Slashdot Mirror
Charlton Heston's Impact On Sci-Fi
An anonymous reader writes "As you're probably already aware, Charlton Heston passed away yesterday. Wired has a piece looking back at Heston's extremely notable work in the sci-fi genre, with roles in films like "Planet of the Apes" and "Soylent Green". 'Heston also roared out some of sci-fi's greatest and most memorable lines, bringing his macho swagger and over-the-top intensity to the screen in movies like 1973's food freak-out flick Soylent Green and the Planet of the Apes series. In a pivotal scene from 1968's Planet of the Apes (see clip), Heston's character, time-traveling astronaut George Taylor, utters the first words spoken by a human to the simian rulers of a bizarro future Earth: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!'"
It's hard to get much better than Planet of the Apes (even the sequels were decent). Heston was decidedly great even in his Biblical films though, such as the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
He also fought for our rights to carry phasers and other types of disintegrator rays.
I can't think of a single person in hollywood today who's voice alone has his presence. Even hearing him read cop killer was something.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
Out of all the adaptations of Matheson's novel I am Legend , Heston's The Omega Man was probably the most entertaining. It certainly stands tall above the dreck Will Smith starred in last year.
Would also likely point out his work in Michael Moore sci-fi films.
Damn, I'm totally independant, but I wish I was republican for a moment, if for nothing else but to throw out that zinger.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
*Pries the musket from his cold, dead hands*
Heston seemed like he was an eternal presence. From watching the 10 commandments on TV as a kid, then seeming The Omega Man late one night when I was about 12 (back when broadcast TV used to show movies late at night). That eye rolling dialog delivery, jutting jaw, big flashing teeth and the fact they he couldn't keep his shirt on for more than the first 10 minutes of any film made him an icon.
Then again, you see him in the Orson Welles film "Touch of Evil" to see he could underplay it when he wanted to, he just chose not to. In honour of Chuck, I think The Omega Man is due a screening in my house this evening.
I'm dead! I'm dead! And I still got my gunz you dirty apes! Cold dead fingers in your EYE!
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
I always thought it'd be great to be his care nurse, dress up in an ape suit and bring a fire hose in one day and give him a spray. When he started yelling at me I'd hoot and jump up on the dresser and shout: "He speaks, bright eyes speaks!"
Some may find that twisted... but others would just say: "he finally did it. Damn him all to hell."
"Get your stinking ankh off me you damn dirty Pharaoh!!!"
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
You left out Omega Man.
the chronological end of mankind:
Soylent Green
The Omega Man
Planet of the Apes
I'm not going to say what I hope happens to your grave!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Extremist? Not really. Sure, he was against gun control in most forms, but he was also pro-union and pro-civil rights. He was not the right-wing nut that some people claim him to be.
One of my favorite stories from him was when, during the Rodney King riots, one or more fellow actors (he would not name them) called and asked if they could borrow one of his guns. He said, no, you can't, but you're welcome to come over to my place until things settle down.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Let's not forget his acting in "Wayne's World 2" as "Good actor."...
More like a horror movie.
It was the height of irony when Charlton Heston appeared as an ape in the "Planet of the Apes" remake...and gave an anti-gun speech.
(spoiler) is people. R.I.P. Charlie
[gazing at Statue of Liberty, hip-deep in the sands of time]
You were right. They ruined it. We've become the nation of Soylent Green.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
We'll need those guns to protect ourselves from the fasci^H^H^H^H^Hprogressives one day.
Mod me down... I dont care. And no, my views are not based on Michael Moore. To be honest, when it comes to gun control, most of the rest of the western world looks at the US in amazement - and I think the stats would back me up. Islamic extremists, Christian Right extremists, anti-abortion extremists, NRA extremists, Intelligent Design extremists - they're all the same to me. No informed debate, no sense of reason - you either agree with their view of the world or you're an enemy to the cause and they WILL shut you down - some more in extreme ways than others. Above all else - he was the head of the NRA - to the rest of the civilised world he was an extremist.
What? No Omega Man? Anyone who thinks I am Legend (or 28 Days Later for that matter) were remotely original, is sadly mistaken. RIP Charlton...
I read about this early this morning, and I'm quite sad to see him go. I fondly remember watching Ben-Hur as a child. I never thought about him in relation to sci-fi, but I can see it thanks to this read. :)
As a side note, sci-fi related - but a bit OT, where on earth do you find out about good sci-fi nowadays? I went to the bookstore nearby, and the sci-fi section was 100% fantasy. I'm not into dragon slaying.
I miss Asimov, Clarke, and all the greats. I've already read all their works, I'm ready for some new authors! Same goes for movies, it seems like Sci-Fi died in the 80s. :/ If people can point me in the right direction, I'd be very much appreciative!
I'm looking for something like a forum, or a "club". I tried searching, but I only found a few sites (and the television network sci-fi's forums - which suck.) :( I'm especially interested in written material.
Mr. Heston, wherever you are - thank you for your contribution to entertainment, as well as politics. Oh, and Sci-Fi!
I've enjoyed watching most every film Heston's been in (might want to exclude "Earthquake" from that list, though). He brought a commanding presence to his roles that is quite rare.
I tend to ignore an actor's political statements, however (whether or not I agree with their sentiments). If I refused to watch any movie that included an actor that I'd seen make a fool out of him/herself, there'd be no point in my owning a DVD player - the pickings would be slim indeed.
#DeleteChrome
you either agree with their view of the world or you're an enemy to the cause and they WILL shut you down
Yes, that would explain why you and all your screechbot buddies are in mass graves.
Oh, wait: you're not.
You don't even believe your own bullshit, son. If you did, you wouldn't be screeching on the web. You'd be hiding in your closet, pissing yourself every time you heard a knock on the door.
Oh, I wouldn't mod you down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter how silly.
I think you'll find a lot of actors with kinda bizarro political views on all sides of the spectrum. And a good number of them are quite politically active.
I'm old enough to remember some people saying such sentiments about John Wayne when he died. I'm sure some people on the other side of the political spectrum will say similar things about Jane Fonda, or Streisand when they die.
In short: They're pooterheads.
