Violated twice
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
XD Fan
Member
I love the mesage! I am not sure what the images in the corners are or what they signify.
XD Fan
Member
Okay, I see that, but I still don't see how the extraordinary written message relates to bullet holes in paper.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Perhaps Blood?
Would it work better with blood?
Pooled or spattered?
Would it work better with blood?
Pooled or spattered?
Monkeyleg
Member.
Oleg, the message is clear, but the visuals are not.
The Unknown User
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 712
I think the bullet holes detract from the message. Just keep the text.
VARifleman
Member
Great message, but I agree with AG, perhaps blood on bullet ridden glass like in:
First Oleg love your stuff.
Second, how about "victims" are violated twice? To me (just one opinion and we all know what they are worth) it reads easier - the "v" in victim sounds well with the "v" in violated.
Then I would use First and Second instead of living and dead - I realize it is not exactlt what you are trying to say but to me these messages are more about emotion that thinking.
Again, Love your stuff and please disregard if you don't want an opinion.
p.s. you could leave the living and dead since there are many victims of a massacre.
Second, how about "victims" are violated twice? To me (just one opinion and we all know what they are worth) it reads easier - the "v" in victim sounds well with the "v" in violated.
Then I would use First and Second instead of living and dead - I realize it is not exactlt what you are trying to say but to me these messages are more about emotion that thinking.
Again, Love your stuff and please disregard if you don't want an opinion.
p.s. you could leave the living and dead since there are many victims of a massacre.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm....
The dead are victimized twice, not only by the sociopath who murdered them, but of the society that made a "we will protect you" promise it couldn't possibly deliver on.
The living are victimized _again_ by the politicians who seek to use the event for their own agenda, who reiterate that impossible to deliver even in principle promise of "we will protect you".
Linguistically, it doesn't really hang together as written, because "violated twice" applies to the same person, but the rest of the sentence applies to 2 different people.
The dead are victimized twice, not only by the sociopath who murdered them, but of the society that made a "we will protect you" promise it couldn't possibly deliver on.
The living are victimized _again_ by the politicians who seek to use the event for their own agenda, who reiterate that impossible to deliver even in principle promise of "we will protect you".
Linguistically, it doesn't really hang together as written, because "violated twice" applies to the same person, but the rest of the sentence applies to 2 different people.
Nio
Member
I don't like this one. For one thing, by definition you can't be the victim of a massacre unless you are...well...massacred...
This makes more sense to me:
MASSACRE VICTIMS ARE VIOLATED TWICE.
FIRST BY THE POLITICIANS WHO DISARM THEM.
SECOND BY THE PSYCHO WHO KILLS THEM.
Nio
This makes more sense to me:
MASSACRE VICTIMS ARE VIOLATED TWICE.
FIRST BY THE POLITICIANS WHO DISARM THEM.
SECOND BY THE PSYCHO WHO KILLS THEM.
Nio
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Violated Rights
Good one, Oleg. Let's look at it from another, simpler slant.
I have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Correct? It's right there in the constitution.
Very well...Carrying my pistol is necessary for me to be comfortably at LIBERTY during my daily PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, whatever lawful endeavor that may be on a given day, because it's a tool with which I can depend on to protect my LIFE should the need suddenly arise...which it usually does.
There! My right to keep and bear...read that "Own and Carry"...arms is guaranteed in two different places.
Good one, Oleg. Let's look at it from another, simpler slant.
I have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Correct? It's right there in the constitution.
Very well...Carrying my pistol is necessary for me to be comfortably at LIBERTY during my daily PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, whatever lawful endeavor that may be on a given day, because it's a tool with which I can depend on to protect my LIFE should the need suddenly arise...which it usually does.
There! My right to keep and bear...read that "Own and Carry"...arms is guaranteed in two different places.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Good comments. I will review and possibly revise.
i definitely disagree with the people who want bulletholes or blood. something that sensational is just begging to be misused as "proof" that we're just insensitive jerks who use tragedy for political gain before the dead are even buried.
the message rings true here, but is this one "outsiders" will get? i support a lot of gun groups out of necessity but i feel like the libs crush us on public relations. they put out messages that "the masses" can swallow easily enough that it becomes integrated over time. there are more blank slates out there than ever and i think they're conditioned to find that which is moderate reasonable and most likely correct. we only need appear moderate by putting the food for thought quietly in front of them and letting them pick at their own rate, rather than cramming it down their throats.
it's just my bit, you don't have to agree. i'm not attacking anyone, and i think you're onto something good. but my way has always been to come with a gradient. people are already thinking what this message conveys. while the antis immediately jumped on the issue after this month's shooting, i'm almost surprised the fallout hasn't been worse. but most people are fairly reasonable, and haven't made up their minds as to whether the pro- or anti-gun path is a better way to avoid such tragedy. it's important not to alienate those on the fence. i ease into something like this and crank it up to where this poster is once i know it's not going to cause them to label me a right-wing spaz. i'm strong about my convictions, but they do no good to anyone but me unless peoples' ears and minds are open.
the message rings true here, but is this one "outsiders" will get? i support a lot of gun groups out of necessity but i feel like the libs crush us on public relations. they put out messages that "the masses" can swallow easily enough that it becomes integrated over time. there are more blank slates out there than ever and i think they're conditioned to find that which is moderate reasonable and most likely correct. we only need appear moderate by putting the food for thought quietly in front of them and letting them pick at their own rate, rather than cramming it down their throats.
it's just my bit, you don't have to agree. i'm not attacking anyone, and i think you're onto something good. but my way has always been to come with a gradient. people are already thinking what this message conveys. while the antis immediately jumped on the issue after this month's shooting, i'm almost surprised the fallout hasn't been worse. but most people are fairly reasonable, and haven't made up their minds as to whether the pro- or anti-gun path is a better way to avoid such tragedy. it's important not to alienate those on the fence. i ease into something like this and crank it up to where this poster is once i know it's not going to cause them to label me a right-wing spaz. i'm strong about my convictions, but they do no good to anyone but me unless peoples' ears and minds are open.
- Status