CHARLTON HESTON IS DEAD

I will always remember the MASTER in SOYLENT GREEN.

DEAD AT 84.

http://cbs2.com/entertainment/Charlton.Heston.Dead.2.692999.html

[Post edited by xplaytendo on Apr 5, 2008]

Where do you see this? I just checked CNN and a couple of other sites but none of them have a mention of it.

Funny the way I remember him now is in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Quote:
Funny the way I remember him now is in Fahrenheit 9/11.

You mean Bowling for Columbine?

Now we can finally pry that gun from his cold, dead hands.

RIP Chuck. You were a great ham. And that's a compliment.

Please not let this be true...

It would be a cruel prank to suggest such a tragedy if untimely suggested.


If so I would be most kind, proud, and honored, to be the one to pry the rifle from your cold dead hand, and continue to carry it onwards for the rest of my life.

"A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

An American Constitutional Right, that Charlton Heston had always held dear, a right that I have also always strongly respected.

This Great Man will live on forever, in his great history of civil rights crusadership for many, many causes, and for his Wonderful Cinematography.

Mr. Heston, you are free to move on now my good friend, and you will be missed.

Rest assured that my own well trained rifle is at hand, and I will continue to cover your back with it, until the day that I must also pass it on to another.

The phrase "well regulated" and the word "militia" don't go in the same sentence. At least not in this day and age.

At any rate, The Omega Man, Planet of The Apes, and Soylent Green were the most memorable. Pretty much he has been irrelevant for years.

Cinematography? Mr. Heston's been accused of many things, but never of being a cinematographer.

I can't believe I forgot his best role of all, Touch of Evil. I give him all the credit in the world. He was as woefully miscast as possible (against Welles' wishes) as a Mexican, of all things, but damned if he didn't make for a fine Ramon Miguel Vargas.

Quote:
The phrase "well regulated" and the word "militia" don't go in the same sentence. At least not in this day and age.

You might want to elaborate a bit more there.

Whenever the US Constitution has mentioned "The People", they actually meant "The People".

Or might you offer another definition as to who they actually meant "The People" to mean????

I hope you don't intend to try to re-write history here, I am a decedent of one of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, and additionally an early author of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't appreciate any argument here, I know what was written, I understand what was written and ratified, and no one person can change that...

I don't wish to argue this any further if that is your objective.

Lets get back to DVDTOWN.COM, and a discussion of Movies.

Thank You.

I think his best movie was Ben-Hur, without a doubt....

Quote:
I hope you don't intend to try to re-write history here, I am a decedent

How are you posting this if you are deceased?

Anyways, you are the one that brought up gun argument, not spoon.

actually, any references to "the people" in the constitution refer to land-owning white men.

the second amendment exists in the form of the states' national guards, so there is no reason for civilians to have firearms of any sort.

Second amendment, shmecond amendment. In the end, we're all soylent green.

I'm actually one of "those" people who doesn't cling to a false sense of patriotism like it has absolutely ANY bearing on yours or my day to day life. The second amendment has little to no bearing on the lives of well adjusted people who contribute to society in any meaningful way. It caters to people who feel the need to cut the sleeves off their flannel shirts and chew on pieces of straw while shooting their guns in the air while standing in the back of their pickup trucks and waving an american flag they had no part in creating or defending.

Quote:
there is no reason for civilians to have firearms of any sort.

And how do you expect people to replenish their venison supply in their freezer next fall... with a hatchet?

Yeah it was Bowling for Columbine. My bad.

Yeah, he lost me too w/ Bowling for Columbine. As a an actor,he had his time. As a man,he seemed like a downright ass.

Quote:
And how do you expect people to replenish their venison supply in their freezer next fall... with a hatchet?

Bow & Arrow, that's what Ted Nugent does!

Well, if you light the tip of your arrow on fire, then it becomes a "firearm".

Guns don't kill people . . . people kill people.