These are actors. Yes, they've been politically active. Lots of people are. But unlike Reagan or Schwarzenegger they've not run for political office.
Yes, you may disagree with them. But, Isn't singing and strumming happy tunes to their death a bit much?
To blatantly steal a quote from Sergeant Hulka in Stripes "Lighten up, Francis."
put his vest on.
RIP.
Those damn dirty apes finally took his rifle from his cold dead hands...
Uh, I believe that would go under fantasy, not Science Fiction!
Your equating fascism, the authoritarian combination of corporation and state, with progressivism? If you want to go with an authoritarian dig at the left, use the correct foolish analogy: communist.
The ones on the right who think that not wanting to kill innocent civilians (because the President thinks it'll be fun) is 'supporting the tur'rists' are the fascists.
NRA extremists
How do you define an 'NRA Extremist'? Is it anybody who believes the citizenry should be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government? Is it the kind of person who is 840 times less likely to commit gun crime than the general population?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The appellation "extremist" has little meaning nowadays. It is used primarily to smear those who hold unpopular beliefs ("Oh, you don't think like the rest of us? YOU MUST BE AN EXTREMIST!") rather than being reserved for those who truly do advocate extreme positions.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As I was watching the various "video obituaries" on all the news programs, I couldn't help but see Troy McClure in all of Heston's roles.
he was an actor and I don't think of Sci-Fi as an actor driven movie genre. Filmmakers like George Lucas, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, George Pal and Fritz Lang will be remembered for their impact on Sci-Fi well before the actors in their films are recognized. I'd argue that Stan Winston (creature/special effects) has also had more of an impact on Sci-Fi than the actors. Similarly, writers like ACC and Ron Serle (who wrote the screenplay for "Planet of the Apes") have had bigger impacts than the actors in the films.
Now, having said this I might say that Sigorney Weaver has had as significant impact as any of the filmmakers listed above. Certainly more than Douglas Rain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harrison Ford, Michael Rennie, Leslie Neilson and Charleton Heston who all had leading roles in groundbreaking Sci-Fi features and whose performances come to mind when you're discussing the picture, but they really just carried out the roles they were given to them by the filmmakers.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Well... first, let's tighten up the Sci-Fi for a moment... are you looking for soft or hard?
Some of the sci-fi authors still writing that I do enjoy include the Kristine Kathryn Rusch Retrieval Artist series, Orson Scott Card's Shadow series, some of Larry Niven's stuff, John Barnes (only read if you're in a misanthropic mood), Spider Robinson (if usually far more on the light sci-fi side), and Neil Gaiman (yeah, it may qualify more as fantasy, but not swords and dragons style).
Nephilium... hopefully some of these will be new to you...
Moderation -2
100% Overrated
TrollMods worship St Heston like some kind of SF hoodoo.
--
make install -not war
gut guit gut gut gug tu gut gut gu ugututtut gutututututututuguguguthtutggtgtggtg ugugtutu guugu u ttu ututtutuuu uu u u u uu u u u u uuuu uu uu uu uuuuu uu uu u ugugu guuuu tguu u utu ut u ut utututttt uuuggfhsihi tutuututut uguuuggutu ut tutu ut 8utu tu tu uu 8 8 t8 thhufhuh 8uugututugjuturjghu hHOHOHPHPHPPHPHPHHP!!!!!!!!!!
Define fascism any why you like...you will anyhow.
But history tells a different story. It was in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy a combination of state and corporation. Corporations did what the state told them to or were taken over outright. Fascist were more then socialists in name. State takes over corporations in fascism as in all forms of centrally planned economies (in mixed economies like Europe and the USA some industries are run as government planned and often owned monopolies). When corporations take over the state it's called 'Corporatism'.
For examples of corporations running states outright a jaded eye could look at the recent history of sub Saharan Africa or the history of the English empire. Not pretty either but nothing like the body count leftism in general has built.
'Progressivism' as it's currently defined is simply the latest name for old school socialist thinking. Socialism does have an inherent concentration of power issue. Government run industries are almost always monopolies.
In any case as long as we keep ourselves well armed we as Americans will be too expensive to govern with too heavy a hand. That was the ultimate purpose of the second. It had nothing to do with hunting, everything to do with enabling at least the threat of the next armed revolution.
Go to the range folks. The gun is useless if you can't practice gun control.
Charlton Heston would have wanted you to go to the range soon. I'd say to take your kids with you, but this is /. Damn am I on topic? WTF am I doing?
Take a safety course if you're getting your first weapon. Start with a 22LR pistol or rifle.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I call dibs on the gun.
In that vein: Neal Stephenson, Stephen Baxter, KIm Stanley Robinson, Greg Benford. Have a look at and more generally, Locus.
There is some good new sci-fi out, John Scalzi's Old Man's War and the 2 sequels were very good and also David Drake's Daniel Leary series was very entertaining. Also some of the newer Sci fi movies are not bad at all. Fifth Element,Serenity, Stargate SG1 and of course Futurama is absolutely essential for any sci fi fan.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Try the Baen Free Library over at Baen.com They have a lot of the old SF authors, as well as many of the newer ones. Doesn't cost you anything, and if you find an author you like, you can buy them. No DRM.
Getting back to the topic, let's not forget his voice work in "Cats & Dogs" as the Mastiff in charge.
I wonder if he'll be buried with his cold hands clasping a gun after all.
...from being a disarmed potential victim, go right ahead. Be an extreme victim to prove your point. All societies have criminals and "badguys". Ours allows us to be protected from them using protection tools. And it is really that simple. Most places don't, they like their serfs docile, so you wind up with only professional predators and governmental predators having the tools.
....who is the extremist again? CH was-for freedom. Not a bad idea. Others are extremists for..something else.
I think that is extremely nuts.
The US is totally different in design from every other nation out there, all of them, even the other "western" nations, and this is why most of those folks just "don't get it"..
It starts with the premise that the individual is the sovereign, is "free", and government comes from the collection of individuals allowing this government to do a few things, and government is only supposed to have a limited set of powers.
It is/was the first true bottom up approach to government. All other governments are designed with the top down model (most western nations were or might still be at least quasi "royal" in structure, ours started out that way and then they fought against it and won), that government is supreme and their serfs..err I mean citizens..are graciously allowed a few permissions to do this or that. You have no inherit rights, just a few permissions.
