[MagKnightX]

Just a quick one I whipped up. Let me say, first, though, that I am pro-Bush and fairly pro-Ashcroft. Like most posters, this is designed to convince the antis of something...

http://www.thehighroad.org./attachment.php?s=&postid=579189

[Travis McGee]

Loser.

[Travis McGee]

Extended remarks:

As opposed to Oleg Volk's photo-posters, that photo poster is a big fat loser. It is a misfire, a dud. It's confused in its message, it implies that Bush and Ashcroft would sieze dictatorial control unless Democrats, armed with weapons guaranteed by the second amendment, were around to shoot them. It's a LOSER, in my humble opinion.

Matt

[Standing Wolf]

...this is designed to convince the antis of something...

Ummmmm... what?

[wingnutx]

I was lurking on DU just after the 2000 election, and several of the lefties had suddenly seen the light and were thinking about buying guns as a counterbalance to what they saw as a threatening government. They still thought that NRA/GOA types were paranoid delusionals, but NOW SUDDENLY there was a need for the population to be armed.

It was funny in a way.

[grampster]

Wal', I had to think a bit. The message is there alright. But ya gotta be a Democrat Bush/Ashcroft hater to appreciate it. But.....then again....that's the only people who would appreciate it....but most of those folks are so blinded by hate or are so far left that they are left out....and wouldn't get it anyway..
I didn't like the poster...subtlety that is too subtle and is lost on those for which it is intended, is of no value. Sorry Mag.

grampster

[Mark Tyson]

Sorry, I don't like it. How about something that appeals to a broader base?

[MagKnightX]

Well, now that I look at it again, I do realize it does seem anti-Bush anti-Ashcroft, but, as I said, the target audience is not us. It is the people who are anti-gun and is to illustrate the point. Most people who are anti-gun are anti-Bush. The second amendment was put in place to ensure that nobody could take over our country and violate the constitution. To get the antis to recognize that, one must use a figure that they vilify to illustrate the point. If our target were conservatives, as opposed to liberals, then we would use somebody like Clinton, or perhaps even Stalin or Saddam.

You cannot think that those who want to ban guns seriously hate the same people we hate, do you? They would typically love to be under Clinton or Gore for life. Where as even they would take up arms if Bush attempted a takeover. Marketing. You're not trying to sell it to yourself, you're trying to sell it to the customer. Sometimes, to do that, you do have to make statements you don't like. If you were attempting to sell sapphire and silver rings, and you really like blue and didn't much care for silver, but your target market liked silver and couldn't care less about blue, you wouldn't advertise the blueness of the sapphire, would you? You would get very few sales that way. Thus, a poster saying Clinton or Feinstein could take over would go over well with pro-gun people, who, referring to our previous example, already have several of your rings. Those who "do not have the rings" would probably get mad that you are attacking Clinton.

Pandering is taboo in art, but in marketing, it is necessary.

[Mark Tyson]

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=579389

[Oleg Volk]

I think that Bush/Ashcroft poster works pretty well, actually.

[ReadyontheRight]

Mark Tyson's poster nails the idea.

I really don't see the desire in Bush to retain control. I always supported him as the Repub candidate, but I started to like him much more after 9/11 because he gave me the sense of "Geeze, I didn't sign up for this B.S.", but he stood up and took charge.

With the typical Democrat emotional approach to things, I'd be afraid your poster would make one of them take it literally and go buy a gun and try to shoot Ashcroft.





They'd probably miss though.

Relax! I'm just kidding!

[Travis McGee]

Speaking of Hitler, it's hard to beat that classic poster:

"All those in favor of gun control, raise your right arm."

[BluesBear]

Well MagKnightX I hate to rain on your parade but....

You asked in your poster: "What's stopping them?"

:confused:

ummmmm how about the 22nd Amendment?

[Geech]

I'm with Oleg, I think it does work. Remember, this is aimed at a group of people who think Bush is equal to Hitler. To these people, words already failed to stop another one.

[stevelyn]

But ya gotta be a democrat or a Bush/Ashcroft hater to appreciate it.

Noooo........being Libertarian I can appreciate it no matter whose picture is up there, whether it be someone from the present, past or future administrations (I won't call them regimes just yet).

Blues Bear,

What's stopping them? ummmmm........how about the 22nd Amendment.

And just exactly what do you propose we use as the final option to enforce the 22nd Amendment if it comes to that?

[BluesBear]

stevelyn, it can be said that the 2nd Ammendment is there fo enforce ALL of the others, but that's not what the poster asked. As you yourself said the 2nd A is the FINAL option. The poster in question makes it appear to be the first.


I personally don't like the poster submitted to us for approval by MagKnightX. I think most of the reasons have already been expressed by others. Let's face it, if you have to explain it to US then the sheeple and blissninnies won't get it either.


Perhaps a better poster would have been a photo of Fidel Castro (or any other dictator) with the question:


Why will this man remain in control for life?

Because there was no second ammendment to prevent it.

[MagKnightX]

Blues: As to your original question, we are not talking about being perpetually elected. Put yourself in a Democrat's shoes for a second. If you do roleplaying, it may be a little easier. Okay, here is this warmongering neo-fascist right-wing extremist mini-hitler (remember, roleplaying here). Thank Allah, Buddha, and all incarnations of Brahma he's going to be gone next year. Oh, look at the poster. Dang gun nuts, now they're pretending to be on our side. Hey, wait, he IS sort of the Commander-in-Chief of the military, isn't he? Suppose he DID try to take over? Those poor misguided grunts would probably follow him. I bet he COULD install himself as dictator-for-life, and would love to, too! Dang, I may have to re-evaluate my views!

Okay, back out of that. Now, on to your suggestion for a poster.

That would go over really well with us, us being the pro-gun, pro-freedom, conservatives who are already convinced of the cause! Remember, we have already bought the rings. We can't, say, quadruple-emphasis-vote for something, and if we could, we already would. The ones who we want to buy the rings, who we are trying to sell the message to, are pro-communist. Remember how they wanted to send Élian back to Cuba? How they didn't seem to want Reagan to work on ending the Cold War, and who did nothing themselves, and even helped the communist cause? They support Castro. It would be just like an anti-Clinton poster. It would work to convince US of something WE already know, and further alienate THEM who we want to convince.

[MaterDei]

I think it's perfect the way it is.

The second ammendment gives us, the people, the ability to protect ourselves from those who might want to ignore the Constitution, to include the 22nd amendment. It is not intended to protect us only from those who we disagree with. Couple that with the fact that most antis are VERY anti Bush and VERY, VERY anti Ashcroft, the poster is a hit.

Nice job, MagKnightX.

[Dave Markowitz]

I think the MagKnightX's poster is excellent. Remember, THRers aren't the intended audience. It's intended for the DU types.

Well done!

[Detritus]

But ya gotta be a Democrat Bush/Ashcroft hater

speaking as a registered REPUBLICAN, that is a Bush/Ashcroft hater ("Shrub" ain't his daddy) and one that otherwise DID vote republican.

I like the poster.

[geekWithA.45]

Hmmm...

The poster skates awfully close to the thin edge of advocating assassination.

The Secret Service is pretty touchy about pix of the pres with crosshairs on him, and this is awfully close.

I'd not do a wide release without a legal opinion on that.

[Mad Man]

Those who don't like the poster should keep in mind who the intended audience is.

I'm tired of so much of the "preaching to the choir" crap that comes from the RKBA movement, and am glad that somebody is trying to think differently.

That being said, somebody should circulate MagKnightX's poster among lefty groups, and see what the reaction is. If it doesn't work, learn the lesson, think of something else and try again.

I've been toying with the idea of promoting gun ownership among the left-wing as a means to protect us from global corporate slavery, but haven't done any posters yet. Think of the days when mining companies use to settle labor disputes with machine guns (usually borrowed from the government).

Maybe something along the lines of "Why does Corporation X support gun control," with a picture of a third-world sweat shop. (Just make sure that Corporation X is a donor to some gun control group).




The poster skates awfully close to the thin edge of advocating assassination.

The Secret Service is pretty touchy about pix of the pres with crosshairs on him, and this is awfully close.

I'd not do a wide release without a legal opinion on that.


No, this is not a poster. It's a screen shot from CBS's "The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn," August 4, 2000.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art/kilborn.jpg

CBS imposed the words "Snipers Wanted" over footage of Governor George Bush speaking at the Republican National Convention. Keep in mind that this was a few months after a CBS employee founded the so-called "Million Mom March" (http://www2.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2000/20000512.asp). Viacom, which owns CBS (http://viacom.com/business.tin), also donated money to the MMM (http://scopeny.org/mmm.html). (So much for the claim that "corporate media = conservative media = no liberal bias").

Instead of a visit from the Secret Service, CBS recieved a letter from the FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2000/stgt044.html).

You can see a video of the FNC story about it at https://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2000/cyb20000811.html#7 (Real media player required).

Direct link to video: https://secure.mediaresearch.org/rm/bush0811/segment1.ram


To go off on a tangent, it just shows that Big Media have rights the rest of us don't.

In the March 16, 1989 special live broadcast of 48 Hours on CBS about "assault weapons" -- and keep in mind that this was done in the aftermath of the Stockton schoolyard shooting -- David Martin


claimed that it took him less than two hours to find a gunsmith willing to convert a "semi-automatic assault weapon" into a machine guna job that supposedly took just nine min utes. Viewers saw only about 15 seconds of the alleged conversion, not enough for even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to determine if it had actually been carried out, though the BATF did send a letter of reprimand to CBS. In a letter to a complaining viewer, CBS claimed that the conversion had been completed but that the gun had then been immediately converted back to semi -automatic. If the gun was not fired, how did Martin know that it had in fact been converted into a machine gun? Since Martin was shown firing an automatic rifle immediately after the brief conversion footage, viewers were led to believe that they were seeing the results of the conversionunless they knew enough to recognize that the allegedly converted gun was not an M-16 like the one that was fired.