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 6, 2008]

Quote:
I hope you don't intend to try to re-write history here, I am a decedent of one of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, and additionally an early author of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't appreciate any argument here, I know what was written, I understand what was written and ratified, and no one person can change that...

I don't wish to argue this any further if that is your objective.

Lets get back to DVDTOWN.COM, and a discussion of Movies.

Thank You.

VideoCipher, I know I'm going to take heat for this, but the one who turned this into a debate on guns was you. The main discussion was his acting career not the US constitution.

Go pontificate about guns somewhere else, this isn't the place. Thank you.

Some of his memorable roles...

Ben-Hur
The Ten Commandments
Planet of the Apes
Gray Lady Down
Touch of Evil
Soylent Green
The Omega Man
El Cid
The Greatest Show on Earth
...others

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Searching for the Stars.
Bowling for Columbine. He was an A$$... lol

Quote:
In the end, we're all soylent green.

Yeah, Soylent green really tainted his image for me....I mean he couldnt even look at the picture of that poor little girl that was gunned down by the people who kill people with guns.

"Guns don't kill people.... APES with BOOTS kill people!

Can we take his gun now?

From Wikipedia...

In the 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore interviewed Charlton Heston in his home, asking him about an April, 1999 NRA meeting held in Denver, Colorado, shortly after the Columbine high school massacre. Moore criticized Heston for the perceived thoughtlessness in the timing and location of the meeting [scheduled long before the massacre - JIMI]. Heston, on-camera, excused himself and walked out on the interview. Moore was later criticized for his perceived ambush of the actor.

From an article "'9/11' - Just the facts?", published in the Chicago Sun-Times (June 18, 2004, pg. 55), columnist ROGER EBERT said - "In some cases, (Moore) was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair..."

my comment - Heston, while graciously allowing a brief impromptu interview with Moore (who just showed up at his house unannounced), soon gets trashed and chastised by the documentary filmmaker over the issue of guns, the NRA, the Columbine massacre, etc. After awhile (w/Moore unrelenting in his criticism), Heston refuses to argue back or continue the interview, and just gets up and quietly walks out on a still 'barking' Moore.

All done to supposedly make Moore appear like an investigative journalist/whistleblower of some sort (Moore probably thought so), but instead (to most viewers) the filmmaker comes across as the rude, pretentious propagandist that is what usually defines him and is films. Rent the movie and see for youself how he treated a polite Charlton Heston that day.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Actually Love, people may see it differently than yourself. For those that rally against the NRA probably see Moore as the hero fighting the good fight -- where others, such as yourself, find Moore being the pompus ass in the situation. Therefore, it's really a matter of personal opinion rather than what may be construded as fact.

What you have is two people that love their country for obviously different reasons. Each has their opinion which easily differ from others in thier country and rightfully so as they have the right to do so. Was Moore being an ass? It depends on who you ask and how you see it. Was Heston a coward for walking out of the ineterview? Again, depends on who you ask. I know in my experience, when you're in a boardroom meeting and it gets heated, you don't get up and walk out as it is very unprofessional. I think Heston should have kept his wits about him and stood his ground. However, that's just my opinion and by no means does it mean Moore was an ass nor Heston a coward for dodging the issue.



[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 6, 2008]

Heston was still an A$$.

One more comment I noticed on imdb.com...



"in a disingenuous interview with NRA president charlton heston, moore crosses the line between mildly entertaining leftist buffoon and self-righteous jerk. with pointed questions and shameful editing, moore portrays the aging actor, who suffers from alzhiemer's disease, as a bigoted old fossil. take a minute to read heston's biography on this website... he was an active member of the civil rights movement when moore was probably sitting in his parents' garage eating paint chips and sniffing model glue."

the real Michael Moore in documantary films -

- MANUFACTURING DISSENT (a Canadian documentary film)


- Michael Moore Hates America (Two Thumbs Up by Ebert Roeper)


- Michael and Me (brilliant radio host Larry Elder's refutation of Bowling For Columbine) - pic of Larry further below



- FahrenHYPE 9/11 (another excellent exposé, hosted by actor Ron Silver)


Michael Moore posing with Oscar for his 'documentary' B-for-C...


