Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
Nolo
Member
Gremlin!
Nice Webley/Enfield.
I want one.
Nice Webley/Enfield.
I want one.
scrat
Member
Thats a good poster. Nice job Oleg
Duke Junior
member
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?
Should the modern woman have a gun in her hand in some symbolic pose?
Treo
member
That is a good poster
Duke Junior
member
You are a clever devil.
Duke Junior
member
Who are we,TAB?
VPLthrneck
Member
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.
Would have been neat to see the cat in both pics, IMHO.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
TAB,
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.
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
member
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?
bogie
Member
I would change "legally carry" to "legally protect herself" - gunnies understand "carry," but ordinary folks will be more comfy with "protect."
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.
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
member
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.
Duke Junior
member
Every one?Who are they?These everyone.Just curious.And what are those extra rights?
Nolo
Member
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
member
Fascinating!Explain scientifically acceptable margin.I love this New Age Jargon.Hey,that rhymes.
Nolo
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Good post, JesseL.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked