent) as to be negligible in the big scheme of things.
60 years ago, white men didn't even have the right to representation.
Oh, and don't get smart. It doesn't make you look like a good person.

JesseL
September 17, 2008, 02:56 AM
I don't think that there are many (any?) rights that I have today that I wouldn't have had 100 years ago.

It's wonderful that now everybody has the same rights, regardless of sex, race, etc. But we have also definitely lost a few rights that should never have been touched.

Rights aren't a zero sum game.

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 02:57 AM
Good post, JesseL.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 03:04 AM
Basically, I mean that any who actually do have less rights (probably South Carolinians with aristocratic heritage, most likely, though there is some argument to be made for those of Middle Eastern descent) are of such a small percent (less than one, possibly less than 1/10th of one percent) as to be negligible in the big scheme of things.
60 years ago, white men didn't even have the right to representation.
Oh, and don't get smart. It doesn't make you look like a good person.

This is a gun forum,Nolo.And I'm not getting smart. I'm being realistic,dreadfully so.
Are our gun rights in better shape today they they were in 1908?
I seriously doubt you and TAB can answer in the affirmative,
And who are you,young man, to tell me not to get smart?
And to tell me I'm not a good person because you have a problem with a little satire?
You better get a stronger coat of armor if you think that I was getting smart.I was only bantering.Shed that thin skin if you wish to move out into the real world.
I've been there and done that.
My apologies if I truly hurt your feelings.
That's not my Carolina nature.
Duke.

TAB
September 17, 2008, 03:09 AM
Can you say otherwise?

You say rights, but even back when this country was very young. Citys baned the use and carrying of firearms in town.

One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 03:13 AM
This is a gun forum,Nolo.And I'm not getting smart. I'm being realistic,dreadfully so.
Are our gun rights in better shape today they they were in 1908?
I seriously doubt you and TAB can answer in the affirmative,
And who are you,young man to tell me not to get smart?
And to tell me I'm not a good person because you have a problem with a little satire?
You better get a stronger coat of armor if you think that I was getting smart.I was only bantering.Shed that thin skin if you wish to move out into the real world.
I've been there and done that.
My apologies if I truly hurt your feelings.
That's not my Carolina nature.
Duke.
If you were kidding, look at my signature:
Use smileys... Save the Internet.
Meaning I cannot tell you were kidding unless you give me some indication, the most common being smileys. There is a whole bar for them to the right of the "Reply" window. ;)
You didn't hurt me, sir, and I didn't realize you were from the Carolinas. A very, very small percentage of South Carolinians would qualify for my previous statement, so I was by no means saying all Carolinians are... anything. Generalizations are dumb, and only occasionally useful.
I give a certain amount of respect to everyone equally. Certain people demonstrate they deserve more, others less.
Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...
But, alas, I suspect for some of us that would still not be a true sweeping statement...
But I do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

bogie
September 17, 2008, 03:20 AM
Zoogster, you know, and I know, that "carry" means "concealed carry of a firearm for protection."

However, depending upon the targeted individual, they may see the word "carry" and go "Carry? Carry what?"

First rule is to spell things out for your target audience.

As is, I think it's just fine for preaching to the choir. I think it would be stronger altered to push "protection." Because a lot of people think that "protection" is a good thing.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 03:20 AM
Can you say otherwise?

You say rights, but even back when this country was very young. Citys baned the use and carrying of firearms in town.

One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.

What cities,TAB?Dodge?
And can we get a translator on the last paragraph?
Or am I the only one confused?

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 03:21 AM
Zoogster, you know, and I know, that "carry" means "concealed carry of a firearm for protection."

However, depending upon the targeted individual, they may see the word "carry" and go "Carry? Carry what?"

First rule is to spell things out for your target audience.

As is, I think it's just fine for preaching to the choir. I think it would be stronger altered to push "protection." Because a lot of people think that "protection" is a good thing.
I think it is apparent what he means considering the lady in the photo has a firearm.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 03:29 AM
Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...
But, alas, I suspect for some of us that would still not be a true sweeping statement...
But I do not have the knowledge to say one way or another.

