more verbose. more clear?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oleg Volk

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
9,155
Location
Nashville, TN
(update -- scroll down for the newest version)
samerights7906-2.jpg
 
Meh, I liked the other one more.
This one for dumber people, that one for people who can actually think...
:evil:
 
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
 
"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"
 
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...
 
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.
 
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)...so I can't really pick a year that's not anachronistic.
 
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.
 
Second Sucks Lemons

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
 
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..
 
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?
 
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 www.a-human-right.org" 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.

regards,

GR

=========================================================
* 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top