View Full Version : Rosa Parks did not need to sit in the front of the bus.
I saw that on a sign at the rally yesterday. I have been thinking about that for some time now and the sign is right. There was no “need” for her to remain in her seat. The front of the bus would not arrive at its destination any sooner than the back. The front was not safer than the back. It was no colder or warmer, more comfortable or less, cheaper or more expensive then the back and there was no physical ailment that prevented her from moving. Essentially there was no difference between the front and the back of the bus.
But we all know it had nothing to do with need. We know all men are created equal and needs have nothing to do with it. We know that free people are free to sit where they like on a bus as long as that freedom doesn’t prevent someone else exercising their freedoms.
Our rights are not based on our needs!
Yes and we should really be pushing this one. It's the type sound bite anyone can remember. It speaks to a huge portion of the Obama voter base just on race alone. while not that race is the issue the concept of oppression is most often race related when presented to the masses by the MSM. It's easily understood. It's easy to remember.
This should be viral and in fact if this were a anti sentiment... it would already be viral. But again our side sucks at modern marketing.
I would ---love-- to see this somehow integrated in to the coverage of the inauguration or directly thereafter as they extoll the virtuous aspects of the formerly oppressed among us rising up through Liberal/Progressive enlightenment and government.
Great point.
I'm "Black" and I'm about to cause a riot with that comparison.
Thanks, brother!
Great point. My friend says we should approach this talking about rights not guns specifically. That way you grab the ppl that don't own and can't relate to, gun ownership. Since many of them believe strongly in the constitution it could shed some light and help non gun owners understand.
Not sure if he is 100% right but it makes sense
Great point. My friend says we should approach this talking about rights not guns specifically. That way you grab the ppl that don't own and can't relate to, gun ownership. Since many of them believe strongly in the constitution it could shed some light and help non gun owners understand.
Not sure if he is 100% right but it makes sense
QFE
How to make a Lefty cry..... "Rosa Parks was Right"
What's QFE? Quoted for emphasis?
Good plan
How about this for a coherent message?
Rosa Parks was RIGHT.
She did not NEED to remain in her seat.
But she knew that all men are created equal.
Rosa had the same BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS as the other passengers.
RIGHTS are not based on NEEDS!
The RIGHT to self defense is just as important as the RIGHT to free speech.
Remember this the next time someone says :
"You shouldn't be able to own a gun for self defense because you don't NEED one"
Ok. Wasn't sure if you were agreeing or striking it down.
What is this "QFE"?
:rolleyes:
Quoted For Emphasis
Meaning in agreement
+1
Ok. Wasn't sure if you were agreeing or striking it down. Yes, they want us to engage in a deflected argument over hunting, Military weapons, anything but actual Rights.
:rolleyes:
Quoted For Emphasis
Meaning in agreement
+1
Yes, they want us to engage in a deflected argument over hunting, Military weapons, anything but actual Rights.
Sorry. I hadn't heard that before. I spend a lot of time on a lot of forums...just haven't comes across that. Usually people just say "yes" or "+1" or "exactly" or even "QFT" (quoted for truth) or what have you
theblackknight
01-20-13, 16:22
This rosa parks/gun quote thing is already(at 3 days old) another tired bumper sticker quote that will be beat to death when "debating" gun rights because most can't intelligently articulate a point.
When you use the same old tired sayings, you become the bubba.
Also,"thems damn libertards don't respond to intelligent facts" is no excuse for how you conduct yourself.
KrampusArms
01-20-13, 17:18
You're RACIST!
You're RACIST!
According to current liberal dogma I "cannot" be. So I'll piss off the middle class Blacks who take the choice f genocide.
I'll report back my experiences. Cannot wait to go to the barbershop and ruffle some feathers.
theblackknight
01-20-13, 17:47
Dude, at least wait until after the haircut before cutting up with the regulars:D
When you use the same old tired sayings, you become the liberal.
They do nothing but repeat the same old thing and it seems to work for them.
Good plan
How about this for a coherent message?
As far as civil rights activists the anti gun types like to mention/use as examples yet appear to have zero understanding what they really stood for or believed, it does not get much more concise and coherent than:
Two quotes by MLK Jr.