Sad,Nolo,even with my mea culpa you don't get it.
Don't you understand, I was not trying to belittle or hurt your feelings?
Forget the stupid emoticons,just read plain English.Here we go:
Duke Junior was not trying to embarrass or belittle Nolo on THR forum.
Now,is that as plain as I,a simple North Carolinian can make it?
Regards,Duke.:D

TAB
September 17, 2008, 03:31 AM
Duke what is there to explain...

Rights are not equal... never have been, never will be. Further more, most "rights" are actually privileges, People just feel they are rights. In the context of this web site, carring concealed falls under that catagory.

True or false, open carry is legal in the US?

True or false, every where in the US has the same laws about who and who can not own firearms?


As far as citys that had laws against firearms... you name the city, I can asure you that had some Law about firearms.

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 03:38 AM
Sad,Nolo,even with my mea culpa you don't get it.
Don't you understand, I was not trying to belittle or hurt your feelings?
Forget the stupid emoticons,just read plain English.Here we go:
Duke Junior was not trying to embarrass or belittle Nolo on THR forum.
Now,is that as plain as I,a simple North Carolinian can make it?
Regards,Duke.
Um, sir, with all due respect, you never hurt my feelings. I said you didn't. And you certainly haven't been successful in belittling me.
Really, though, the majority of what we say is body language. In English, plain English, body language is even more important.
On the Internet, there is no body language. At least, not without a webcam set up, and even those are terrible at conveying it. Thus we must make a substitute. The best we have as of yet are smileys (emoticons). I am serious when I tell people to use them.
So, unless you give me indication otherwise, sir, I will take what you say as being entirely serious. It is part of the respect I give to everyone I meet.

Catherine
September 17, 2008, 03:46 AM
I like the poster. Thank you.

The 'modern woman' without the gun shows that in many states, counties, towns and 'cities' that a woman (Or a man.) is STILL not allowed to conceal or open carry due to the 'laws' of said place.

Rights are God given or natural however a person believes.

The 'man made' and/or Unconstitutional over 20,000 (According to the old NRA and other gun org figures.) GUN LAWS have restricted many of those 'rights'. It is government that has taken away your God given and/or natural RIGHTS in my opinion in any issue especially in GUN LAWS and recently in liberty issues. NOT allowed here - politics.

Some of us have more 'things allowed or given or given back to us by a government', here in the USA for example but it was that VERY government or society or country or tyrant that TOOK AWAY those God Given and/or Natural RIGHTS away from us from the gitgo aka beginning! The right to vote or WHERE to sit on a bus or use a colored only bathroom or whites only restaurant or drinking fountain or fill in the blank situation or 'law passed'.

When it comes to MANY other old and NEWER laws, regulations, restrictions, 'acts', etc. passed by Congress, City Hall, your city, your county, your state, signed by your President or whoever... you have far LESS RIGHTS than you did back in the olden days. You have FAR more GUN LAWS in this day and age along with other stupid/wrong and UNconstitutional laws in my not so humble opinion - female or male. I think that you have 'less rights' and more intrusion in ALL ways in your daily life especially with the rise of the 'police state' as we know it.

Yes, you have more states that allow you as a mere SERF to conceal carry but ask yourself this question:

WHY the heck should YOU (Female or male of any color.) have to ask the 'State' about your basic right to SELF defense with any TOOL be it a GUN or jack squat? Freedom? I don't think so... you should not have to get a PERMIT or deal with shall issue, may issue or NO issue for OPEN or CONCEAL CARRY! Furthermore... it should not matter what your TOOL or object aka your firearm LOOKS like or who makes it or how many cartridges it holds!

In the states such as IL, WI, etc. that still have Nazi Like Laws... that do not allow the mere citizenry to pack heat... well... what makes their LIVES worth LESS to the law makers than the 'allowed ones=police' or the ones with PAID protection aka body guards = politicians?! They are ALL equal in the eyes of God to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms = self defense! Backed up by the Second too. The police who enforce those laws are Constitution breakers too. Those law makers are Constitution breakers too! Rights are rights and 'man' or tyrants STOLE those rights from the PEOPLE!