So we have only CBS's claim as evidence that a conversion was carried out at all, let alone in nine minutes. If it was carried out, CBS violated federal law and received no more than a written reprimand for doing so. If it was not carried out, CBS lied to its viewers. Either way, CBS went out of its way to help demonize "semi-automatic assault weapons" and to further the cause of the gun prohibitionists.

(bold added. source: "Shooting Blind. Reason. November 1995 (http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml))

CBS should be glad they didn't suffer the same fate as another organization that was merely suspected of converting semi-automatic rifles to fully-automatic:

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/newsfiles/waco/images/waco.jpg

[Moparmike]

I like it. Just like guns and "shot placement", posters need appropriate audiences to use their full potential.

I like Mark Tyson's as well.

[mountainclmbr]

I occasionally check out the DU site to see what the enemy is up to. They seem to be to the left of Stalin. The poster might influence some of them if they used logic, which I have failed to notice. I can't believe they could have the skills to turn on their computers.

[Standing Wolf]

Mark Tyson:

That's very well done!

[hoppinglark]

I think the poster is okay.
Some Demoncrats do like the Right to keep and bear arms.

[Steve Smith]

I kind of like it...and besides...




What's wrong with not liking Bush?

[Drjones]

I agree that the poster isn't the greatest.

It's funny that this should come up. Just the other night I thought of a new argument for antis: since most antis tend to be more liberal than most here, you could say this:

Them: "I don't think anyone but the govt should own guns. Guns are bad because they kill people." (Or some variation thereof that they invariably parrot...)

Me: "You sure you want George Bush to be the only one who has any guns, huh?"

(This argument, of course, rests on the assumption that they aren't a Bush supporter.)

[hso]

I get it and I think others outside of our normal circle would as well. The 2nd isn't just for conservatives, but for all citizens. Should the further degradation of personal freedoms and rights in the US continue (not just gun rights) more folks may see the basic need for the second. Whether it's the AWB or the Patriot Act.

[Mark Tyson]

On a related note . . .

For the record, I'm a moderate Democrat. There are other Democrats here too. If you want to appeal to a broader base, certain members of this board might want to try to stop calling everyone with a "D" behind their name a socialist or communist. Believe it or not, American politics is skewed a bit to the right compared to the rest of the industrialized world. There is no significant socialist party in the US as there is in other nations, and the US Green party looks positively mainstream next to the Green parties of Europe.

Once we have demolished gun control as an issue we can talk about economic policy.

[MaterDei]

Believe it or not, American politics is skewed a bit to the right compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
What is the point behind this statement? I can't, for the life of me, figure out what it has to do with anything.

I agree that name calling is pointless.

MaterDei

[Mark Tyson]

What I'm trying to say is that most US Democrats are not actual card-carrying socialists. That's all.

Liberal parties overseas are a lot closer to socialists than the main US parties.

[MaterDei]

Liberal parties overseas are a lot closer to socialists than the main US parties.
And here in the US the Democratic party is a lot closer to socialist than is the Republican party. Well, maybe not a lot, but closer. For the record, I am not calling them, as a group, or you a socialist, though some individuals in both parties have socialistic voting records. You seem to think that socialism/communism is bad. That being the case, why not join the major party furthest from that which to don't like?

For the record, I am not a registered Republican though I tend to vote Republican when there is not a viable alternative. I am very disappointed in the Republican party generally and specifically with my fellow Texan, President Bush. He was a conservative governor and has morphed into a somewhat moderate president. :mad:

You say that gun control is important to you and I certainly believe that. My question to you is, how do you vote? Do you not vote at all or do you vote for gun control by supporting the Democrats? Or, perhaps, you live in that most rare of places in which there are pro RKBA Democrats on the ballot?

[Mark Tyson]

Of course I don't like communism/socialism! It's an ideology incompatible with American values. I believe in a little regulation and social safety net though.

Guns are a make or break issue for me - I don't vote for anyone who supports gun control. Last gubernatorial election I voted for the Republican because as congressman he voted against the AWB; the Democrat was about as anti as anti gets. On environmental, economic and social issues I lean Democrat, but only so far. I also write the national party offices quite a bit trying to convince them to stop pushing gun control.

Funny thing is there seem to be a lot more anti Republicans than there are pro gun Democrats.

[Drjones]

What I'm trying to say is that most US Democrats are not actual card-carrying socialists. That's all.

But one doesn't have to carry a card to be a duck either.

You just have to look like one, waddle like one, and quack like one and that's proof enough for most people.


"A Communist is bound by party discipline to deny he is a communist so that he can by subversion and stealth impose on an unwilling people the rule of the International Communist Party which is in fact the government of Soviet Russia." - Ronald Reagan