-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

A man with that disease running the NRA? Hmmmm.

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Apr 6, 2008]

Quote:
A man with that disease running the NRA? Hmmmm.

Mmmm, yeah, I was gonna' say . . .

Quote:
Some of his memorable roles...

Ben-Hur
The Ten Commandments
Planet of the Apes
Gray Lady Down
Touch of Evil
Soylent Green
The Omega Man
El Cid
The Greatest Show on Earth
...others

I laugh every time I watch this film. Classic lines...

"Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"

"It's a mad house. A mad house."

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

Heston's alzheimer's condition was diagnosed in 2002, and he resigned his role as President of the NRA the following year, while still having full mental capabilities.

FYI - the CEO of the NRA (since the early 1990s), who actually runs the day-to-day operations is Wayne LaPierre, having been a long-time member since the 1970s. Heston's 5-year reign as 'president' of the organization is mainly a symbolic role, used for PR (speeches, recruitment, political functions etc), as LaPierre is the man with executive 'power' at the NRA.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

does it really matter, jimi? according to the constitution, about 90% of us don't have any rights since we're not land-owning white men!

Quote:
does it really matter, jimi? according to the constitution, about 90% of us don't have any rights since we're not land-owning white men!

Rights? Who needs rights when we've got the "Patriot" Act?

sean (...if his hands had to be cold AND dead, are they maybe keeping them in a warmer?...)

This post is one of my favorite comedy momments of all time.

WE THE PEOPLE - Eddie, you're welcome to quote from the U.S. constitution to support your opinion... also please note "All men are created equal" INFO from the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Unless there's something you haven't revealed to us, I assume you are above the age required for gun ownership and can pass a background check - so you may wish to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

Another comment from IMDB.com on the Michael Moore 'documentary' film Bowling For Columbine - here:

Take the scene of him getting a gun for opening an account at a bank. What he does not show is that there was a criminal background check including photo ID check and an FBI background check. Then, to get the gun, he had to open a 10 year Certificate of Deposit... basically he had to deposit nearly $1000 before he could get the gun, not the smartest idea compared to just buying a gun if that's the only intent. Even then, when Moore gets his gun and asks about the safety of handing out guns in the bank, the audience is duped into forgetting a large portion of Moore's handing-out-a-gun-at-a-bank safety joke: the bank doesn't supply the ammunition!

You even have his little cartoon where he tries to link the NRA to the KKK... never mind that him saying the NRA was formed the same year that the KKK was declared an illegal organization is 100% wrong... never mind that the NRA was actually formed by Northern Yankee's who fought AGAINST slavery... never mind that the NRA was primarily created in reaction to Southern laws that would ban blacks from owning firearms (the exact opposite of the cartoon's suggestion the NRA wanted to suppress blacks and leave them defenseless)... never mind that the cartoon is a South Park rip-off, presented after an interview with South Park creator Matt Stone in order to make it seem like the cartoon was made by the creators of South Park. I mean, no wonder Matt Stone hates Moore and made him a target of insults in his "Team America: World Police" movie. Talk about complete deception from every angle.

What's worse is that he is even hypocritical in how he talks about America's culture of fear and how the media tries to instill fear in the population, and yet that is EXACTLY what BFC is: a film that presents manipulated facts in order to create fear. Probably the best refutation of BFC one can find is the in-depth article by Dave Kopel called "Bowling Truths" that literally shreds BFC from beginning to end, showing it to be -- as he puts it -- more of a 'mockumentary' in the vein of "This is Spinal Tap" than a serious documentary outlining anything close to reality.

