Charleton Heston's "Columbine" Speech (The FULL Text). - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

drakers · 01-24-2005, 07:01 PM

Lebell, I bet if you talked to police officers I can guarantee you that they would rather have that ban in place, even if they are rare to be involved in gun crimes. But if you were a police officer I guarantee you would not want to see those type of guns being legal to get. And don't start giving me the " it is real hard to get a gun because of the background check", because that is BS. Gunshows are such a big loophole it is not even funny. I'm not trying to be this big left liberal (because I am), but I would also look at it from the police stand point. Let's say one of those guns are bought by someone that shouldn't get one, that is one life that was lost because the assault weapons ban was lifted.

Let me know what you think, because I would like to hear your side of this (I am not being sarcastic).

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 07:12 PM

The "Gun-show loophole" does not exist. Period. Any transfers through an FFL MUST go through the NICS check, and well over 90% of all firearms dealers at your typical gunshow are FFLs. When Sarah Brady talks about "unlicensed dealers," what she's talking about are people selling holsters, t-shirts, and the like. What the "Gun-show loophole" is attempting to talk about are legal Private Party Transfers, which are quite rightly perfectly legal things.

"Assault weapons" verifiably comprise less that .02% of all gun-crime, and only 20% of crimes involve the use of a firearm. This is not to mention the fact that "Assault weapons" are expensive and hard to conceal. And all of this does not mitigate the fact that a ban ( also known as a Law ) is only going to be obeyed by people who are law-abiding to begin with. CRIMINALS are going to ignore a ban on assault-weapons, just like they ignore bans on bank-robbery, rape, and murder.

As for the cops: most police Cheifs like the ban. Most Street Cops, however, know that the ban was complete nonsense, totally ineffective, and had no bearing on crime.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downl...Facts_v3.2.pdf

drakers · 01-24-2005, 07:26 PM

And how many street cops have you interviewed or polled?? Not trying to be cynical, but I wouldn't toot your horn too quick.

The_Dunedan · 01-24-2005, 07:58 PM

I havn't polled any significant amount personally, but that link I provided should give you the numbers. Additionaly, I grew up with three close family friends who were policemen, all of whom expressed disdain for such things as the "Assault Weapons Ban" and "Closing the Gun-show loophole."

roachboy · 01-24-2005, 10:22 PM

lebel: point taken on conservatives. but i said as much somewhere, in another thread, about close friends of mine who hold these curious beliefs.

and i was talking to irate, mostly, in that post.

the term bushworld is different---more on this another time.

roachboy · 01-25-2005, 07:23 AM

next morning:

on "bushworld":

i make a distinction between conservatism as a discursive or political construct and individual people who might happen to be conservative. i am interested in a particular type (or series of types) of arguments about the world that are shaped by the main conservative media--when i talk about conservatives, in the main i am talking about that. bushworld is the place these arguments make for those to see the world through them. i see it as a parallel universe almost, a self-enclosing, self-confirming space. i assume that folk can buy into bushworld differentially, but find that there are more consistencies than differences across the positions outlined by folk who identify themselves as conservative, and that these consistencies can be routed through this broader discursive space, more often than not. whence bushworld.

the terms--which are just a shorthand that has the advantage of being polemical--sometimes generate seperate problems, which, when they arise, result in posts like this.

but---sadly, for me at least-----it seems that the designations are more accurate than not.

there are folk with whom the global shorthand i use matters much less in conversation---irate, for example in this thread--but there are quite a few other folk whose positions i have come to see as nuanced within a general conservative frame of reference---but i do switch in and out of the shorthand, and so leave the points you made, lebel, as openings. and with that the possibility of the occasional qualifying post.

Mephisto2 · 01-25-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

"Assault weapons" verifiably comprise less that .02% of all gun-crime, and only 20% of crimes involve the use of a firearm.

I'll have to believe your statistics, because I'm not famliar with the issues.

But I do have one simple question.

Why do you NEED a military class, full automatic, weapon? Assault weapons are designed (with apologies to Mr Taratino) for when "you have to absolutely, positively, kill every mother fucker in the room".

I laugh at people who say that M-16 (or AR-15) or AK-47's are needed for hunting or "personal protection". You're not fooling anyone.