The US is different (in theory and in peril daily, constantly), we have all the rights, and allow the government just a few. (again, theory).
I'll clarify further, the constitution we have does NOT grant us any rights, we are all born with them, all of them, and ownership of the tools for self preservation, some thing all species have an instinct for, is part of those rights. Some creatures use fangs or talons for defence, or great speed, or the ability to camouflage to hide, and so on, all humans have is a brain and opposable thumbs, so we developed tools.
Tools.
I know which model I think is better for our kind of creature. You are free to decide otherwise. I'll take freedom with all my rights intact over temporary or illusionary "security" from some royal government or parliament any time. Sorry if a lot of the people in other nations just cannot seem to grok this, but I bet it is because they are brainwashed since birth that your state has all the power and that it "grants" you certain limited liberties. In other words, you-as an extremist proponent from your POV-- might be extremely civilized, but you are still extremely a slave, chained in your mind.
Is the US of today perfect, or even originally? Nope. No it is not and was not, for instance way back then folks of color from places like Africa or native Americans were not considered human beings. A serious contradiction, well recognized now and corrected. along with a host of other issues.
Our theory though, that men are born free and with certain inalienable rights, was and is and shall always probably be an extremist position-compared to the governmental designs and policies elsewhere. So be it and stuff. It's a continual work in progress. Yep, some nutcases out there, and last I looked, no one nation has an exclusive vendor lock in on them either.
That we have apparently developed an hereditary class of so called professional career leaders in this nation...that function as olde tyme "rulers"...well, that needs to be worked on more as well. And it certainly won't get any better if people accept even less freedoms and even more infringements on our born-with rights, like they do elsewheres.
The best all peoples can do is show by example, and if there are bad guys..the only example is not to be a bad guy yourself. As a sovereign human, I take no responsibility for what others do, and reject any notion of collective guilt by association. Collective guilt aspersions are an extreme case of demonization efforts meant to belittle the true worth of individuals and individual actions, and always lead to problems.
So
Hard sci-fi would be my preference. I can deal with some soft, but most of it seems more on the fantasy side of the fence. I checked out Gaiman on the suggestion of a friend, and couldn't stand it. I just read a book by Larry Child (deep storm) which was pretty good. I'm currently reading Ringworld (chapter 3) by Niven, so far it seems "ok", if a bit "jumpy." We'll see how that one goes. :)
Thanks!
Loved the Fifth Element, loved the show Firefly (not the movie Serenity - I really don't like Summer Glau and her part was rather overplayed and corny/silly in the movie.). SG1 I watched over the period of two weeks (all 10 seasons) - awesome. I'm current on Atlantis, too. Futurama is my fav. cartoon, can't wait for new episodes. :D
I'll check out those books, too. Thanks!
In order, Yes, No, Yes, Yes.
Baxter is the most depressing author I have ever read in my entire life.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I've thoroughly enjoyed the Chung Kuo series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kuo
Donaldson's Gap Series are good too although both mentioned series span both the eighties and nineties.
Great sites! Too bad the hardsf site moved away from real forums, the javascript ones suck. Thanks. :)
A gun probably isn't enough to defend against the US military, but it at least makes person a more credible threat. As an American, I'm not real sure we have a gun problem. There is certainly an unfortunate level of violence involving guns, so it is a good discussion to be having, but a lot of that violence is simply exacerbated by the presence of the gun, not caused by it, which suggests that a lot of that violence can be dealt with by doing things other than taking away everybody's guns. Things like liberalizing drug laws to make it much less profitable to deal them, and trying to address the economic roots of a lot of violent crime.
And the Constitution would need to modified to enact a gun ban at the federal level, not in the 'justification' sense you are talking about, but in the sense that a government that inconsistently interprets laws isn't really a government. So even if the second amendment didn't make sense to a majority of Americans, the first step would be to remove it from force, not rounding up the guns. And that would be quite a task, there are tens of millions of guns in private possession in the US, many of them are collectible or of other sentimental value.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You're right -- he wasn't an extremist nut -- unfortunately too many people like him -- people who choose not to think. Anyone who would run the NRA which specializes in spreading misinformation and pushing an 'all or none' mentality rather than reasonable discussions on gun control -- has lost all credibility for being anything other than an effective mouth piece. It's a shame he wasted it on something so destructive.
What are you, European? No, you don't have a "gun problem". You have a "100 million of your people murdered by their own governments in the last century" problem.
Thanks, great link!
It allowed a small group in Waco, TX to fend off the federal government for nearly 2 months.
If you mean that a SINGLE person cant defend itself against the military, you are correct. But who ever suggested that was the case?
I'm for gun control and no huge fan of Jefferson, but any American who believes in the idea of a separation between church and state (which derived from a non-official letter between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists Association) should at least acknowldge his beliefs on an armed populace:
Personally, I find it bizzare how you easily misunderstand things.
I don't think of Baxter as "depressing" so much, more that he tends to take his stories to their absolute end, which often involves the death of the universe or the disintegration of the earth.
Many of his novels actually display a great amount of hope. Human intelligence often survives through incredible trials and demanding circumstances. The Ring plays out this way, as does Titan.
Voyage was one of the best "alternate history" novels I've read.
Back on topic, Heston was John Wayne with skill. He played some memorable characters, and rose to the occasion when cast in an "epic" film, like Ben Hur and The 10 Commandments.
And, here is the contradiction: if gun advocates really think that a well armed populace can hold off the US military, then they also should think we ought to get out of Iraq NOW.
We'll never be able to subdue a well armed insurgency, right?
They'll fight to the end and win, right?
They have to believe these things, otherwise their main reason for having a "well armed militia" to defend against government oppression is just a bunch of hoo-ha.
th th th th fan th th er th er th er th er th de de der dew we w e de d e d e eee de deee de ded dewd duiwi uiuiuiiu y8y8y8 jojojojoj JOJOOJ huhu noon nuUYnyyuuy9y9y9y9y98979-n-n MY!
The USA is an extremist nation. It always has been and always will be. Let's face it. Life in the early USA sucked and the only reason anyone in their right mind would want to come to this freezing, savage filled continent would either be due to immense greed or some immense political or religious belief.