In terms of gun control issues, if you really want an intelligent look at the problems of gun control, check out the episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t on gun control. Now THAT is an intelligent and more importantly an HONEST delving into gun control. But if you are looking for facts and honesty in subject matter, you couldn't find a worse choice than BFC.

BFC is insulting to anybody who would be willing to take the time and educate themselves on exactly how honest Moore is. If you think BFC is truthful and honest, go read Kopel's article (readily available on the net) and you'll see how much Moore stretches the truth. I mean, even the film's title is deceptive since -- as even the preliminary police report states -- the two shooters at Columbine never showed up for bowling that morning! I still own the DVD, if only to show people a perfect example of how sheep can be led around if they don't stop and ask whether what they are hearing is real. BFC offers little reality and a lot of political brouhaha that does little for intelligent discussion on gun control. In that, he has hurt the gun control movement more than he has helped it.

(And by the way, people in Canada do lock their doors. I have to wonder how many doors he had to try in order to get his shots of every door being open.) -[END]-

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

jimi,

at the time of the country's founding, it was understood that the founders were writing about "people" like themselves. otherwise, if they really meant what they literally wrote, then slavery would've been illegal from the start, men and women would've had equal stature in society from the start, and EVERYONE would've been able to vote (not just people who could prove ownership of "x" amount of land).

this is why strict interpretation of the constitution is so lame. basically, we'd be turning back the clock to a comparatively dark time in history. (maybe this is why the republicans like strict interpretation so much--to screw over everyone else?)

eddie

Eddie, thanks for your private interpretation. As for myself, I think our 'forefathers' took great care and time in their drafting of our U.S. Constitution. Also, note the "Right to bear arms" etc.

Quote:
"this is why strict interpretation of the constitution is so lame."

Now, you sound like Bill Clinton(!) - "it depends on what the definition of 'is', is." Good grief.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Apr 7, 2008]

jimi,

i'm not looking for a fight with you, buddy. please do some research into british and american political history, and you'll see that i'm right.

eddie

Quote:
jimi,

at the time of the country's founding, it was understood that the founders were writing about "people" like themselves. otherwise, if they really meant what they literally wrote, then slavery would've been illegal from the start, men and women would've had equal stature in society from the start, and EVERYONE would've been able to vote (not just people who could prove ownership of "x" amount of land).

this is why strict interpretation of the constitution is so lame. basically, we'd be turning back the clock to a comparatively dark time in history. (maybe this is why the republicans like strict interpretation so much--to screw over everyone else?)

eddie

I just have to applaud you for this. Whether you agree or not, this is a damn good argument.

If there is one movie that truly inspired Indiana Jones, look no further than Secret of the Incas.
Starring Charlton Heston as Harry Steele
http://www.theraider.net/information/influences/secret_of_incas.php


>>>>>...as LaPierre is the man with executive 'power' at the NRA....<<<<<
Of course, the real power comes from over FOUR MILLION members!

Hendrix, I hate to agree with eddie on this one. Believe me, it pains me to a degree you cannot yet fathom. LOL

The devil is in the details. Have you actually read the "Declaration of Independence" past the preamble into the actual rants? Do you understand the historical significance of "those savages", etc.? Do you have any idea what was really going on at the time?

Yes, "all men were created equal" as long as they were white rich dudes wielding the power. Blacks, Asians, the damn Irish!, women, etc. weren't even considered "human" - let alone men. These were dark times in European, American, and Canadian history. North America was fighting for the right to take your 12 year old son out for some hunting in order to make 5 cents for women and children's "savage" scalps. We won! Yea ha!

I know it's sweet and romantic to think that our countries were founded on the ultimate of morality by some larger than life "founding fathers", but I'm afraid reality and history proves that a popular misconception. What you should be proud of is that we've moved WAY past that - although obviously some people are still more equal than others, we're getting there.

uhhhhh.CHARLTON HESTON IS DEAD.

It is a good argument and I'd have to be inclined to agree with Eddie. However, since we are human, and therefore not perfect, we need to realize that the constitution in no way is a "perfect" document. Nevertheless, the founding fathers did create a government that is subject to change because that's what democracy is all about.

It's true that what they wrote at the time was for a select few that had what we know as "privlages". However, the constitution is a constant changing document, thus the reason for "Amendments". The idea is that the founding fathers laid out a foundation for us to build on and change as we all learn right from wrong -- thus the reason we have a congress and senate that change, create new or abolish laws set into play.

Nevertheless, what has not changed is that much benefit is given and manipulated by those of wealth. The system is set in the grand scheme of those who have the money to lobby, manipulate and change the system for thier benefit. Big business cares not for the common man but only for the protection of their own wealth. Therefore we have lobby groups that represent the higher power (drug companies, oil companies, etc.) that are able to fatten the pocket books of our lawmakers and the freedom to bend the rules. Remember, it's called "The Common Wealth" not the common man!

Eddie is correct in his interpretation of the past, but much has changed since that time, and without the constituion in place, many things may have not changed. We do realize that equal rights and civil rights are very important to us all, but the new issues we face are still as old as that far past which deal with those with the power of wealth that are out to make sure the "common man" has to struggle to get ahead. Funny how we're all supposed to be created equal, but if you're the poor guy trying to get rich, you'll find an entire plethora of obsticals created by rich lobby groups that will make sure you struggle your ass off to get there. The land of opportunity is not rewarded for the effort of hard work, but instead rewarded by pure luck for finding a way to manipulate the system. The constitution is certainly a great idea and a worthy effort, but in today's times it is corrupted by those with money and power . . . in others words, a lot has changed AND very little has changed since its inception. Kind of odd if you ask me.



[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 7, 2008]

Quote:
Of course, the real power comes from over FOUR MILLION members

You'd really shoot to kill some poor friggin kid breaking into your home? Frankly, I'd leave a letter on my door outlining all the things the kid should steal, but my insurance company wouldn't like it.

So my real plan is to show him/her around the house, and outline verbally the items best to be stolen, and for extra motivation I'll offer to help carry them out (under duress of course!). Then I'll offer a beer.

To be honest, like many Canadians I own guns - 4 in fact: a 30.06, a .308, a winchester defender, and a little .22 rifle. They're all legal, and registered, and I've taken all the courses for my FAC and hunting licenses. But good grief, these are for HUNTING ANIMALS for eating - NOT for people. I heard that people were not great eating, plus there are a lot of toxins in their bodies compared to free-range bucks and rabbits in the wilderness. All my guns by Canadian law have trigger locks and locked away, plus ammo is locked away from the guns.

I guess I don't understand the paranoia of your 4 million members. I'd move even if I couldn't leave my door unlocked. How could anyone with kids have loaded freaking guns in the house ready for protection against some unknown element and be called responsible? That's just stupid, and I hope you aren't putting your family at risk like that.

Tim, amazing post. Thank you.

But what does any of this have to do with CHARLTON HESTON IS DEAD?

I also liked much of what Tim said above, which is why we have a 'living' constitution providing many rights to all sexes and races. Our forefathers made it possible to add provisions (and amendments etc), as explained in this section on the Wikipedia info...

>Provisions to Changing the Constitution - here:

The Constitution provides for direct modification through the amendment process. Soon after the Constitution was passed, however, a key court case provided a way for the Supreme Court to modify the interpretation of the Constitution without formal amendments through the process of judicial review.

~ Amendments

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions.

The Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. The first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified simultaneously. The following seventeen were ratified separately.

~ Judicial Review

Aside from the direct process of amending the Constitution, the way the Constitution is understood is also influenced by the decisions of the court system, and especially the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to, collectively, as precedents. The ability of the courts to interpret the Constitution was decided early in the history of the United States, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has affected a change in the way many Constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.

Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution. -[END]-

And to my knowledge, none of the various U.S. high courts has ever revoked the 2nd Amendment - our constitution right to keep and bear arms. And today US citizens have the NRA in part to thank, for their work defending this long-held right.