Machine guns should be banned. And you will never be able to convince me otherwise. At least you'll have to pry said opinion from "my cold, dead mind..."

Mr Mephisto

j8ear · 01-25-2005, 12:55 PM

Someone else will correct previous errors I'm sure.

Disregard this post, it provides nothing of substance to this thread.

The_Dunedan · 01-25-2005, 02:14 PM

Mr. Mephisto,
A true full-auto weapon is EXTREMELY difficult to get in the States. You have to pass a Top-Secret Level background check, pay a $200 tax on each weapon, meet very stringent safe-storage requirements, submit to years surprise "compliance checks" from the BATFE, get written permission from your local Top Cop, and on top of that you have to be able to pay upwards of $10,000 for one. A collection like Daswigs is worth several hundred thousand dollars, minimum.

As for "need" for such weapons, I submit the following two words: John Ashcroft.
You're right; my FAL and AK are not designed for hunting, although I do hunt with them on occaision. My FAL and AK are designed for killing people. In my hands, they are specifically intended to kill Tyrants. This was the purpose for which our Founders enacted the Second Amendment; "That every man might be armed" as John Adams put it. Jefferson said "no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." The whole point was to have a constant, pervasive, highly visible deterrant in order to prevent the kind of intrusive government we have now from ever arising. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the word "Arms" meant any man-portable weapon, plus 2-pounder fieldpieces known as Falconets. The modern equivalent would be anything man-portable, up to and including shoulder-fired antitank and antiaircraft rockets.
The simple, sad fact is that tyrannical governments only understand one thing: force. Raw, relentless, merciless force. They don't care about polls, marches, protests, or letters to the Editor, because they simply ignore or crush such things. Freedom is upheld by the "Four Boxes;"
1: Soapbox. The ability to speak your mind in public.
2: Ballot Box: The right to vote and have that vote mean something.
3: Jury Box: The right to a trial by a Jury of your peers, and furthermore the right of Jury Nullification, which grants the Jury the power to find however they like and to vote "not guilty" if the law you broke was unjust.
4: Cartridge Box: The "court of final appeal." The ability and will to overthrow any institution which removes or hampers the previous three boxes.

The Second Amendment gaurantees the right of the People, through the Militia, to keep and bear arms. The Militia itself is defined as all males between 17 and 45, all women who wish to participate, and all older men who with to participate. Federal law makes a clear and careful distinction between the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia, and clarifies the Constitutional protection of both classes.

irateplatypus · 01-25-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there are folk with whom the global shorthand i use matters much less in conversation---irate, for example in this thread--but there are quite a few other folk whose positions i have come to see as nuanced within a general conservative frame of reference...

nuanced... read: more like mine

ways to gauge mr.moore's genuine support:

1. box office figures. for example...

Fahrenheit 911 - $220 million
Control Room - $2.7 million (rounding up)

2. read the volume of posts on this board displaying unflagging support for moore without discount or equivocation.

3. read the news...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/040727/11/q30z.html

excerpt...

Quote:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - They started lining up to hear Michael Moore at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, five hours before the movie director delivered a fiery speech to a packed hotel ballroom with hundreds of people locked outside.
Moore will not be addressing the Democratic National Convention this week but for thousands of liberal activists, the majority of them young people, the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is by far the biggest star in Boston.

4. popular support for his work...

moore's most vulgar film was voted best picture of the year by 21 million voters in the People's Choice Awards
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/me...dex.php?id=181

so... we know that moore enjoys tremendous popular and financial support. we know that competing films that (by your estimation) exhibit better arguments for the same type of cause earning %1.2 percent of moore's film. it's impossible to deny that moore garners an incredible amount of sincere support from millions of people in the world. you just cannot get this type of response from people who merely think you raise interesting questions but disapprove with your methods.

Yakk · 01-25-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Oh yeah, nice understatement.

Point!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Whether you like it or not, guns have been used to defend your right to say what you want and live how you like many times, including in the fine city of Philidelphia, home to the Continental Congress and many sons of liberty who shed their blood to secure your "rights".

While you might not agree to the current action, it ignores centuries of history to sneer at those who have taken up a gun to defend themselves and their country.