.50 caliber rifle... and I love my country that I have the right to have all this cool stuff, just as much as I love it that someone else on the left wing can have the right to their own dumb ideas about socialism and one world UN government.
There is not a single page of American history where the country cannot be divided up into those sets of people - greedy people, religious fruitcakes, and political maniacs. They built the colonies, rammed through the American revolution, wrote our constitution, and continue to drive our present political discourse.
Folks look for moderates in the USA, and there aren't any. Everyone has one opinion or another that is radical about something, it is just that, because everyone's radicalism averages out at a survey level, it only seems like the USA is a rational country.
Americans love radicals, always have, and always will. Thomas Jefferson was a radical. John Brown was a radical. Both Roosevelts were radicals and Wilson was a radical and Kennedy was a radical. Johnson, Carter, Bush.. those guys weren't radicals, but the country hated them. Clinton wasn't radical, but he definitely fell into the greedy camp - greedy for power, greedy for the ladies.... and nobody ever really -liked- him... just, they thought did a decent enough job. Now they loved Reagan, and they love Obama...
So yeah, I like Charlton Heston. I'm a member of the NRA and damned proud of it, and I love my AK-47 and my AR-15 and my Barrett
This is my sig.
and you think owning a gun is going to allow you to defend yourself against the US military ?
It sucks for we USA but that seems to be working just fine for the insurgents in Iraq. 20 billion dollars a month in occupation is being spent trying to suppress an insurgency that is armed with little more than homemade explosives and automatic weapons. If that does not give you an idea as to the efficacy of the right to keep and bear arms in keeping out a government that you do not like, then nothing will.
This is my sig.
That's a good point. There are two things to consider:
First, any revolution in the US would be unlikely to involve all-out War with the US Military. If the Government starts nuking or firebombing US Cities it loses all support that would be remaining. Back in WWII we'd firebomb a neighborhood holding insurgents (women and children and all) but modern Americans won't stand for it. So, we're staring with limited skirmishes, but the military definitely has an advantage over the citizenry with automatic weapons. That's not how it's supposed to be. The citizenry has much larger numbers, though. See Federalist #46 for Madison's explanation of how the odds were an important factor in formulating the ideas.
Most likely any revolt would revolve around extreme oppression (ala V for Vendetta) and the military folks have their own conscience. Given a certain tipping point, the incumbent oppressors would likely lose the support of the military (assuming the memory of a Free America is still within sight). The Second Amendment is supposed to protect us from tyranny and largely depends on the Wisdom of the Masses to be effective.
But to your point - yeah, so far the US has lost to the insurgents, otherwise it would have been the NeoCon Cakewalk and we'd be gone, except for our permanent military bases they want to build. If John Kerry had been elected in '04 we'd be out by now and they would have won, as you suggest. If they lose now it's going to be due to political pressures (as suggested by last week's NIE), not military victory.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Communists and fascists are 2 faces of the same coin. Why do you think that they hated each other so much. They were in direct competition for the same basic idea: the power of the state over the power of the people. Hitler and Stalin were in league at one time, so they were not that far apart. Heck, even FDR was one of them. Why do you think that he invaded Germany when Japan attacked us? He was trying to save his cohort, uncle Joe. We are very fortunate that he was not able to pack the supreme court. We would be a very different country today.
When Alec Guinness died, we said that he's become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
When Douglas Adams died, we said that he's no doubt spending a year dead for tax reasons.
When Arthur C. Clarke died, we said that he's probably been reincarnated as a large orbiting fetus.
When Gary Gygax died, we said that he's lost his last saving throw.
No, it's never too early, especially if the deceased would have appreciated the joke. When Terry Gilliam dies, you bet we're going to say: "Well you're dead now, so shut up." When Neal Stephenson dies, you bet we're going to comment about how the ending was a bit abrupt.
What will they say about Slashdot? All I can think of is that the first page of the guest book at the way will be full of "FRIST PO$T!!1!"Nah, if Kerry had been elected we'd have twice the troop presence we have now because he wouldn't want to be perceived as weak on terror, and we'd still be losing. It's taken this extra four years to break the "Republicans fight terror better" myth. (and also the "Republicans manage the economy better" myth)
Too bad we're nowhere near what I see as the ideal government configuration: Democrat president, Republican house of representatives, and [who_the_fuck_cares] senate. It's best when there's a divided government, Republicans hold the purse strings, (and are kept honest by actually having to do what they say they want...i.e. no waste and balanced budgets) and Democrats hold the moral rudder towards a more civil society. (and are likewise kept honest by the Republicans and governmental power is kept in check...ON ALL SIDES.)
yeah... because by "MOST of the rest of the western world" I actually meant Switzerland.
> What will they say about Slashdot? All I can think of is that the first page of the guest book at the way will be full of "FRIST PO$T!!1!"
They'll probably say "NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT."
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
The NRA pushes all or none mentality, cause that's all they can do. When you start giving up little rights, you give up all rights. What part of that statement is hard to understand. Today it's guns, then smoking, then internet porn, then linux, then slashdot, then life. Wake up people and smell the gunpowder.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Here in Australia, history shows that you don't always have to win an armed conflict to achieve your aims: "After 12 months, all but one of the demands of the Ballarat Reform League had been granted."
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Please don't talk bad about John Wayne, he was the greatest actor, even if his personal life sucked.
21st Century Renaissance Man
I miss Asimov, Clarke, and all the greats. I've already read all their works, I'm ready for some new authors!
In that vein: Neal Stephenson, Stephen Baxter, KIm Stanley Robinson, Greg Benford.
I'd also personally add in Charles Stross. He's written some great hard sci fi (much of it freely-downloadable), and as an added bonus he's the only sci-fi author I can think of who has a 3-digit slashdot ID#.
Eh, I think you give them both too much credit. The last Republican congress spent like drunken sailors (and we didn't call them on it) and the Democrats are keen to put the government in charge of everything (like they do a great job at anything...) and take away people's freedom to make their own choices (hardy a high moral ground). They're both power-mad and enabled to be so by their parties (which Washington warned against). I have no idea how to get rid of them, though. On the Senate you're right - they're supposed to represent the States, but that got scuttled so now we have weakling states (since they have no say nor recourse) and large-scale homogeneity among them.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"As you're probably already aware, Charlton Heston passed away yesterday."