Some humour here...





Wait, and watch the image below, for a message from the "National Railway Assoc."...


-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Apr 8, 2008]

Quote:
You'd really shoot to kill some poor friggin kid breaking into your home? Frankly, I'd leave a letter on my door outlining all the things the kid should steal, but my insurance company wouldn't like it.
So my real plan is to show him/her around the house, and outline verbally the items best to be stolen, and for extra motivation I'll offer to help carry them out (under duress of course!). Then I'll offer a beer.

Read the news.

1. Lots of break-ins are committed by multiple, large, irrational, drugged-out, armed, violent thugs. They may be there to rape, murder, kidnap, and torture you or others. You should be a man and defend yourself and others.
2. Lots of criminals are illiterate.
3. I'm sure they will stop to listen to your grand tour. Why, they would never think to order you on the ground, or just kill you for kicks.
4. Your friends will have beer at your funeral.

Yeah... but is this not supposed to be about the fact that CHARLTON HEATON IS DEAD?

Some humour here...



-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Damn, he was a total GILF.

Quote:
1. Lots of break-ins are committed by multiple, large, irrational, drugged-out, armed, violent thugs. They may be there to rape, murder, kidnap, and torture you or others. You should be a man and defend yourself and others.

Are you seriously suggesting keeping easily accessible, loaded firearms all over the house for some movie-like emergency? And then escalate an otherwise bothersome confrontation into a western-style ol'fashioned shootout in my living room against multiple armed thugs while the kids and wifie watch? Being a man means having some grasp of reality, for the benefit and safety of their family. Even if I started keeping a hatchet beside the front door for "protection", I think my wife and friends would have me committed for paranoid schizophrenia. I know for a fact I wouldn't be allowed to watch any more action movies!

And yes I do watch the local news. Last year we did have one random act of violence. A kid was witnessed throwing a rock at a duck, injuring it badly. With emergency medical attention, the duck turned out OK, and the kid apparently apologized. But I refuse to force myself and my family to live in some constant paranoia about random low-probability hazards because of news items like this. Otherwise I wouldn't let them or myself drive, since the chances of injury or death due to traffic accident here are infinitely more probable than fighting off armed thugs at home.

Now if I were living in some post-apocalyptic violent movie-world where my neighbors were dropping like flies from armed thugs, I'd be a man and move my family to a better environment.

Besides, in Canada we gun owners have a moral code: "If you shoot it, you gotta eat it". And I bet thugs aren't very tasty.

"All I know is I finally get to kill someone!"

Simon: "I refuse to support any organization, that GLORIFIES a weapon for a PHALLIC symbol. How 'bout you, Ryan?"

Ryan: "Huh, wha? Nevermind that... Tighter. CHOKE TIGHTER!"



[Post edited by xplaytendo on Apr 8, 2008]

Quote:
Are you seriously suggesting

No. But you mis-represent everything -again- to make your argument.

I am not suggesting escalating something slightly bothersome into WW III.
Instead, go hide and call 911.
I suggest that having defense options makes you less paranoid.
Stashing guns all over the house? Who said that?
There are simple ways to make one's gun(s) in the house inert to all but the owner,
but still available quickly.

A gun is like a fire extinguisher.
Most should have one, but hope to never need one.

Last picture...
Brave, dumb, or remote photographer?

CHARLTON HESTON IS DEAD, should be made into a movie. Hell,I would pay to see it. This is a "classic "post and I have enjoyed reading it the past few days. The man himself would be proud that we are using our American right to say whatever we want to say. I "thank" all who took part. I learned alot.

-jade.

Who the heck is Charlton Heston?

Quote:
A gun is like a fire extinguisher.
Most should have one, but hope to never need one.

"If there's one thing this last week has taught me, it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it."
--- Clarence Worley


[Post edited by xplaytendo on Apr 9, 2008]