It is also extremely offensive as well.

When has carrying concealed handguns legally defended freedom of speech? It looks like you are using the "wrap yourself in the flag" arguement.

Huh? Where does this come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell][quote="Yakk

Do you think pro-gun registration activists want to prevent the military from carrying guns?

Again, Huh?

Are you intentionally trying to put silly statements and words in my mouth?

I was being overly hyperbolic. This wasn't polite.

I'm was guessing at a connection between gun control and the use of guns and violence to defend liberty:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Whether you like it or not, guns have been used to defend your right to say what you want and live how you like many times, including in the fine city of Philidelphia, home to the Continental Congress and many sons of liberty who shed their blood to secure your "rights".

While you might not agree to the current action, it ignores centuries of history to sneer at those who have taken up a gun to defend themselves and their country.

It is also extremely offensive as well.

What does gun control have to do with guns and violence being historically used to defend liberty?

I'd put forward that the last time mostly privately-owned arms where used in defence of liberty was the American Revolution? (for some odd reason, I think the Civil War was fought with mostly government owned arms... but I could be wrong)

And yes, I respect the American People's sacrafice of blood to keep themselves slightly safer from Tyrants.

Hmm. Looking into it.

Black Panthers walked around armed (with automatic weapons, IIRC), with one reason being to prevent police abuses on the Black community. The result was the government successfully banned the weapons they where using, correct?

During the Civil War, where a good chunk of the guns in use government-issue or privately owned? (argueably, both sides where fighting for very different definitions of 'liberty', so either side could count)

WWI and WWII wheren't fought with private weapons.

The Alamo, and other Mexican/American wars, might have been fought with private weapons to a certain extent?

The long post-civil war period of black oppression in the south. There was at least one 'gun control' law passed that was designed only to be applied on black people, according to a commentary I read.

1812 might be considered a War of Liberty, from the American side.

Then, there are the small-scale rebellions: citizens shooting a police officer rather than submitting to the rule of law. Some of them might be part of the battle for liberty.

Basically, I'm looking for some concrete connection between "Private Weapon Ownership" and "Defending Liberty". Ideally the "Private Weapon ownership" would occur during the time that the right to bear arms amendment existed, showing that it is effective in it's job.

roachboy · 01-25-2005, 04:21 PM

irate: unless you are able, somehow, to correlate the cash moore makes with the political positions occupied by the folk who buy tix to see his films, the main claim you are making doesnt seem to me to mean much.

it is a shift in the conversation in any event, even it it was a compelling argument.

the nuanced crack was snippy.....meaningless as well. but whatever.

smooth · 01-25-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Mr. Mephisto,
A true full-auto weapon is EXTREMELY difficult to get in the States. You have to pass a Top-Secret Level background check, pay a $200 tax on each weapon, meet very stringent safe-storage requirements, submit to years surprise "compliance checks" from the BATFE, get written permission from your local Top Cop, and on top of that you have to be able to pay upwards of $10,000 for one. A collection like Daswigs is worth several hundred thousand dollars, minimum.

As for "need" for such weapons, I submit the following two words: John Ashcroft.
You're right; my FAL and AK are not designed for hunting, although I do hunt with them on occaision. My FAL and AK are designed for killing people. In my hands, they are specifically intended to kill Tyrants. This was the purpose for which our Founders enacted the Second Amendment; "That every man might be armed" as John Adams put it. Jefferson said "no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." The whole point was to have a constant, pervasive, highly visible deterrant in order to prevent the kind of intrusive government we have now from ever arising. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the word "Arms" meant any man-portable weapon, plus 2-pounder fieldpieces known as Falconets. The modern equivalent would be anything man-portable, up to and including shoulder-fired antitank and antiaircraft rockets.
The simple, sad fact is that tyrannical governments only understand one thing: force. Raw, relentless, merciless force. They don't care about polls, marches, protests, or letters to the Editor, because they simply ignore or crush such things. Freedom is upheld by the "Four Boxes;"
1: Soapbox. The ability to speak your mind in public.
2: Ballot Box: The right to vote and have that vote mean something.
3: Jury Box: The right to a trial by a Jury of your peers, and furthermore the right of Jury Nullification, which grants the Jury the power to find however they like and to vote "not guilty" if the law you broke was unjust.
4: Cartridge Box: The "court of final appeal." The ability and will to overthrow any institution which removes or hampers the previous three boxes.