Nope, wasn't aware of it. Unlike print and broadcast news, news aggregators online let me filter out entertainment and sports "news," so I had no idea, and I can't say I mind. I look forward to the day when some "famous" actor or athlete dies and I'm able to say "Who?"
I'll never forget Dennis Pennis' interview with Charlton Heston (it seems to be one of the missing ones on youtube, else I'd post a link).
:D
The jokes are most likely completely lost on non-Brits, but they're totally hilarious for us
Thanks Charlton, even though you didn't know about it.
Max.
Well, it's all a matter of interpretation. Fact is that during the time he made his best movies (including the POAs) Heston was pro gun control, a strong supporter of the civil rights movement "long before Hollywood found it fashionable" and was campaigning for democratic politicians.
Then, around 1980 something changed his mind and he became a republican supporter and member of the NRA etc. From that time on I also can't recall any movie at all in which he plays a leading character. It would be interesting to find out what exactly made him change like that.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Democrats couldn't call them on it. They had no power to do so. Republicans only stick to their rhetoric when it causes political pain to Democrats. Yes, Democrats want to put the government in charge of everything, and that's why Republicans need to hold the purse strings. (But only when they're kept honest by wanting to stick it to Democrats.)
See, it's a balance held in check by the desire of both sides to politically hurt the other. However, neither side can be allowed to get too much power, otherwise we have the situations like 2000-2006.
Charlton Heston has done nothing bad to anyone. In fact he received shit from pro-gun people for defending the anti-gun people's right to spout crap. Rarely do you ever find someone so fair and balanced. Yet, on the the news of his death most anti-gun people show their true selves and the fact is they're backwards little intolerant people. They're not better than the likes of Fred Phelps. Some of their hate comes from Michael Moore's shitty little movie and it's because they don't realise Moore twists things heavily and has been caught lying out right in his "documentary". This is because they are too simple to seek out the truth and rather live in a world of lies that supports their backwards beliefs. Thankfully these people will never have the respect and good life that Charlton Heston had and may each and everyone of them die from brain cancer.
"Reasonable discussions" with gun prohibitionists usually revolve around "which additional class of guns are we going to outlaw today?"...which is why most in the pro-gun crowd aren't too interested in having a reasonable discussion. In fact, the entire gun-control argument is one pretty much entirely based off of sensationalist hysterics. It's a shame he wasted it on something so destructive. I rest my case. Why should I bargain away my rights with the likes of you?
I KNOW. I can only imagine what it's like to see this attitude from the outside in.
Being an American (USA) I find it natural, though thinking logically about it, I can see how bizarre this must seem to a foreigner. Not only do I live in the USA, but I live in Arizona. Here in AZ you can purchase a firearm and carry it around in public, in a holster, without a license (though it takes a license if you want to conceal it.)
I used to work in a bank, and I had a guy come in with a revolver holstered on his side. He didn't point it at me, so I didn't really care. It is rare, but it is part of being Arizonan.
And in terms of being able to fight the military... yes, that is part of who we are too. Government oppression is always something we are acutely aware of and prepared to defend ourselves against.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The discussion was over in 1791 when the bill of rights was ratified.
It is an all or nothing debate. We either have the right, or we don't. Fortunately we do.
Gone!
THIS
Bravo, mate.
I was iffy about Fifth Element, loved Firefly, liked Serenity (except for Wash & Book getting killed, and River turning into Buffy the Reaver Slayer). SG1 is fun to watch (I have all the DVDs). Atlantis seems to be recycling plots from SG1 & itself these days )I feel an immenent sharkjumping in the Force...)
As far as reading sci fi goes, try Jack L Chalker, David Weber, S. M. Stirling, and Alan Steele. Not as known as Niven & Pournelle, Heinlien, et. al., but some seriously great reads in there.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Against gun control? Pro union? Pro civil liberty and equality? Seems that above all else, he was pro-freedom.
No need to drag the phony conservative/liberal left/right political dichotomy into things...
What 'gun problem' is this? According to a statistic I saw in this thread, 22,000 people died in the US last year of gunshot wounds. If that figure is accurate, then, according to my handy dandy calculator, that equates to a 0.00000733333% chance of me dying of a gunshot wound this year. A 0.00000733333% chance is a statistical blip on the map. I'm far more likely to get a papercut.
Quick, let's ban paper!!!!!!!!!!!
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Debian FTW
Democrats couldn't call them on it.
Not Democrats, us - the voters who sent them back to Congress every two years no matter how much they spent!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I dunno, maybe this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_Shootings
and this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371403.stm
or even this from the US CDC ? (its 10 years old now, but I doubt the rates have changed that much)
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00002255.htm
If you're ok with the population of a medium-sized town disappearing every year due to Americans shooting other Americans, then I guess you don't have a gun problem - but where I come from we dont have metal detectors and armed security in our public high schools, and 200 odd people (out of 20 million) died from a firearm last year. Thats 1 per 100,000 vs 1 per 10,000 for the US. Theres an order of magnitude difference.
You're right about "Voyage". "Titan" on the other hand....
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
woohoo! I finally got his gun!
Of all the US gun nuts Heston scared me the least. He seemed like he would actually give you a meaningful conversation on gun ownership (to me, the biggest point of gun ownership is safety).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
People are remembered for many things... history will tell whether ol' Chuck will be remembered for his acting talents, his pro-NRA vocalism/etc. or his many other, but less noteworthy, accomplishments.
Good riddance... one gunhappy moron less
The only people I ever see are the local low-levels, who I helped elect, and who I actually generally like.
If I could have gotten a pot shot off at some of the corrupt high-ups with a good chance of not being caught, morals be damned I'd do it. Unfortunately, they are a separate class of Americans, who are very hard to reach, with good security.
It's a damn shame all of our extremists are no better than terrorists, taking out fellow civilians. It is the government who is supposed to be afraid, not the citizens.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Where you're from, what are the odds of dieing a violent death versus the USA? That is where the real standard of comparison should be. Of course you'll have less gunshot related incidents - you have a smaller percent of the population with guns than us - but that does not necessarily lessen your chances of being killed.
