I saw this one today, can’t figure it out:
“Don’t take away my rights because you won’t control your child”
What is this, the right to punch somebody else’s kids?? I can’t imagine somebody exercising that particular right very often before getting hurt.
It’s a funny thing: we typically think of bumper sticker slogans as being simplistic, but in this case it appears to be the opposite: the compression of an idea into a short phrase has made it incomprehensible to outsiders such as myself. Or maybe that’s the point. I wouldn’t want to see the owner of this car near any kids, that’s for sure.
Internet (film, book…) censorship?
There are quite a few things done in the name of protecting children that take way rights. It is usually something to do with media. There is the seven dirty words you can't say on TV and radio. There is the persistent attempts to put filters on the internet.
I find it odd that you think that it has to do with attacking kids. It would seem that the bumper sticker is more clearly about stop using children as an excuse to control adults. There are two ways to make the world safe for kids, educate the kids or dumb down the grown-ups. It seems that we choose the latter too often. In the end you will have to educate the kid or you will have dumb adults in twenty year or so, or is it too late for you?
Yes, it's too late for me. Definitely.
I, too, find the bumper sticker puzzling. The other commenters have suggested that it refers to censorship, and I think that's a good guess, mostly because I can't think of anything else plausible.
But, Andrew, I find your reaction even more puzzling than the bumper sticker: "… the right to punch somebody's kids??" Where did that come from? Who said anything about punching kids? Was there another bumper sticker on the car — "Proud member of Kid-Punchers of America," perhaps? — that makes you think that is what they are talking about? It literally would not have occurred to me, and I would bet 100:1 that that is not what the bumper sticker is intended to refer to. Why on earth would you think of such a thing?
Oh, and I think the question "is it too late for you," asked by a previous commenter, may have been intended to suggest that you teach your kids well, unless it's too late because they are already too old. If that's what they meant, then it's not too late for you.
Paul, Phil: I assumed that the bumper sticker referred to some political controversy in another state, something that I hadn't heard of, which was why the sticker made no sense to me.
I didn't really think the bumper sticker had anything to do with punching kids, I was just trying to quickly come up with a hypothesis consistent with what was on the sticker.
I guess it's true what they say, that it's difficulty to convey irony with words alone, without the help of tone of voice, facial expression, and gesture.e
I guess they mean their 2nd amendment right to bear arms; they think it is better to control kids from abusing guns than to regulate them.
Peter: I was thinking that at first, but it didn't quite make sense to me. After all, the Columbine shooters etc. killed a lot of other people's kids too, so controlling your own kids isn't enough. I'm not trying to make an argument about gun control here; I just don't see the bit about "controlling your child" as so relevant.
But maybe the bumper sticker was specifically about a "trigger lock" law. I guess then it would make sense. Still a bit obscure to me, but maybe in some jurisdiction at election-time it was a hot issue.
A google search reveals a link to a pro-gun forum and also a post about seeing it on a truck also displaying another pro-gun bumper sticker. Hardly conclusive, but maybe some indication it's about gun rights.
And for coherence, I guess if everyone controls their kids there wouldn't (it would be argued) be any school shootings. While this makes it less specifically aimed at convincing worried parents that may want to support gun control, the effectiveness of most bumper stickers at changing minds is probably questionable anyway.
On the other hand, maybe in the internet age, a vague and confusing bumper sticker may lead to searches and thus to a more extensive presentation of the intended message.
It's about corporal punishment, right? At least that's what immediately occurred to me: controversies about disciplining your child by spanking them. The sticker (I think) is saying, more or less, "Just because your kid is running wild because you don't have the gumption to discipline them with the occasional smack doesn't mean you can take away my right to do so by claiming spanking children is child abuse".
Looking at it again, I agree that any number of other interpretations are about as plausible. I just know some people who work on the corporal punishment bit of the culture wars.
Um, I actually read it the way Andrew read it. As though control = discipline. But I can see how control has a wider array of definitions than that, and the anti-censorship argument makes the most sense.
But my favorite bumper sticker was this, from Mad Magazine: "Pave Vietnam." Had it on my wall under my Einstein poster – "Hair: It's what's under it that counts." You can guess my age.
I also took a picture of an electrician's truck that had one of those ribbon magnets "Support the Troops" but it said, "Support Farting."
Paul, you say: "educate the kids or dumb down the grown-ups"?? How does censorship dumb down the grown-ups? I am an adult and do not appreciate bad language and such on tv. Am I dumb?
If you google the phrase you can see a comment on a rather bawdy forum that gives one person's explanation for why they have the bumper sticker on their car:
In the case of children, we agree with the other folks here that have said that children must be supervised on the web. It is not a "childproof" place, nor would we want it to be. It's not a "childproof" world for that matter. Don't take away my rights because you won't control your children. We actually have a bumper sticker on the back of our family truckster minivan that says that, and we believe in it whether it applies to guns, music censorship, film censorship, the internet, or anything else the nanny state would like to have more control over.
"I guess they mean their 2nd amendment right to bear arms; they think it is better to control kids from abusing guns than to regulate them." – I'm with you on this one. Columbine and other school shootings might be hinted at?
I most of you are all being too specific.
"control your children" would really mean "educate, discipline, and raise them".
So don't pass a law requiring me to wear a helmet while bicycling because you couldn't persuade your children (perhaps now grown) to do so.
Don't ban my ownership of guns because you can't mind and raise your children well enough to keep them from shooting themselves.
Don't ban alcohol because you couldn't keep your kids out of your liquor cabinet, or out of your uncle's beer cooler.
It applies to all sorts of things.
Whoever made the bumper sticker flunks Communications 101. Two of the most important words are very abstract, and therefore ambiguous.
'rights': my rights. My rights to what? Speech? Bear arms? Spank my kids? Fair trial? Remain silent if arrested? Possess and consume alcohol? Privacy in my own home? Sell my possessions? Not said, so our guesses are all over.
'control': control your children. The word is often used to mean very specific control: if you control costs, you won't try to increase them. If you control revenues, maybe the money comes in to your department before being passed on, and can be withheld or redirected. If your car swerves off the road, it is out of control – unless you intentionally control your car to drive off the road. If you control your kids, you keep them from crying, or making a mess on the dinner table, or knocking stuff off the shelves of the grocery store, or doing any of a number of other things.
So there you have it, given two ambiguous words, the bumper sticker could mean a lot of different things.
The quote makes perfect, simple sense to me. If you take away my rights to defend myself legally, from your children, then it implies that I won't need my rights because you will control your child from offending me. The rub is the fact that parents won't/don't control their children, so I need to keep my rights to defend against children.