Good poster... thanks again.

Catherine

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 03:47 AM
Um, sir, with all due respect, you never hurt my feelings. I said you didn't. And you certainly haven't been successful in belittling me.

With this quote,Nolo,I realize that with all my qualifications,you are beyond reach.I never tried to belittle you.My deepest sympathies.I tried to apologize.

Duke what is there to explain.

TAB,there is nothing to explain.At least you've got some commonsense.

Nolo
September 17, 2008, 03:52 AM
With this quote,Nolo,I realize that with all my qualifications,you are beyond reach.I never tried to belittle you.My deepest sympathies.I tried to apologize.
Ummm...
Sir, you attempt to belittle me by saying things like "I am beyond reach", as if I were a head case!
I thank you for your apology, and I will accept it as an apology for the attempted belittlement.
(I am not following my own rules! I am spamming a thread with needless personal back-and-forth! I should have used the PM function...)

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 03:59 AM
Ummm...
Sir, you attempt to belittle me by saying things like "I am beyond reach", as if I were a head case!
I thank you for your apology, and I will accept it as an apology for the attempted belittlement.
(I am not following my own rules! I am spamming a thread with needless personal back-and-forth! I should have used the PM function..

Good nite,Nolo.Sweet dreams.
May you always have your gun at hand, but never need to use it.

Best Regards,Duke.A truce,I hope.

bogie
September 17, 2008, 11:04 AM
Nolo, assuming you are a gun person, it is immediately apparent to YOU...

"Carry" has different definitions, depending on different groups. In the picture she is not "carrying" anything. She's holding something.

IMHO, one of our goals is to have society equate what she is holding with "protection."

deaconkharma
September 17, 2008, 11:12 AM
:cool:

Bezoar
September 17, 2008, 11:16 AM
in 1908 anyone could by a handgun in their local hardware store. heck once upon a time you could buy a full auto thompson subgun in a hardware store.
in 1908 a man could go up to a little kid he found crying on the street to see what was wrong and merely be called a "good samaritan", do that now and you end up on a state run pervert list when you get out of jail.

Flyboy
September 17, 2008, 11:18 AM
Oleg, did you consider doing the left side in sepia tone rather than black and white? It might add to the "nostalgia" effect, and add a little warmth.

fletcher
September 17, 2008, 12:02 PM
Oleg, did you consider doing the left side in sepia tone rather than black and white?
I was thinking the same thing. One thing I also notice in pictures from about that era is the people in them never seem to be smiling.

It still looks good, though, and gets the point across.



As for the rest of the thread contents,
http://www.blueridgearmory.com/images/popcorn.gif

Officers'Wife
September 17, 2008, 12:19 PM
If you don't think we have more rights now then we did 100 years ago... you are very much mistaken.

Property rights for example are virtually non-existant. 'The right to live' via self defense is gone in many areas. Right to be secure in your homes and papers is a joke compared to two hundred years ago. Habeas corpus is on the hit list as we speak.

We may have more 'protections' now but hardly more rights. But who will protect us from our protectors?

Selena

Old Grump
September 17, 2008, 12:27 PM
Nit pickers can ruin a perfectly good point on any subject. Considering the forum it was perfectly obvious to anybody here the poster was referring to our diminished rights to defend ourselves with firearms. My Grandmother could have carried a revolver in her purse and knowing her probably did considering where she was born and raised. If I put one in my pocket I would be arrested if caught and lose my rights to own guns period since I live in the great state of Wisconsin.

By taking a perfectly good statement and beating it to death by asking for specifics it became obvious you were beating the Civil Liberties drum, the one saying No Catholics here, no Irish here, no Chinese here, water fountains designated for colored, Louis Armstrong not being able to eat or sleep in the hotel he and his band were playing in. Things are better on that front but that wasn't the subject, gun carry was. When things got better on the civil rights front one of our civil liberties was being taken from us ie. 1934, 1968, 1998 and that was what the poster was referring to. Not voting rights, equal pay or religious intolerance. You are on the wrong forum if thats what you are trying to drag into the debate. Try a Harvard or Princeton site where they delight in liberal flights of fantasy and intolerance at the same time.

