Security of a free state
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
mustanger98
Member
Okay, this time I'm wondering because in my mind, both rifles are equally important. Besides, they're wielded by the same man who, although dresses differently and exhibits different body language between the two frames, posesses the same mindset.
1- Who goes into a combat situation in a suit and tie?
2- Who goes hunting in a flowerdy shirt?
In either case, nobody I know.
Let's assume both rifles are chambered in 7.62mm/.308... then they're both militarily applicable.
In any case, privately owned rifles of all types keep Commies leary of starting a fight by oppressing the citizens.
1- Who goes into a combat situation in a suit and tie?
2- Who goes hunting in a flowerdy shirt?
In either case, nobody I know.
Let's assume both rifles are chambered in 7.62mm/.308... then they're both militarily applicable.
In any case, privately owned rifles of all types keep Commies leary of starting a fight by oppressing the citizens.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
I wanted to emphasize the civilian nature of the guy with the M14 and the non-tactical, recreational nature of the hunter. The rifle, btw, is a .450 Marlin from Territorial Gunsmiths.
El Tejon
Member
Ummm, both.
Aggie's Revenge
Member
Am I the only who thinks the guy on the left looks like a Fed?
Roadwild17
Member
I think I saw the guy on the left in one of the Matrix movies 
DRZinn
Member
I thnik anti's and fencesitters won't really get the difference unless the "assault weapon" is black.
CNYCacher
Member
Okay, we have a bolt action on the right side and an "assault" style (with bayonet!! 
) on the left side.
The guy on the left is dressed like he just got home from work to find terrorists in his back yard. The guy on the right looks like he is out for a recreational day shooting (or hunting, but what's with the shirt?).
Obviously, the one on the left would be better to ensure the security of a free state, while the one on the right looks good for hunting. However, the one on the left "looks scary" and (I am not sure on this) possibly would be illegal (with bayonet) under the AWB? It certainly would provoke the anti-rhetoric "You don't need that for hunting!".
Oleg, are you trying to point out the disparity between what the second amendment says (security of the free state), and what some people think it means (hunting)?
) on the left side.The guy on the left is dressed like he just got home from work to find terrorists in his back yard. The guy on the right looks like he is out for a recreational day shooting (or hunting, but what's with the shirt?).
Obviously, the one on the left would be better to ensure the security of a free state, while the one on the right looks good for hunting. However, the one on the left "looks scary" and (I am not sure on this) possibly would be illegal (with bayonet) under the AWB? It certainly would provoke the anti-rhetoric "You don't need that for hunting!".
Oleg, are you trying to point out the disparity between what the second amendment says (security of the free state), and what some people think it means (hunting)?
Imaginos
Member
Too High Brow
In this case, I think the concept you are trying to express is too complex for the public school indoctrinated audience you are trying to reach.
To most folks the US is "free" because the government constantly reminds us that we are "free" in a very Orwellian kind of way. They also tell us who we must hate and not hate on a daily basis.
The concept of "security of a free state" is simply over the heads of people who are not already 2A believers, so in this case you are preaching to the choir.
You do much better appealing to simple personal messages like personal safety and parents defending their kids.
In this case, I think the concept you are trying to express is too complex for the public school indoctrinated audience you are trying to reach.
To most folks the US is "free" because the government constantly reminds us that we are "free" in a very Orwellian kind of way. They also tell us who we must hate and not hate on a daily basis.
The concept of "security of a free state" is simply over the heads of people who are not already 2A believers, so in this case you are preaching to the choir.
You do much better appealing to simple personal messages like personal safety and parents defending their kids.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Answer to question one: Anyone who was dressed in a suit and tie when the combat situation came to them instead of them going to the combat situation.
Answer to question two: You're bopping along cruising the countryside on a nice fall afternoon driving through a Wildlife Management Area. Suddenly the biggest buck you've seen in years trots across the road. You park the truck and go through your wallet...hunting license-check, big game license-check, WMA permit-check. Get your rifle out of the case and locate the ammunition. Darn your pack with the hunting clothes is not in the vehicle but you spot a spare orange vest. You look up...the buck is grazing a couple of hundred yards from the road..fifty yards from the road it's legal to shoot. Everything is A-OK except you're wearing 'flowerdy' clothes. So it boils down to hunt in flowerdy clothes or let the biggest buck you've seen in years trot off. I'll be hunting in weird clothes, friend.