"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration."
"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law."
Source: "Where Do We Go From Here:Chaos or Community?"
MLK applied for a CCW and was turned down. He was also a Republican...
Look at histories civil rights/human rights activists, be it MLK, or Gandhi, they all understood self defense (vs non violence...) as a basic human right because the lived it vs sitting in some safe office.
theblackknight
01-20-13, 20:20
They do nothing but repeat the same old thing and it seems to work for them.
Thats no excuse for how you conduct yourself.
They do nothing but repeat the same old thing and it seems to work for them.
Is this an expression of you feeling this is a genuinely viable tactic, or is this an expression of "That's not fair! How come they can do it!?"
When you use the same old tired sayings, you become the bubba.
So what's your plan? What are you doing for the cause?
Two quotes by MLK Jr.
"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration."
Ultimately they did find it tactically wise to use guns. -After- winning the right to segregate.
All the more reason I feel it's important to educate everyone from the ground up. If it takes a McDonalds-like slogan to open the doors in some people's minds and the lands finest lawyers to educate others, we need a full out blanket awakening/education about our rights. Our politicians have shown us that winning is not always winning, rather just exchanging the trophy. We need to win this one because if they get the trophy again they will find it tactically wise to retain it forever.
theblackknight
01-20-13, 20:52
So what's your plan? What are you doing for the cause?
Not fulfilling stereotypical images held by non gun types is a great start to having a meaningful exchange.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Not fulfilling stereotypical images held by non gun types is a great start to having a meaningful exchange.
Okay. So we kind of have an idea of what you are not doing. Maybe.
What ARE you doing?
theblackknight
01-20-13, 21:11
Okay. So we kind of have an idea of what you are not doing. Maybe.
What ARE you doing?
Talking about what you quoted to the right people so hopefully it becomes communicable. Seems a lot better then talking about a bunch of things we "know". Im not sure making logical parallels ala comparing AR features to performance mods for cars really get's thru to non gun people. Same for this. Why pick feel good analogies while discounting feel good legislation?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Not fulfilling stereotypical images held by non gun types is a great start to having a meaningful exchange.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Ok, so after you bought a three piece suit, bow tie and horn rimmed glasses....... what happened after that?
Same for this. Why pick feel good analogies while discounting feel good legislation?
We're clear on what you feel is wrong. What do you do that is better suited to the task at hand?
I think you are missing the knights point. By using a slogan phrase or same argument expressed in the same way is not going to change views. Think about every time you see Schumer, bloomberg or some other goat turd. It is always the same statements expressed in the same way. If we want to pull people of the fence we need find new ways to articulate our view points. If we relay on the same thing over and over again fence sitters will mentally shut down before you start your third sentence.
I do understand. Both he and you are saying this will become shop worn in short order. I get it.
What is your methodology for success?
Personally I do believe this particular analogy is a good one for a large segment of the population because they don't understand the whole Rosa Parks thing and they really don't understand God given rights.
Some will however recall that Rosa Park sat in the front of the bus when she wasn't supposed to and if that connects with them, if that get's them talking about rights, then it is a good thing.
Obviously this is not what we would want the NRA to hang their hat on but it can be effective for everyday social encounters perhaps even within one's own family or small circle of friends, co-workers, etc..
For instance.. how might you respond to this? http://www.nbc12.com/story/20632000/nbc12-viewpoint-the-debate-on-gun-control
I don't mean it is a bad analogy and many people may connect with. But it is almost like being brow beatin with the hammers kill more people stat. Yes they do but must people just think it is another right wing person regurgitating what they have seen on Fox News. And let's face regurgitation is not pretty. I am just saying I would not use it as my opening line.
... and I simply keep asking what would either of you guys say or do?
Yeager said he was going to shoot people - that was wrong
LaPierre - haven't heard a single person say he's said the right thing yet
Breaking it down to Rosa Parks and Rights is wrong
Writing the delegates is wrong because their minds are made up
Etc
Etc
Etc.....
Ok, now.... we've done all the wrong stuff...