MakAttak
September 17, 2008, 12:43 PM
I was thinking the same thing. One thing I also notice in pictures from about that era is the people in them never seem to be smiling.

There's a reason: it's very hard to smile and not move for 3 minutes. Try it.

People didn't smile because they had to stay still while the camera took the picture. It wasn't instantaneous.

fletcher
September 17, 2008, 01:36 PM
There's a reason: it's very hard to smile and not move for 3 minutes. Try it.
Well, that would explain it :p

cuervo
September 17, 2008, 01:52 PM
I'd make the year as part of the caption to highlight the changes over the last century
1910: Women could legally carry anywhere in the country
2008: Don't we deserve the same right

or maybe add in a reference to voting rights, something like:
1910: We can't vote, but we can legally carry anywhere in the country.
2008: We can vote, but we have no right to self defense.

BruceRDucer
September 17, 2008, 02:22 PM
One could say that carrying a firearm has NEVER been a right. They would not be wrong, but they would also not be right.----TAB

Simply writing the words..."one could say" does not substantiate a fact.

"One could say".....anything at all.

As a consequence, Tab, you have made no definitive determination as to rights, whatsoever. :):):):):scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

/

BruceRDucer
September 17, 2008, 02:26 PM
/

Now, we could have avoided this whole thing if you'd have specified "gun rights" in the first place...---NOLO


I take exception to that NOLO.

(1) "we" are under no obligation to avoid anything

(2) Nobody is under legal or moral obligation to qualify "gun rights" to you.

Gun Rights exist objectively as a matter of Constitutional Law, rather than as a moral proposition.

As you are not arguing Law, you aren't arguing any substantial fact. Which is, by objective identification, the problematic nature of your vague argument.

/:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::):):):)

RPCVYemen
September 17, 2008, 02:36 PM
... he one saying No Catholics here, no Irish here, no Chinese here, water fountains designated for colored, Louis Armstrong not being able to eat or sleep in the hotel he and his band were playing in. Things are better on that front but that wasn't the subject, gun carry was.

Maybe part of the point is that 100 years ago, many of the folks on that list also didn't in fact have gun rights - or the right to defend themselves against certain other classes of folks.

As an example from the photograph, if the woman on the left was regularly beaten by her husband, she had no legal recourse in most of this country. If he actually beat her to death, he might or might not have been charged. The woman on the right is beaten by her husband, she does have legal recourse.

If the woman on the left used her gun to kill a husband who was beating her, then she stood a very good chance of being hung. The woman on the right might not.

There is no way to reasonably argue the woman on the left in the photograph has more rights than the woman on the right.

If you think we have fewer property rights now that 100 years ago, you need to read more history - particularly of the West. A poor man didn't stand much of a chance against a wealthy man who wanted his land for much of the history of this country.

Mike

JesseL
September 17, 2008, 02:51 PM
So is anyone here arguing that because all US citizens now have equal rights regardless of sex, color, or creed; that is somehow justification for the modern infringement of our rights that are enumerated in the Second Amendment? Is anyone arguing that everybody was better off 100 years ago?

The point is that despite all the changes for the better, there have been some changes for the worse too (and maybe we can improve that). So what's all the noise about?

SSN Vet
September 17, 2008, 02:55 PM
I like the concept a lot, but would suggest...

I rarely have seen an old photo in which the subject smiled. Much more serious demeanor back then...

Should be a black powder army revolver....

Maybe a little house on the prairie bonnet and a stained smock.

SSN Vet
September 17, 2008, 02:57 PM
oops...

double tap!

RPCVYemen
September 17, 2008, 03:28 PM
Given that in the actual content of the poster, there are two women, and the woman on the right has far more rights and legal protections than the woman on left.

That makes the poster counter-productive.

