Great-great-grandparents had rights. Do we?

Status
Not open for further replies.
... 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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The woman on left had no property rights - she was property.
  4. The woman on the left had no right to vote.
  5. ... 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
 
RPCVYemen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.":eek:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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!
 
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). ...
Click to expand...

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 ...
Click to expand...

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

Mike
 
Every one in the US has more rights now then they did 100 years ago. That better?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
That will keep the conversation focused on gun rights.
Click to expand...

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 :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Pro-grandparents?
Replies
12
Views
607
DorGunR
D
B
  • Locked
Are used guns better now?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Twiki357
Twiki357
Picher
  • Locked
A volunteer force of grandparent-age folks for school security?
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
RPZ
R
3
  • Locked
This Forum is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Replies
4
Views
308
Brian Dale
B
W
  • Locked
I had a great teaching opportunity this weekend.
Replies
8
Views
777
lucky-gunner
L
Back
Top