What would be a good thing to do? What exactly do you do? I want to start doing what you guys do. If what I have been doing is wrong, I want to change that. So far, I have written and emailed Police chief, Delegates, Senators, multiple personalities on a very high profile radio station that is heavy 2A supportive.
Now... what exactly should I do... I got to talking to a stranger the other day and the next thing I knew we were shooting his suppressed pistol. When I meet the next stranger that is 2A neutral or anti-2A what exactly should I do and say?
I handed someone a copy of the constitution the other day and asked them if they would like to take it. They said what good will it do, if people were stupid enough to elect Obama again.
So you guys let me know how you want me to help save your rights because I'm an old man. I'll be dead when you guys are still saying.... ****, we should have { fill in the blank }
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/21/datupyha.jpg
Problem of course being, our opponents don't feel that owning an "assault weapon" should continue to be a right (or if it ever should have been in the first place). THAT is what the debate is about. All that phrase is saying is that we shouldn't be debating it in the first place. You may feel we shouldn't, but your feelings have zero bearing on someone else.
This tactic isn't going to work on anyone that doesn't already feel the way we do about it. Suddenly telling people what a right is or isn't is going to magically make them be accepting of something they're having a largely emotional reaction to.
Again, we need to step out of our little bubbles here a moment, and put ourselves into the shoes of a person that has never held a firearm in their entire life and knows ****-all about them. They see guns like AKs, AR15s, etc. as "weapons of war" made specifically for the military. They can't imagine why a regular citizen would want one any more than they can imagine why a regular citizen would want grenades and other explosives.
When they think of hunting, they think of bolt action rifles and guys in Mossy Oak. When they think of home defense, they think of pump action shotguns and handguns. When they think of personal protection, they think of small revolvers and pistols. As far as they're concerned, this is all a person would ever "need." Assault Rifles don't fit into their equation. How can the average person ever be trusted with them right? Look how many people these guns and their big clips can kill in such a short period of time! The more bullets you have, the more people you must plan on killing! The horror! THE HORROR!
The much derided "Fudd" has come to represent the average gun owner in the hearts and minds of many, or at least what many perceive the average gun owner should be.
This is just some of the stuff we're up against.
Mauser KAR98K
01-21-13, 03:25
Apparently this guy doesn't get it. In fact, I don't think he gets the real world, either.
http://thevarsity.ca/2013/01/20/a-civilian-arms-race-puts-everyone-in-the-line-of-fire/
God, I hate stupid, ignorant people with an agenda.
caelumatra
01-21-13, 05:59
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/18/yes-guns-are-dangerous-but-they-also-sav
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
I find these 2 articles really good together. However there's nothing super catchy in there to use slogan wise.
Obviously a one line slogan is not going to win the fight but it’s just one tool in the tool box. Maybe it could use as quick reply when someone says you don’t need ten rounds to kill a deer. Then use it an opening and follow up with facts and info.
Part on the problem is that we live in a fast food society and people start to zone out when you try it explain stuff in detail.
Obviously a one line slogan is not going to win the fight but it’s just one tool in the tool box. Maybe it could use as quick reply when someone says you don’t need ten rounds to kill a deer. Then use it an opening and follow up with facts and info.
Part on the problem is that we live in a fast food society and people start to zone out when you try it explain stuff in detail.
You are correct. I was in college in 1994 for the AWB. We did not have the alternative media or the internet then. A short one liner like this is enough to get your typical uneducated anti gunner to pause. And more importantly it will gain the attention of those around you.
From there it is important to be able to follow up with well reasoned arguments. I've found that people distrust stats so use them sparingly. Quotes on gun rights from famous people like MLK earlier in this thread. If all that works then drop a few stats or at least ask them if you can email them links. (everyone on this thread is collecting quotes and links to information?....)
I think the best thing we can do is take as many to range as possible. How many people haven't seen a new shooter with a grin on their face? Look at all the new shows that were on liberal controlled media. Most were a bunch of asshats but we were winning. Look how mainstream the ar is now.
Apparently this guy doesn't get it. In fact, I don't think he gets the real world, either.
http://thevarsity.ca/2013/01/20/a-civilian-arms-race-puts-everyone-in-the-line-of-fire/
God, I hate stupid, ignorant people with an agenda.
That kind of moron is never going to change his mind. He is probably one of those rape victims should not use lethal force to stop rape. Because death is forever and rape just last a little bit.
HackerF15E
01-21-13, 07:41
Apparently this guy doesn't get it. In fact, I don't think he gets the real world, either.
http://thevarsity.ca/2013/01/20/a-civilian-arms-race-puts-everyone-in-the-line-of-fire/
God, I hate stupid, ignorant people with an agenda.
He is just missing the fact that there are only two ways to influence human beings: logic/reason, and force.
He does not believe that "established democracies such as the United States" will ever happen upon an occasion where logic and reason fail.
Nightvisionary
01-21-13, 08:57
We're clear on what you feel is wrong. What do you do that is better suited to the task at hand?
I don't think he has any ideas.
I never said the method of delivery was wrong if you read what I wrote. I have emailed, written, and made phone calls as well. The point is you need to think of how your opponent will counter statement.
So ok rosa parks what they say, it was a place not weapon. They will think it is a bad comparison. To beat some one in open debate you need to predict their response before they do. Like a said with hammers kill people stat. Ok gun owner since hammers are effective maybe you should only be allowed a hammer for self defense. These are the types of responses you will get. When you drop a one statements argument.
Ultimately they did find it tactically wise to use guns. -After- winning the right to segregate.
Sorry, I'm not following the above as it pertains to MLK's quote. Can you elaborate?
I do understand. Both he and you are saying this will become shop worn in short order. I get it.
What is your methodology for success?
Personally I do believe this particular analogy is a good one for a large segment of the population because they don't understand the whole Rosa Parks thing and they really don't understand God given rights.
My input: prefer terms such as Basic Human Rights, or Natural Rights or Inalienable Rights No God(s) required for those rights to exist for all human beings. No God(s) need exist to accept them as basic to all free people.
By using the term "God given" you potentially lose a lot of people who may otherwise be swayed.
Agreed, they do not get the concept of inalienable rights that don't change EVER, regardless of time, or circumstances. They are inalienable rights, hence without time or circumstance limits, and come with responsibilities and downsides also.
Ergo, "freedom is not free" and does have its "costs" to be sure, but the alternatives are non negotiable and a non starter.
But to the blind, the ignorant, and the stupid creatures out there who who can't seem to fathom that "these truths to be self-evident"
Sorry, I'm not following the above as it pertains to MLK's quote. Can you elaborate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nckgyfGbdnU#t=480s
IOW, even after winning what they were fighting for they still took up arms to facilitate a peaceful conclusion ( or in their case... beginning ).
Had those men followed MLKs lead of not using guns as tactically wise, those children may not have made it to school.
Or.... I have mis-underestood the context of the quote.
To condense a portion of his quote...
"The question was... ..whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration."
Certainly he must have also felt that, short of us killing each other, there was a time and place for everything.
I feel right now we are sort of at the point where those 4 men where in the days before that situation, talking together and asking each other what they were going to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nckgyfGbdnU#t=480s
IOW, even after winning what they were fighting for they still took up arms to facilitate a peaceful conclusion ( or in their case... beginning ).
Had those men followed MLKs lead of not using guns as tactically wise, those children may not have made it to school.
Or.... I have mis-underestood the context of the quote.
To condense a portion of his quote...
Certainly he must have also felt that, short of us killing each other, there was a time and place for everything.
I feel right now we are sort of at the point where those 4 men where in the days before that situation, talking together and asking each other what they were going to do.
Context of the quote was simply that most of the prominent human rights activists, are not anti gun/anti self defense, as many have mistook them to be due to their use of non violence as a political strategy.
It's very clear MLK was for defending yourself with fire arms as a basic human right, contrary to the idiots who use MLK as a human rights activist who'd support gun control.
They hide behind the legacy of people who wouldn't support their cause/agenda because they have not actually spent any time actually reading what they said... Additional quotes of interest:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32855&highlight=gandhi
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.