Hang it up, and you start on the losing side of a debate:
The woman on the left had in practice little or no legal protection against rape. It was almost always construed as her fault - she must have tempted some poor innocent man with her provocative dress.
The woman on the left had little or no legal protection against being beaten by her husband (or father) - women needed discipline, and going a little overboard was a good man's fault.
The woman on left had no property rights - she was property.
The woman on the left had no right to vote.
... and on, and on, and on.


The poster might be easier to defend if it showed a middle class white male land owner on both sides - but it wouldn't look anywhere as nice. :)

Mike

JesseL
September 17, 2008, 03:37 PM
Given that in the actual content of the poster, there are two women, and the woman on the right has far more rights and legal protections than the woman on left.

That makes the poster counter-productive.

:confused:
The juxtaposition of the woman's loss of the right to wield an effective tool for self-defense contrasted with so much progress in establishing her other rights is exactly what makes the poster work.

Now that women have won the right to fight back against an attacker, she's lost the best means.

bogie
September 17, 2008, 03:55 PM
Guys, some of y'all are thinking way too much. It's a simple image. A simple message.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

Simpler message = easier to assimilate = ultimately more powerful.

And boil it down to "non-gun" terms while you are at it.

Catherine
September 17, 2008, 05:27 PM
Deaconkharma,

Thank you.

To the others:

Gun control is about control. Period!

We have LESS gun rights today even in 'open or conceal carry allowed states'. There should not even be those laws where a woman or a man needs to ask the 'State' for jack squat in a matter of self defense which is a God given right or natural right if you believe it that way.

The 'STATE' does not give you your 'rights' when it comes to your LIFE. God gives you those rights. No offense to those you do not believe and you can insert 'natural rights'. It is MAN and government aka the STATE which has TAKEN away your GUN RIGHTS and fill in the blanks - any other 'right' in many matters.

See my previous post. Some people do not understand the word "RIGHTS" in gun issues, in property issues, in any issue in my opinion.

The reason WHY I mentioned those other rights including GUN rights is because other people brought them up. RIGHTS are rights - period. That includes the right to protect your LIFE, property and LIBERTY using a GUN or any other TOOL.

Think if it as your own Declaration of Independence! Grin.

Catherine

Apple a Day
September 17, 2008, 06:31 PM
I like it.
I especially like that the second pic is slightly zoomed out making the model seem slightly... diminished. She doesn't even have a wild attack cat like Gremlin to help fight off the bad guys.

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 06:36 PM
Now that women have won the right to fight back against an attacker, she's lost the best means.

This comment by JesseL really brings us back to the basics.
And to Bruce Ducer,Catherine,Old Grump,bogie,Bezoar,Officers' Wife and others who have made impressive arguments for gun right's,I am greatly responsible for the unfortunate extended dialogue last night.
I will never again assume that just because I am on a gun rights forum ,others will just naturally assume my position.
To me ,Oleg Volk's poster was only about gun rights:not segregation,women voting,unions,etc.
I should have been much more direct earlier in my posts instead of trying to draw the opinions of the other 2 posters out.
I learned a valuable lesson and it will never happen again.No more "verbal" by play on THR by me.
Fletcher is correct when he said after commenting on the poster:

"As for the rest of the thread contents,go get the popcorn.":o

Gentleman Ranker
September 17, 2008, 07:19 PM
As much as I am pro-RKBA and admire Mr. Volk's work, I think the poster is open to at least some criticism, depending on whom the intended audience of the message is.

If the poster is addressed to us, who are already convinced about RKBA, then it is a fine piece of work. Who of us will not feel "Yes! That's right!" at some level? But we already know the arguments and the message, and are already convinced.

If the poster is addressed to someone who is not already convinced about RKBA, but might be, then I think the message is more ambiguous, for the reasons that RPCVYemen has given. If someone who is not primarily focused on firearms sees the poster and thinks about the question "How have women's rights changed in the last 100 years or so?" -- which is the visual response that the poster will probably evoke -- do you think they'll respond with "better" or "worse" overall? They will be confused.

Further, most people are not going to think anything at all about the poster, they are going to respond emotionally to the image(s) presented, using the text as a secondary clarification of what they see.

I think the message would be much clearer if it went with something closer to what Mr Volk himself has said:

I argue that we shouldn't give up recognized rights in exchange but rather add recognition for other rights.
That is the real point!

I think that someone who is not thinking about gun rights would understand the point better if it said something along the lines of "She has gained so much ... why should she have LOST such a fundamental right? Some of Oleg's other posters are much more on target (why should a pregnant or disabled woman have to run? Make herself vomit? Offer a rapist a condom?). THESE sorts of questions will resonate more, I think, with people who are not already thinking the way we do.

I don't have any good specific suggestions just to hand for different text, but I do think that as it is presented in this thread, the poster is mostly for us, not so much for the people who really need to see it. And I say that in the most friendly and respectful way possible.

I am not arguing with the message of the poster, but suggesting that it might be more effective for a non-gun-oriented audience if the message was less ambiguous (to them ... it isn't to us, but we're already convinced).

regards,

GR

SCKimberFan
September 17, 2008, 07:30 PM
Oleg

I like the poster.

However, as in posts 42 & 43 - I would rather see the left photo in sepia tone. I think it might add to the time frame you are trying to capture.

Just my dos centavos.

6_gunner
September 17, 2008, 07:41 PM
I like the poster. Its eyecatching and I feel that it communicates the intended message simply and effectively. I would agree that "carry" might not mean anything to a non-gun person. "Protect herself" would be a phrase that everyone would understand. I wouldn't rate it among the best of your work, but you set a high standard for yourself.

Now, here's my $.02 for this discussion: We certainly have more equality than we did a century ago; perhaps we have more freedom in general. However, were talking about privileges, which can be revoked by the government at a whim. The concept of inalienable rights has largely disappeared. If you asked the average person to explain the difference between a right and a privilege, most would be at a loss. Here's a silly example: I've seen a tee shirt which says "Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you're abusing the privilege." That grates on my nerves every time I see it, but most people wouldn't understand why. "Rights" and "privileges" are not synonymous, but most people see them as such.

However, the poster clearly refers to GUN RIGHTS, so this whole discussion is irrelevant.

Loomis
September 17, 2008, 07:55 PM
I like the poster. It is accurate. A lot of what people call "rights" are not rights at all. The right to bear arms is a right and it is in the constitution.

There is no right to feel safe

There is no right to a life free of fear or uncertainty or risk.

There is no right to employment.

In general, people have become lazy and spoiled. The word "rights" has come to mean things that the lazy think are supposed to be provided to us by the government. Now we have people claiming a "right" to housing and safe neighborhoods and when they say these words, what they mean is they expect the government to subsidize their housing if they cannot afford it and they expect the police to make their neighborhoods safe for them.

THERE ARE NO SUCH RIGHTS, PEOPLE!

I suspect that these kinds of people are the ones that have a problem with the poster in this thread that illustrates the differences between past and present "rights".

Sistema1927
September 17, 2008, 08:22 PM
Oleg,

I think that the "old timey" woman should have her hair up. I don't believe that any self-respecting 19th century lady would have been caught in public with her hair down like that.

jonmerritt
September 17, 2008, 09:45 PM
In modern times, you call 911. You tell them you have been robbed. (After you get off hold) The dispatcher replies "Are you sure you have been robbed?" At gun point, I am pretty sure. Actually happened!

RioShooter
September 21, 2008, 08:55 PM
Tab wrote:
Every one in the US has more rights now then they did 100 years ago. That better?

I'm not going to argue the point, but would you please enumerate some of these rights.

RPCVYemen
September 21, 2008, 10:10 PM
I am not arguing with the message of the poster, but suggesting that it might be more effective for a non-gun-oriented audience if the message was less ambiguous (to them ... it isn't to us, but we're already convinced). ...

That's a succinct statement of my point. Even folks on on this thread have had to back-pedal and say, "Well, but the poster's not about those rights. It's only about gun rights." That's a pretty weak starting position.

