more verbose. more clear?


Oleg Volk
September 17, 2008, 10:03 PM
(update -- scroll down for the newest version)

If you enjoyed reading about "more verbose. more clear?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 17, 2008, 10:04 PM
Meh, I liked the other one more.
This one for dumber people, that one for people who can actually think...

September 17, 2008, 10:10 PM
i don't much like this one. sends the wrong message. instead of thinking about helpless chicks, it invites the reader to ponder why women in those states voted to revoke that right

September 17, 2008, 10:11 PM
"In 1878, she had no right to vote but could carry a firearm for protection in every state of the Union.......

........In 2008, she has the right to vote, but is unable to carry a defensive firearm in New York, Illinois, Washington DC, Hawaii, or Wisconsin"

Duke Junior
September 17, 2008, 10:19 PM
I prefer the original version.
Agree with Nolo's thinking on this!:D
Too verbose,overstated on the 19th century woman.
Too explicit on the 21 century woman.

September 17, 2008, 10:22 PM
Original, but talk about "protection" instead of "right to carry." Fence-sitting folks -like- protection. You gotta get 'em to take the bait first.

Maybe five different versions, each tailored by state...

Oleg Volk
September 17, 2008, 10:26 PM
The poster was originally designed for WI and IL. However, I just completed the definitive version.

September 17, 2008, 10:28 PM
"We deserve the same right in Illinois."

Don't get into voting or the other rights... That's nothing but a "derail the topic" tactic.


September 17, 2008, 11:21 PM
The latest version is better. Generally speaking, less verbose=better.

September 17, 2008, 11:23 PM
Last is best.
The curt statement really hits the point for the folks who need to think about it.

September 17, 2008, 11:47 PM
May want to put something like "Pre-1920" one one side and "Post-1920" on the other. That girl on the left could be some kind of emo cat loving chick into cowboy action shooting.

Oleg Volk
September 17, 2008, 11:50 PM
The cut-off for the recognized rights would have to be no later than 1905 (Sullivan law, NYC) but she's holding a WW1 Webley (c.1915) I can't really pick a year that's not anachronistic.

September 17, 2008, 11:53 PM
Clearly she's a time traveller.

September 17, 2008, 11:55 PM
Wording for either poster looks fine.

I would put some type of year on the poster for each photograph.

Honestly, I do not think many folks would even see the point without a reference to a time period. The history of concealed carry is not well know to the folks I think you want to reach.

September 17, 2008, 11:58 PM
I like the second one, very clear and to the point.

September 18, 2008, 12:01 AM
Second is better.

September 18, 2008, 12:17 AM
CCW is the best program ever devised for human rights protection. If thugs cannot determine who's carrying, all people are safer. I was saved by putting my hand into my pocket, although all I had in there was keys and a quarter. The big jerk wasn't sure, so asked if I had a "gun." I said, "No," but he still wasn't going to risk it. Today, I'd say, "Yes!" cliffy

September 18, 2008, 12:22 AM
I think the bottom line would read better as Self-Defense Is Not A Crime. It Is A Human Right.

September 18, 2008, 12:47 AM
I like poster #11's thinking.. It would be better if it had dates to go along with the images.. Either way though, if your wanting opinions, I definitely like the second one better..

September 18, 2008, 01:02 AM
Definitely have a date giving background of the black and white image.

September 18, 2008, 02:16 AM
I'd put a year stamp on each, just to make that clear.

Right to vote: No
Right to effective self-defense: Yes

Right to vote: Yes
Right to effective self-defense: No

And I like the "Self defense is not a crime, it's a right" tag line.

Maybe "age" the "older" photo a bit ... sepia tone rather than B&W? Throw in some scratches, softer focus?

Gentleman Ranker
September 18, 2008, 07:08 AM
The second (latest) poster is best. I would add a link to your website. Once they get the poster's message, they should be curious about the subject. Tell them where to find out more!

I will say again that the most important thing(s) to think about for pro-RKBA materials -- as with any such material -- are:

1. Who is your audience?

2. What do you want them to think about? What do they already believe?

3. What should they do after seeing your poster?

It is also very important to think about what messages are or could be implicit, though not explicitly stated, in the poster's composition. Ask yourself, "What does the author of this message have to believe in order for this presentation of the message to make sense?"

As an example, the very first poster could be seen as implying that women were actually better off in the (unspecified) Old Days. I'm not saying that was the intention, just that it would not be hard for someone to think that the author believed that. Not good for us if they did take it that way. It is fundamental to this kind of communication to connect some New Idea with something that the audience already believes is a Good Thing.

For this newest one to make sense, the author clearly has to believe that

1. Human rights = Good

2. Human rights for women = Good.

3. Denial of human rights = Bad

You get the point. No one is going to argue with the above. This new poster implicitly connects the very general issue of women and firearms with these unambiguously good things.

But once again, now that the viewer's attention and curiosity are engaged, what should the viewer do next? I think "visit" is as good an answer as any.

Things like hairstyle, the date of the Webley, etc., are things that I appreciate*, but I think they'd be completely lost on most of the audience for this poster. The general idea of "Then" and "Now" is presented as well as it needs to be for this message.

Bravo, sir. Keep it up.



* I once advised someone about the proper shoulder insignia -- to include specific brigade numbers -- for the officers in a production of Chekhov's Three Sisters. I just didn't seriously think it would make any difference to them or the audience. :)

PS: This essay (, that actually cites Oleg's work as influential, is the kind of thing that I'm talking about making happen. The essay's definition of "pro-control" is, IMHO, the group we should be talking to. Gotta love that title, too.

September 18, 2008, 08:54 AM
Oleg, post 7 is gtg

September 18, 2008, 09:40 AM
Maybe a third picture of the girl dressed in futuristic clothing with the caption:

"What does her future hold"?

September 18, 2008, 02:07 PM
Maybe the word you're looking for is unopposed.

After all, we are right and there are more of us than of "them" so they should go looking for reasons not us.

September 18, 2008, 05:14 PM
However, I just completed the definitive version.

Definitive, but maybe not accurate.

I am pretty sure that women did not have the right to defend themselves against abusive fathers/husbands. A woman had a right to defend herself against social inferiors - people poorer than her, of a lower socio/economic group, etc.

For example, it's pretty clear that in much of our nation, a black woman had no right to defend herself against a white rapist. Can anyone disagree with that? A poor white woman employed by a wealthy white man probably had no right to defend herself against rape.

The hard issue uncovered is that the women today have more rights - even rights to self defense - than a woman 100 years ago. The problem is that states restrict the means of self defense from some people who had that right 100 years ago.

It's hard to capture that complexity in a poster. I suspect that you will have to abandon either truth or simplicity.

You could make it "She had a right to carry a handgun!" and "She doesn't!" - and since both women are white and look to be of approximately the same social/economic class, you might be technically correct. But that's pretty weaselly. :)


September 18, 2008, 05:49 PM
Regarding the first version, MD doesn't allow most people to carry.

The cat should be in both photos.

September 18, 2008, 05:58 PM
I would add the date to the one on the left, and "today" to the one on the right, so it doesn't seem dated in four months.

Also, she'd look more "Victorian" with her hair up.

If you enjoyed reading about "more verbose. more clear?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!