The Second Amendment gaurantees the right of the People, through the Militia, to keep and bear arms. The Militia itself is defined as all males between 17 and 45, all women who wish to participate, and all older men who with to participate. Federal law makes a clear and careful distinction between the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia, and clarifies the Constitutional protection of both classes.

well, I personally wish you all would get off your collective asses and start killing.
In case you haven't noticed, our government is in the pocket of big business and special interest groups.

...when exactly does a government become tyranical enough to exercise one's delusions of grandeur?

the wisest and most powerful persons fought and fight with pens and ideas.
the best military strategists understand the power of mind over might--hence their position and the footsoldiers' and their immediate leaders' deference to the minds behind the operations.

head of the revolution watches, writes, and waits, hopefully the body will wake from its slumber before the time where action will result in edible fruit passes.

drakers · 01-25-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I havn't polled any significant amount personally, but that link I provided should give you the numbers. Additionaly, I grew up with three close family friends who were policemen, all of whom expressed disdain for such things as the "Assault Weapons Ban" and "Closing the Gun-show loophole."

Well I bet the info. provided by you in that link is a straight copy of facts written by the gun lobbyists, so let me think, "is that a reliable source of info.", sure because their not in the business to sell as many guns as possible.

Second, do not bring th 2nd amendment into the argument that is such a BS take on it. The 2nd Amendment was written during a time when militias were made to defend towns against the British. It was not intended so that people could have whatever gun and as many guns as they want; which is how many gun owners see it as meaning.

Also, I hate how gun-owners can be so god-damned stubborn. I'm from Iowa which is a popular to hunting, especially in small towns. And I know many people who are gun owners and they voted for Bush, because they were scared that Kerry (or the left-wing nuts) would take their guns away. Give me a break. First of all Supreme Court wouldn't let that happen, second of all that is just stupid to think because that just wouldn't happen. And third, to base your vote for the strongest and greatest nation on earth on the gun-issue is stupid stupid stupid. What happened to the poor, social security, and lets throw in capital punishment for laughs.

scout · 01-26-2005, 03:02 AM

Geez this argument just goes in circles. Noone is forcing people that don't like guns to own guns. Why do people that are anti gun want to force their views onto people that happen to enjoy shooting? Whatever happened to minding your own damn business and leaving everyone to pursue their own vision of happiness? WTF is wrong with people nowadays? No damn wonder America is so polarized, both sides are attempting to force their opinions down the throats of people that just don't quite see "eye to eye". If our founding fathers was able to see what America has come to they would roll over in their collective graves. Same thing with some of the views from the extreme right but that's another thread and we won't go into it here. On one side you have idiots that want to circumvent the Bill of Rights and ban guns and the other you have idiots that want to circumvent that same Bill of Rights and pass laws mandating morality creating a police state. There is no happy medium anymore. Can't we all just live,let live and be fuckin' happy?

DJ Happy · 01-29-2005, 04:12 AM

It would seem to me that the only inaccuracy stated by Moore regarding Heston's comments is not what was said, but when it was said. Seems rather petty if you ask me.

jimbob · 01-29-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

On one side you have idiots that want to circumvent the Bill of Rights and ban guns and the other you have idiots that want to circumvent that same Bill of Rights and pass laws mandating morality creating a police state.

That would be the same bill of rights that allows gun ownership as part of a well regulated militia? Wasn't this amendment written before the Union had a standing army?

When I saw Bowling for Columbine I got the impression (especially from the conversation with Chalrton Heston at the end) that Michael Moore was really more interested in finding what was wrong with American society that so many people were killed with guns, rather than anything else he might have been accused of. The statistics on gun ownership and number of gun homicides in various countries (eg more guns per person in Canada than USA, fewer murders) speak for themselves that something is wrong and the conclusion, if there were one, seemed to be that Americans are made to believe they live in a violent place and that's just the way things are. (And that the NRA are bad).

Did I get it wrong?

Yakk · 01-29-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

It would seem to me that the only inaccuracy stated by Moore regarding Heston's comments is not what was said, but when it was said. Seems rather petty if you ask me.