Some of Oleg's other posters are much more on target ...

In general, I am a big fan of Oleg's posters. This one seemd a little weak to me.

Mike

Officers'Wife
September 21, 2008, 10:28 PM
Every one in the US has more rights now then they did 100 years ago. That better?

If you really want to get 'technical' about it. Since rights are intrinsic we have all the rights our ancestors did 100 years ago. The proper question is how many of those natural rights have been suppressed by the government since then.

If it's true the Constitution is a 'living document' the moment the fed decided it's function was to preserve rights rather than limit government power the Constitution started to die.

Selena

RioShooter
September 21, 2008, 11:31 PM
Back to the point(somewhat), women and guns, this is an interesting read.

www.woa.tv/articles/hi_markswomen.html

rfurtkamp
September 21, 2008, 11:43 PM
I don't particularly like the photos in question, the transition is jarring and doesn't fit together well visually.

I agree with the message, but in this case don't like the delivery. It's missing something. Some of it's the text as well, it's not as clear as it should be.

I'd be looking at single frame, maybe with the 'today' looking at a photo of grandmother with gun and something relating more to 'Grandma could go anywhere and be protected in her day. Why can't I'

There's just something awkward going on, model stance, photo transition, text.

rfurtkamp
September 21, 2008, 11:46 PM
I should add, and it'll get into ugly political territory, but I'd be considering "I have the right to terminate unwanted life. I don't have the right to protect mine" and its ilk for the same type of message.

Oleg Volk
September 22, 2008, 01:09 AM
Thanks for the input. I'll play around with the concept.

RPCVYemen
September 22, 2008, 12:44 PM
"I have the right to terminate unwanted life. I don't have the right to protect mine"

That will keep the conversation focused on gun rights. :)

Mike

rfurtkamp
September 22, 2008, 06:46 PM
That will keep the conversation focused on gun rights.

Unfortunately, there's no real discussion of women's rights possible these days without touching that other unmentioned subject - at this point, dancing around it won't change that :(

3KillerBs
September 22, 2008, 09:52 PM
A suggestion,

The "historical" picture is obviously stage costume at best and none too convincing. It shouldn't be difficult to find a historical reenactor who could pose correctly dressed in period clothes, with period accessories, and a period hairstyle.

Oleg Volk
September 22, 2008, 09:57 PM
I agree...but it was improvised on a short notice. Any Nashville reenactor connections would be welcome.

ar10
September 22, 2008, 10:14 PM
Nope. We/us, all of us fell asleep about 30 yrs ago. We're much worse off. We've watch by sideline as America moved from a Democracy to a full blown Oligarchy. I think it's called "greed".

JesseL
September 23, 2008, 01:16 AM
Nope. We/us, all of us fell asleep about 30 yrs ago. We're much worse off. We've watch by sideline as America moved from a Democracy to a full blown Oligarchy. I think it's called "greed".

The way I see it is this:

Things started to slip with the American civil war, 85 years after the birth of our nation. The Federal government stamping out state's rights and getting millions of Americans killed to do it. Slavery was a vile institution, but the civil war was a vile solution (and driven as much by northern greed as anything).

Things got worse 74 years later with FDR's 'New Deal' and the dawn of socialism in America.

And now another 75 years later we stand at another crux.

RPCVYemen
September 23, 2008, 10:41 AM
The Federal government stamping out state's rights and getting millions of Americans killed to do it. Slavery was a vile institution, but the civil war was a vile solution (and driven as much by northern greed as anything).

How about a poster on that?

Linking gun rights to Confederate apologists would be a big help in in our fight to get our RKBA rights recognized.

Maybe a poster that says: "Northern greed took away your guns and destroyed slavery! Restore them both!"

Mike

RioShooter
September 23, 2008, 06:09 PM
I think that the "old timey" woman should have her hair up. I don't believe that any self-respecting 19th century lady would have been caught in public with her hair down like that.

I believe you're right.

4v50 Gary
September 23, 2008, 10:24 PM
Nice Webley (and kitty) (and woman).

If you enjoyed reading about "Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!