Killed a nice buck a few years ago in almost identical circumstances one morning. Except I was wearing solid white hospital scrubs. I should let the big buck go for I'm not wearing the proper deer killing outfit?
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Answer to question one: Anyone who was dressed in a suit and tie when the combat situation came to them instead of them going to the combat situation.
Answer to question two: You're bopping along cruising the countryside on a nice fall afternoon driving through a Wildlife Management Area. Suddenly the biggest buck you've seen in years trots across the road. You park the truck and go through your wallet...hunting license-check, big game license-check, WMA permit-check. Get your rifle out of the case and locate the ammunition. Darn your pack with the hunting clothes is not in the vehicle but you spot a spare orange vest. You look up...the buck is grazing a couple of hundred yards from the road..fifty yards from the road it's legal to shoot. Everything is A-OK except you're wearing 'flowerdy' clothes. So it boils down to hunt in flowerdy clothes or let the biggest buck you've seen in years trot off. I'll be hunting in weird clothes, friend.
Killed a nice buck a few years ago in almost identical circumstances one morning. Except I was wearing solid white hospital scrubs. I should let the big buck go for I'm not wearing the proper deer killing outfit?
He is scary.
The AWB has sunsetted. When it was in effect it did not prohibit the ownership of rifles with bayonet lugs made before it went into effect. There are some states which are attempting to protect its citizens from the escalating danger of bayonet charges.That anti-rhetoric needs to be provoked so that the fallacious concept that the Second Amendment is for the purposes of hunting and other 'sporting purposes' can be laid to rest. It's not only a false idea but also a stupid idea. The people who spout it need to have their faces rubbed in the fact that they are not only liars but stupid liars.
I think the point would be clearer, and the contrast greater, if the guy in the suit had a plumber, nurse, Indian chief etc. similiarly armed, backing him up, while the flower clad hunter had the same people clad in Orvis-wear, with pretty/ornate field pieces, behind him.
I think the subtlty is lost on most non gun people,
A gun is a gun unless its black and evil looking, wood and steel look the same to most gun people. Stick an AR15 or a steyr aug in his hands and people will gasp.
The idea about the other citizenry backing him up is a good one, it would help to eliminate his whole FBI apperance.
A gun is a gun unless its black and evil looking, wood and steel look the same to most gun people. Stick an AR15 or a steyr aug in his hands and people will gasp.
The idea about the other citizenry backing him up is a good one, it would help to eliminate his whole FBI apperance.
CNYCacher
Member
Pretty much what I was thinking when I asked Oleg if that was his point.
This one is pretty hard to figure out. Most poeple will not know the difference between the two guns, and all they'll see is the difference in dress.
sm
member
I agree with Byron and El Tejon's replies.
I like the idea, but I must agree the message is too complicated for Fence Sitters, and persons of other countries.
If I may make suggestions, off the top of my head:
Pictures could be separated as well if need to target specific audiences as well.
1. Tryanny does not care how one dresses, or the uses for one's Firearms - Tyranny just wants wants YOU disarmed!
2. Preserving Freedom is Everyone's Responsiblity!
Permission from Dennis Bateman would be needed for this one.
3. Metal and Wood - Freedom's Foundation.
4. Responsible Firearm Ownership - Deters Tyranny
I like the idea, but I must agree the message is too complicated for Fence Sitters, and persons of other countries.
If I may make suggestions, off the top of my head:
Pictures could be separated as well if need to target specific audiences as well.
1. Tryanny does not care how one dresses, or the uses for one's Firearms - Tyranny just wants wants YOU disarmed!
2. Preserving Freedom is Everyone's Responsiblity!
Permission from Dennis Bateman would be needed for this one.
3. Metal and Wood - Freedom's Foundation.
4. Responsible Firearm Ownership - Deters Tyranny
On the right.
The man wearing the suit is inconguous with the firearm. In people's minds, the only people in suits with guns are Secret Service, and detectives, and long arms are not usualy visible.
IMO, the suit conjures up a subliminal impression of "Office shooter".
I think a polo shirt and chinos would be better, it confers an image of clean cut "Mr Average" and "civilian", without the incongruity of the suit. I wold also have him holding the rifle cradled in his arms. That air of "non threatening, but ready" that the models in that pose has is just right.