FTI:Did you know that in the US, we have a town where it is mandatory for home owners to own a firearm? It has one of the nation's lowest violent crime rates, thanks to the fear and respect inspired by the knowledge that every person you accost could cost you your life.
God I love the Swiss!
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
The horrifically violent sex turned me off of that series very, very early. The Gap series gets rough (Chung Kuo is far worse), but Donaldson isn't graphic about it. Or constant about it. Or selling his books with it. The Gap is readable, I do recommend it. Chung Kuo is violent pornography.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Australia.... remarkably similar to the US in terms of how I might die...without the guns.
Read this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-figures-missing-two-million-violent-crimes-454637.html
http://www.johnlott.org/
and stop with the straw man arguments
Go suck a dick you moron. I hope a bum takes a shit on your grave.
Oh, wait: you're not.
You don't even believe your own bullshit, son. If you did, you wouldn't be screeching on the web. You'd be hiding in your closet, pissing yourself every time you heard a knock on the door. What a fucking joke. At least I'll put my name to my views.
Son? You presume that you are somehow older and wiser than me? And my friends? Based upon what insightful information ?
My pimple-faced innocense died a long time ago. How about you ?
I don't need to hide in the closet if someone knocks on my door... I'm not in fear of being shot.
There is a chance it may still happen, but I dont own a gun - nor do any of my mates, my family, my neighbors. We still have crime, people killing each other, breakins - but no more or less than the US - and yet, anarchy isnt running wild on the streets? But the citizens aren't armed to the teeth... how is that possible ???
I'm sure they're out there, but they play no part in my life whatsoever.
I live in Ballarat, Australia - the first major instance where Australians rose up against the governing English... that was then, this is now. There's not a gun to be found and we're doing ok. Must be a fucking miracle.
The firearm death rates in the US are 10 times those of other civilised western countries.
Your argument doesn't make sense to me... so what.. you gonna shoot me ?
Personally, I think this is interesting: according to this spreadsheet forecast from the US census bureau (and a quick SUM), the total number of deaths in the US for 2006-2007 was 2,820,930. So you could say that almost 1 in 100 people who died in that period did so from a gunshot wound. That sounds...high, to me.
=== Ask yourself if it's really necessary...
Tell me, what would trigger you personally to respond to your government with armed force, and how could you defend yourself from the fully-armed SWAT team with helicopter support and sharpshooters on or in nearby buildings?
It's lovely that your country has the right to bear arms written into your constitution. It's quaint that so many people think you can bring down your own government through military means (hopefully a last resort!) when the balance of power is about 99% on the government's side.
You've got to face reality - unless the people in your country rise up en masse, you can't defend against your government. You'll be shot dead for resisting, and buried as a criminal and probably a terrorist. The last militia I heard about from the US included such patriots as Tim McVeigh, although the Waco cult wasn't far off in insanity. Armed resisters will be grouped with those people, unless the whole country swings against the government, and I'd say that even a totally corrupt gov't is too smart to allow that.
I'm not a US citizen, and find this 'power to the people' defence of gun ownership bizarre in the extreme. My country never had the violent revolution for separation from the UK though, so I understand the beginnings of your right to bear arms, just not the current situation.
"Australia.... remarkably similar to the US in terms of how I might die...without the freedom we gave up in the name of "safety"."
Congratulations, you gave up some of your freedom for safety. Why are you proud of that?
You tried the hard way, mixing a critic to his political views on guns with a bloody celebration about his dead. Different people will reply to you for both "offenses", and you cannot get nothing useful from that.
Thanks for the head's up. I actually felt "Ringworld" by Niven (almost done reading it) had excessive "sensual" mention in it. I am not a prude, it just seemed out of place; it really added absolutely nothing to the story or the character development and thus was unnecessary. Then again, it was very slight, and the rest of the story made up for it (easily.) Something of a "violent pornography" is EXACTLY why I can't stand most fantasy novels. I don't care to read details about how the ultimate dragon slayer spent his honeymoon slaying his bride.
"it's really other people they fear"
.. er, people with guns that they fear .. :)
.
.. er African Americans getting hold of guns .. :)
Oh contraire, it's really other apes
His flirtation with the NRA was more to do with him missing all the attention he got as a Hollywood star
The NRA was formed soon after KKK was banned, presumably as a response to whiteys fear of some nig
davecb5620@gmail.com
Unless Charlton fell out of the sky onto, or punched, or threw something at sci-fi... he had no impact on it at all. He might have produce some effect on it.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Who could could forget that classic line: "Soylent Green is made of people! Mouthwatering delicious people!"
for standing up for human rights:
"participated in '50s-era civil rights marches...became president of the National Rifle Association."
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and I agree about getting out of Iraq. The problem is that we can't just simply "get out".
But yes, essentially there's a civil/cultural war developing there. The solution for us can't be by force, and that goes back to why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The the US military is let's say a total of 2 million mobilized. the US population is 300 million. If, FSM forbid there was any sort of tyrannical government in power, they'd have some trouble subduing the masses, due to the number of firearms and other resources present and available to the populace.
I agree with the poster way up yonder as well. The 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns is no more or less valuable than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I may not agree with you on how those rights are used, but I'll defend your right to do so.
Look, there are well meaning positions all over on this; to be honest, you can say that about any position (abortion, health care, etc.). Everyone thinks they have the best answer.
There is no best answer, but I do know that Tibetans turning over one or two cars didn't dissuade China from laying a boot to the province. On the other hand if the Taiwanese could only overturn one or two cars...
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Let's not forget that Charles Heston's original name was "John Carter". Yes, really. Honest. No, I'm not trolling.
There's no denying the impact that John Carter had on Science Fiction!
That argument only works if you view gun ownership as a personal right. Not everyone believes that, including many US courts (which view the 2nd amendment as a collective right, not a personal one).
Zonk! You have the big spoiler for the entire film printed right in the summary. For those of us who are waiting for this film to be released on HD-DVD before seeing it, please hide the big reveal. (meh.)
And, here is the contradiction: if gun advocates really think that a well armed populace can hold off the US military, then they also should think we ought to get out of Iraq NOW.
Well, I believe both things.
So no contradiction here.
We'll never be able to subdue a well armed insurgency, right?
I don't think we'll be successful, no, but other people may have a different view. I don't agree with their assessment of the situation in Iraq, I think it's rather delusional, but I don't think that disqualifies them from believing in gun ownership rights.
The notion that a gun advocate thinks that a government can never defeat an armed populace is ridiculous, a pure strawman. The point is you have to fight, and if you fight you may win, or you may lose. And even if your side wins, you may die in the process! But the whole point is that you have to fight, and if you lack the means to fight then you've lost before you've begun.
Personally I think that in the case of an American revolution, we'd be able to acquire those "means" even if guns were banned. But having the large amount of legal weapons in the country today certainly gives us a huge leg up, just like the fact that every household in Iraq has at least one AK-47 helped the insurgency there.
The enemies of Democracy are
At least in Ringworld the sex generally advances the plot (a bit) and isn't particularly detailed, nobody is a bloody-handed sadist or owns rape machines. And there's as much sex in Ringworld as there is in the rest of Niven's works put together, so you're done with it.
I think I'm a healthy child of America: either set the scene and turn out the lights, or the sex is all I'm interested in. And if you don't have a talent for writing erotica, don't bother setting the scene.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
You've got to face reality - unless the people in your country rise up en masse, you can't defend against your government. ... The last militia I heard about from the US included such patriots as Tim McVeigh, although the Waco cult wasn't far off in insanity.
That's exactly right. The system depends on the Wisdom of the Masses. Neither of the examples you cited had that critical aspect, so they weren't effective.
You'll be shot dead for resisting, and buried as a criminal and probably a terrorist. Armed resisters will be grouped with those people, unless the whole country swings against the government, and I'd say that even a totally corrupt gov't is too smart to allow that.
This describes well what happened during the American Revolution.
I'm not a US citizen, and find this 'power to the people' defence of gun ownership bizarre in the extreme. My country never had the violent revolution for separation from the UK though, so I understand the beginnings of your right to bear arms, just not the current situation.
The situation is different now than in the 1770's - we have a republic, which we didn't have then. But that doesn't mean those currently in power can't make a run for totalitarianism. Let's say there's some G8 summit or whatever and there are thousands of protestors and the government decides to take them out with a chemical weapon or neutron device, along with anybody else in the area. Likely, no? Possible, sure, so at least we have an option if something terrible happens. We hope to die never having seen it used, and so far the Republic has offered better options.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Soylent Green is Heston!
Struck a nerve, eh?
From http://www.imao.us/archives/009883.html:
...
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Despite numerous promises in his lifetime to allow his guns to be taken from his cold, dead hands, the late Charlton Heston issued a statement today saying that he will retain possession of his firearms into the afterlife.
"Besides, the last time I thought I was dead, I woke up on a planet full of talking apes. I really could've used a good rifle then."
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I think Charlton Heston may well have appreciated being considered an extremist. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater
So is freedom of speech a "collective right"? What's the difference? They are both in the Bill of Rights,
No, freedom of speech is an individual right. A collective right is one that a group holds. ie, as a regulated militia, that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to some jackass in a trailerpark. Go do a little reading, it might enlighten you.
It's efficiency it solely based upon the user. No apostrophe in "its", please... But anyway, that doesn't matter. The fact is that this proficiency is much easier to come by than the equivalent proficiency in other lethal means (such as hand-to-hand, use of knives, etc.) and once acquired it's quite effective. If you are looking from a ROI standpoint, I think explosive weapons are more efficient at killing people. I'm sure there are ROI studies on this though. True, if you're talking numbers, you can kill more people with a bomb. But if you see someone, you can point at them, and say, "I want that person dead", a gun can make it happen, quickly and efficiently. It's a tool for killing people - I think it's worth thinking critically about why an individual needs that, and who ought to be allowed that power, in a society where killing people isn't generally allowed.
To go back to the post I was responding to - compare the lethal efficiency of a gun to the printing press. Now, you could drop a printing press on someone and kill them, or maybe you could trick them into sticking their head inside and then crush it - but a printing press really doesn't excel at killing people.
Mind you, I do believe people should have a right to self-defense, and self-defense that's only moderately effective isn't worth much - I just don't believe it's something you can equate with free speech. At a practical level there's a big liability involved with giving people that power too freely.
Bow-ties are cool.
No, what I or you believe is irrelevant, my belief changes nothing.
That is wrong, the restriction of a right is not equivalent to "not believing gun ownership is a right". That is a silly argument that has no basis in logic or law.
No, freedom of speech is an individual right. A collective right is one that a group holds. ie, as a regulated militia, that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to some jackass in a trailerpark. Go do a little reading, it might enlighten you. Sorry, but saying: 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. Is sole as a collective right is like saying that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Does not mean a right to privacy.
Don't try to call me ignorant and then follow up with a ridiculous argument like yours. That trailer trash is just as much an American as any other American and has the same rights you elitist piece of shit!
Spend some time away from the yacht club, find a job and see how real people live. It may enlighten you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How do you define an 'NRA Extremist'? Is it anybody who believes the citizenry should be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government?
Now, that's kind of funny in a weird way. The gun nut crowd is the same gang that is lining up to hand over our civil liberties to the bush adminstration without a peep.
If nothing else, it's unmasked the gun nuts as a bunch of gutless pussies with delusions of hero fantasies.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Don't try to call me ignorant and then follow up with a ridiculous argument like yours.
It isn't mine. It's the argument of legal scholars that has existed for decades (probably centuries) and stood the test of time. But, yes, I'm sure you're correct, and have out-though generations of scholars. Congrats! You should write a paper, I'm sure many would love to read it!
Speaking of silly argument, yours appears entirely incoherent. Please, try well composed english, next time, instead of what appears to be random words strung together. I mean, what the hell does
'the restriction of a right is not equivalent to "not believing gun ownership is a right"'
even mean??