And technically, the part that was said not at the location and time Moore specified occurred in the movie before Moore mentioned the location and time.

The gripe is, Moore took footage, and edited it together to make Heston look worse than he is, by taking the most inflamatory parts of the NRA's message, and leaving out all of the mollifying parts.

Lebell · 01-29-2005, 03:17 PM

Thanks,

But I really don't need someone else to "redefine" my "gripe".

Yakk · 01-30-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Thanks,

But I really don't need someone else to "redefine" my "gripe".

Sorry. I misunderstood you.
=(

01-24-2005, 07:12 PM	#42 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The "Gun-show loophole" does not exist. Period. Any transfers through an FFL MUST go through the NICS check, and well over 90% of all firearms dealers at your typical gunshow are FFLs. When Sarah Brady talks about "unlicensed dealers," what she's talking about are people selling holsters, t-shirts, and the like. What the "Gun-show loophole" is attempting to talk about are legal Private Party Transfers, which are quite rightly perfectly legal things. "Assault weapons" verifiably comprise less that .02% of all gun-crime, and only 20% of crimes involve the use of a firearm. This is not to mention the fact that "Assault weapons" are expensive and hard to conceal. And all of this does not mitigate the fact that a ban ( also known as a Law ) is only going to be obeyed by people who are law-abiding to begin with. CRIMINALS are going to ignore a ban on assault-weapons, just like they ignore bans on bank-robbery, rape, and murder. As for the cops: most police Cheifs like the ban. Most Street Cops, however, know that the ban was complete nonsense, totally ineffective, and had no bearing on crime. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downl...Facts_v3.2.pdf Last edited by The_Dunedan; 01-24-2005 at 07:19 PM..

01-24-2005, 10:22 PM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	lebel: point taken on conservatives. but i said as much somewhere, in another thread, about close friends of mine who hold these curious beliefs. and i was talking to irate, mostly, in that post. the term bushworld is different---more on this another time. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-25-2005, 07:23 AM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	next morning: on "bushworld": i make a distinction between conservatism as a discursive or political construct and individual people who might happen to be conservative. i am interested in a particular type (or series of types) of arguments about the world that are shaped by the main conservative media--when i talk about conservatives, in the main i am talking about that. bushworld is the place these arguments make for those to see the world through them. i see it as a parallel universe almost, a self-enclosing, self-confirming space. i assume that folk can buy into bushworld differentially, but find that there are more consistencies than differences across the positions outlined by folk who identify themselves as conservative, and that these consistencies can be routed through this broader discursive space, more often than not. whence bushworld. the terms--which are just a shorthand that has the advantage of being polemical--sometimes generate seperate problems, which, when they arise, result in posts like this. but---sadly, for me at least-----it seems that the designations are more accurate than not. there are folk with whom the global shorthand i use matters much less in conversation---irate, for example in this thread--but there are quite a few other folk whose positions i have come to see as nuanced within a general conservative frame of reference---but i do switch in and out of the shorthand, and so leave the points you made, lebel, as openings. and with that the possibility of the occasional qualifying post. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-25-2005, 12:55 PM	#48 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Someone else will correct previous errors I'm sure. Disregard this post, it provides nothing of substance to this thread. __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

01-25-2005, 04:21 PM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	irate: unless you are able, somehow, to correlate the cash moore makes with the political positions occupied by the folk who buy tix to see his films, the main claim you are making doesnt seem to me to mean much. it is a shift in the conversation in any event, even it it was a compelling argument. the nuanced crack was snippy.....meaningless as well. but whatever. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-24-2005, 07:01 PM	#41 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	Lebell, I bet if you talked to police officers I can guarantee you that they would rather have that ban in place, even if they are rare to be involved in gun crimes. But if you were a police officer I guarantee you would not want to see those type of guns being legal to get. And don't start giving me the " it is real hard to get a gun because of the background check", because that is BS. Gunshows are such a big loophole it is not even funny. I'm not trying to be this big left liberal (because I am), but I would also look at it from the police stand point. Let's say one of those guns are bought by someone that shouldn't get one, that is one life that was lost because the assault weapons ban was lifted. Let me know what you think, because I would like to hear your side of this (I am not being sarcastic).