On the left.
The hawaiian shirt and pith-helmet looks just plain silly. Flannel and hunter safety orange etc. is the way to go and is unmistakable. If you want it to be a bit "silly" waders for duck-hunting would be good. A break-action shotgun broken over the shoulder or the arm would be good. Think "Orvis Catalog"...
The man wearing the suit is inconguous with the firearm. In people's minds, the only people in suits with guns are Secret Service, and detectives, and long arms are not usualy visible.
IMO, the suit conjures up a subliminal impression of "Office shooter".
I think a polo shirt and chinos would be better, it confers an image of clean cut "Mr Average" and "civilian", without the incongruity of the suit. I wold also have him holding the rifle cradled in his arms. That air of "non threatening, but ready" that the models in that pose has is just right.
On the left.
The hawaiian shirt and pith-helmet looks just plain silly. Flannel and hunter safety orange etc. is the way to go and is unmistakable. If you want it to be a bit "silly" waders for duck-hunting would be good. A break-action shotgun broken over the shoulder or the arm would be good. Think "Orvis Catalog"...
people willing to fight, with what ever are essential to a free state. american civilian riflemen is believed to have kept the japanese from trying to invade the USA. and Japanese men women and children willing to fight, and die, with sharpend sticks kept the USA from invading mainland japan.
entropy
Member
On the left: When did the Secret Service start issuing M1A's?
On the right: Higgins from Magnum P.I. on safari?
The weaponry is fine, but the costuming detracts from the message. I'd go a little more mainstream for both costumes. AJ Dual has the right idea.
Great concept, as always Oleg!
On the right: Higgins from Magnum P.I. on safari?
The weaponry is fine, but the costuming detracts from the message. I'd go a little more mainstream for both costumes. AJ Dual has the right idea.
Great concept, as always Oleg!
yhtomit
Member
AJ Dual said it nicely
Khakis and a polo shirt with a modern (evil, black) assault rifle v. Waders and a bird gun would probably convey the desired impression more clearly; the current dress configurations end up stirring up too much cognitive dissonance "Why is the suited guy holding an antique gun? Is the smiling safari guy a loon?"
And maybe Mr. Business should be holding a Serbu instead? I kid, I kid ... actually, No, I don't. http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm
timothy
Khakis and a polo shirt with a modern (evil, black) assault rifle v. Waders and a bird gun would probably convey the desired impression more clearly; the current dress configurations end up stirring up too much cognitive dissonance
"Why is the suited guy holding an antique gun? Is the smiling safari guy a loon?"And maybe Mr. Business should be holding a Serbu instead? I kid, I kid ... actually, No, I don't. http://www.serbu.com/bfg50.htm
timothy
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
I have the suit + suppressed R15 pic...but I just might use an M16 and a musket or a bird shotgun instead, without a person. Person makes it too specific.
mustanger98
Member
See, now, this is what I was talking about. Cognitive dissonance... the suit and tie with a gun does look too gov't among other things while safari guy looks like he's probably not a safe hunter... "a loon" like somebody else said. Sorry about that, Henry. Just that people and things look a lot different on film than in person and in the woods huntin' is whole 'nuther story.
I agree with what somebody else said about having the "civilian" look represented by several different professions rather than suit and tie. And have each one holding a different military type rifle ranging from M-14 back to '03 Springfield. Likewise, have the "hunter" impression represented by hunters from different regions... flannel, MossyOak camo, Wranglers and Stetson... all with the appropriate safety orange where legally applicable. And an assortment of sporting rifles which must include two leverguns- one for up-North flannel and one for the cowboy, while MossyOak ideally oughta have a pre-'64 Model 70.
I agree with what somebody else said about having the "civilian" look represented by several different professions rather than suit and tie. And have each one holding a different military type rifle ranging from M-14 back to '03 Springfield. Likewise, have the "hunter" impression represented by hunters from different regions... flannel, MossyOak camo, Wranglers and Stetson... all with the appropriate safety orange where legally applicable. And an assortment of sporting rifles which must include two leverguns- one for up-North flannel and one for the cowboy, while MossyOak ideally oughta have a pre-'64 Model 70.
- Status