It isn't mine. It's the argument of legal scholars that has existed for decades (probably centuries) and stood the test of time. But, yes, I'm sure you're correct, and have out-though generations of scholars. Congrats! You should write a paper, I'm sure many would love to read it! I don't need "scholars" to read for me as I learned to do that in the first grade. 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. I don't care what the "scholars" say. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. "Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty straight forward. The founding fathers even explained WHY and even threw in the word KEEP, which means I get to KEEP them in my home. I don't care how many years of school they took, they can not change what the words mean, no matter how hard they try.
And like I said before, arguing against the second amendment is no different than arguing against the first, third, forth, or any other. Saying I can't own a gun is no different than saying the government can search my house without a warrant, arrest me for something I have said or tell me what church I must or can't go to.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Thanks for replying.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Better get writing, then! Sounds like you have a successful career in law or academia ahead of you!
Oh please, the blame the person not the tool drool again.
Guns are a just fantasy item, essentially pornographic. However unlike your daddy's porn, the money shot here is a bullet penetrating a warm wet live body. Anything less just ain't satisfaction. If you are not convinced go and browse some of the gun forums where the "stopping power" of hollow points vs jacketed rounds are lovingly debated. You can almost see their hard ons through the screen. I'm not chicken to admit I fear the people who get off on pumping off rounds instead of the big wet one.
peace!
K
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
Guns are a just fantasy item, essentially pornographic
No, I think that gun owners are your fantasy item. Your obsessive, lustful loathing sounds just like a repressed nun scolding about public displays of affection.
the "stopping power" of hollow points vs jacketed rounds are lovingly debated
Have you ever actually chosen ammunition based on what it actually does? Have you ever actually chosen to have venison for dinner instead of commercially slaughtered beef, or tofu? When you choose to kill an animal, you do have to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Shooting the groundhog that's digging leg-breaking holes in the pasture next to your hay barn isn't the same as shooting coyotes, or shooting that elk you're going to eat all winter. Caliber, projectile type, muzzle velocity, and the rest all contribute to getting the job done, no more or less. I spent the other morning debating whether to use #7-1/2 or #6 shot, in 7/8th, 1-ounce, or 1-1/8th ounce loads. Why? Because the partridges were bigger than expected, and they were flushing up into higher winds than expected. If you want good dinner birds, you want something a dog can still retrieve, and not too shot up. But you also don't want to risk merely breaking a wing or a leg and leaving a wounded bird on the move. Is there nothing you do in your life where specs matter? Do you only have one size screwdriver? Only one kitchen knife? Only one wine glass? Only one camera lens, or only one type of external storage for your data, or only one hat?
Are people who talk about which shoes are best for running trails vs. which ones are best for running on pavement just talking "shoe porn" as far as you're concerned? Are people who get online and talk about different types of hydrogen fuel cells just swapping energy porn? Your anxiousness to paint absurd stereotypes just points out your ignorance, cowardice, and the danger you pose to other people because of them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What part of:
don't you understand?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
1/.00000733333 is 1 in 136,364. Still pretty good odds to me.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The part you highlighted, actually, which has been an element of scholarly debate regarding the second amendment (something *you* apparently don't understand). Quoting Michael Dorf (link) on the topic of methods of interpretation of the second amendment following a recent ruling in the case of "United States v. Emerson":
"The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals' benefit. The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed. Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model. Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech."
So, "the people" could be all individuals, or it could be "the people", as part of a "well-regulated militia", the latter emphasizing the purpose clause of the amendment. Your own bias results in your choice of interpretation. But it isn't the only one, believe it or not (of course, most pro-gun folks would prefer not). And, interestingly, that same article points out that "in endorsing the third, individual rights model, the Fifth Circuit broke ranks with the other federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue, all of which have adopted some variant of the first two models."
Of course, my bet is you'll go the way of our favorite arch-conservative, ArcherB, and just decry this stuff as the imaginative ramblings of ivory-tower scholars and judges who like to "legislate from the bench". That's your choice... and I would expect nothing less. But, maybe someone with a more open mind will come along, read this, and realize there's more to this debate than the simple black-and-white interpretation the pro-gun lobby likes to favour.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
It's rated as a 'maybe'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, talk about a bunch of crap.
"Our crime rate has gone down "
Crime does not equal gun.
"because of effective policing and our Gun Law"
Correlation does not imply causation
"our gang wars are fought with Knives and Clubs not AK's and 9mm's."
what? so, the crime is still happening. even within you post of logical fallacies this make no sense.
"In the 10 year period crime rates have actually gone down, "
Homicide rate has been decreasing since the 70's.
On fact it went UP after the ban. Only slightly,more likely a statical fluctuation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
I can't find a chart on crimes, for Australia, just homicide. There is a lot of concern over Austrailia's 'jump in crime rate'. But those reports only say things like 10% increase. By it self it's pretty meaningless.
"gun crime was never at the pandemic levels as it is in the US"
Pandemice? We have one of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD.
You get a murder with a knife, we have a murder with a gun. please tell me why one matters more then another?
Do you even know very few people had hand guns even before this 'ban'? many of those same people STILL have a gun?
"As long as any Australian can remember none of them have ever felt that guns were needed to solve problems."
SO your military, police force and hunters don't use guns?
Do you even remember how to think for yourself?
Gun ban had no effect with any crime statistic at all in Australia.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Notice how poorly we are doing. So it seems to be working.
However there are other factors, mostly are stupid administration and there very harmful policies.
So fighting them with guns isn't really the answer. Meaning, yeah it worked for them. Have a strong presence in addition to some good political negotiators is the only way out of this situation. Except just leaving, but not only would the be a political nightmare(globally speaking) and fiscal night mare, it would be just mean.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think the key you and these supposed "scholars" are missing is "...people to keep and bear..." Where do people keep things? Do people keep things in the armory? No. People keep things in their homes. What does it mean to bear something? It means to have it on your person and show it. The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.
What's not to understand? Now don't go find some liberal weenie academia type that can debate anything (like the definition of "is"). Read it for yourself and tell me what there is to honestly debate?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Have you written that paper, yet?
I just did. Just copy all my posts on this thread and paste into an OpenOffice Text Doc and there it is! Click on File, Save As, and type in "Truly Genius Comments by ArcherB that I can not refute.odt"
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.