01-24-2005, 07:26 PM	#43 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	And how many street cops have you interviewed or polled?? Not trying to be cynical, but I wouldn't toot your horn too quick.

01-24-2005, 07:58 PM	#44 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	I havn't polled any significant amount personally, but that link I provided should give you the numbers. Additionaly, I grew up with three close family friends who were policemen, all of whom expressed disdain for such things as the "Assault Weapons Ban" and "Closing the Gun-show loophole."

01-25-2005, 02:14 PM	#49 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Mr. Mephisto, A true full-auto weapon is EXTREMELY difficult to get in the States. You have to pass a Top-Secret Level background check, pay a $200 tax on each weapon, meet very stringent safe-storage requirements, submit to years surprise "compliance checks" from the BATFE, get written permission from your local Top Cop, and on top of that you have to be able to pay upwards of $10,000 for one. A collection like Daswigs is worth several hundred thousand dollars, minimum. As for "need" for such weapons, I submit the following two words: John Ashcroft. You're right; my FAL and AK are not designed for hunting, although I do hunt with them on occaision. My FAL and AK are designed for killing people. In my hands, they are specifically intended to kill Tyrants. This was the purpose for which our Founders enacted the Second Amendment; "That every man might be armed" as John Adams put it. Jefferson said "no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." The whole point was to have a constant, pervasive, highly visible deterrant in order to prevent the kind of intrusive government we have now from ever arising. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the word "Arms" meant any man-portable weapon, plus 2-pounder fieldpieces known as Falconets. The modern equivalent would be anything man-portable, up to and including shoulder-fired antitank and antiaircraft rockets. The simple, sad fact is that tyrannical governments only understand one thing: force. Raw, relentless, merciless force. They don't care about polls, marches, protests, or letters to the Editor, because they simply ignore or crush such things. Freedom is upheld by the "Four Boxes;" 1: Soapbox. The ability to speak your mind in public. 2: Ballot Box: The right to vote and have that vote mean something. 3: Jury Box: The right to a trial by a Jury of your peers, and furthermore the right of Jury Nullification, which grants the Jury the power to find however they like and to vote "not guilty" if the law you broke was unjust. 4: Cartridge Box: The "court of final appeal." The ability and will to overthrow any institution which removes or hampers the previous three boxes. The Second Amendment gaurantees the right of the People, through the Militia, to keep and bear arms. The Militia itself is defined as all males between 17 and 45, all women who wish to participate, and all older men who with to participate. Federal law makes a clear and careful distinction between the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia, and clarifies the Constitutional protection of both classes.

01-26-2005, 03:02 AM	#55 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Geez this argument just goes in circles. Noone is forcing people that don't like guns to own guns. Why do people that are anti gun want to force their views onto people that happen to enjoy shooting? Whatever happened to minding your own damn business and leaving everyone to pursue their own vision of happiness? WTF is wrong with people nowadays? No damn wonder America is so polarized, both sides are attempting to force their opinions down the throats of people that just don't quite see "eye to eye". If our founding fathers was able to see what America has come to they would roll over in their collective graves. Same thing with some of the views from the extreme right but that's another thread and we won't go into it here. On one side you have idiots that want to circumvent the Bill of Rights and ban guns and the other you have idiots that want to circumvent that same Bill of Rights and pass laws mandating morality creating a police state. There is no happy medium anymore. Can't we all just live,let live and be fuckin' happy? Last edited by scout; 01-26-2005 at 03:13 AM..

01-29-2005, 04:12 AM	#56 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	It would seem to me that the only inaccuracy stated by Moore regarding Heston's comments is not what was said, but when it was said. Seems rather petty if you ask me.

01-29-2005, 03:17 PM	#59 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Thanks, But I really don't need someone else to "redefine" my "gripe". __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/81608-charleton-hestons-columbine-speech-full-text.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
TIL that Charlton Heston never gave the	This thread	Refback	04-25-2011 04:17 PM
TIL that Charlton Heston never gave the	This thread	Refback	04-25-2011 03:24 PM
TIL that Charlton Heston never gave the	This thread	Refback	04-25-2011 10:04 AM