Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Charlton Heston's Impact On Sci-Fi 531

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!'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Charlton Heston's Impact On Sci-Fi

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morari ( 1080535 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @07:41PM (#22983492) Journal
    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.
  • RIP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArcadeX ( 866171 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @07:43PM (#22983512)
    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.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @07:43PM (#22983522)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @08:14PM (#22983732)
    He also was associated with the civil rights movement long before it became the fashionable thing to do in Hollywood.

    Heston saw no difference between campaign for personal freedom and the means to defend those freedoms.

    I can just imagine him going up to Moses and saying "Well, what did you think? Did I do you justice?" :)
  • by z-thoughts ( 716174 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @08:24PM (#22983784)
    I really don't get people that are into 'gun control', as in taking all guns away from law abiding citizens. Then the only people left with guns, other than government types, is the criminals that no longer have to fear their victims being able to fight back. Look into how well this has worked out in Australia. They banned guns a year ago, and since then, armed robbery is up something like 146% with all other gun related crimes up at a similar rate. Yeah, taking guns away from the law abiding works really well. NOT!
  • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @08:24PM (#22983794) Homepage
    Regardless of whether you consider "The Ten Commandments" a sci-fi/fantasy film or not, it certainly had an impact on special effects for the genre.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Eth1csGrad1ent ( 1175557 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @08:47PM (#22983934)
    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.
  • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by OmegaWolf747 ( 1131345 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:03PM (#22984026) Homepage Journal
    Heston will be missed. He was one of the Hollywood greats.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:10PM (#22984066)
    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."
  • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:20PM (#22984122) Homepage Journal
    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 [mcgonigle.us] to commit gun crime than the general population?
  • Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:29PM (#22984156)
    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.
  • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:47PM (#22984282)

    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.

  • by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- ( 624050 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:55PM (#22984332) Journal
    This entire Australia thread is [citation needed].
  • by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:57PM (#22984342) Journal

    However, when I heard he was involved with the gun association, it disappointed me and lowered him in my eyes. He may have been a great actor but I just don't share his thinking on such matters like gun control.

    When you look at his life in its entirety, it makes perfect sense. What it comes down to is that Charlton Heston became involved with the NRA for the same reason that he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King--to him, it was a civil rights issue.

    You can debate the right and wrong of the American right to keep and bear arms until the cows come home, but like it or not, the men who founded our nation had certain beliefs about what constituted the natural rights of men. They wrote some of these rights into our Constitution: free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, the right to be secure from intrusive government searches, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to bear arms, and more. Heston was a man who believed in those rights, and was willing to lend his fame to various causes in support of them. That's really all there is to it.

    So, feel free to think less of him for it (I'm sure that while he disagreed with what you had to say, he would have defended to the death your right to say it) but while you're doing so, also think about the notion that if you start to pick and choose what rights you think people ought to have, and try to redefine those rights out of existence, then someone else later will have an easier time of stripping the citizenry of the rights that YOU yourself hold dear. One need look no further than the current occupant of the white house to see such a process in action.

  • Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @09:57PM (#22984344)

    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.

  • by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:16PM (#22984518) Journal
    "Look into how well this has worked out in Australia. They banned guns a year ago,..."

    What a crock of shit. The murder rate from guns stands at around 200/yr out of 20 million, it did before the bans and it still does after the bans (10yrs ago btw). There has been a small drop in suicides by gun.

    What people fail to realise is that Aussies were never really gun nuts to start with, owning a handgun has always been uncommon, carrying one has always been socially unacceptable.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jhon ( 241832 ) * on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:23PM (#22984578) Homepage Journal

    ...and you think owning a gun is going to allow you to defend yourself against the US military ? This is the attitude I find bizarre.
    Why do you find it bizarre? It allowed the populace to defend itself against and repulse the UK military in the 18th century. It nearly allowed the southern states to fend off/repell the US military in the 19th century.

    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:

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


    Personally, I find it bizzare how you easily misunderstand things.
  • Re:RIP (Score:2, Insightful)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) * <greg_barton@yaho ... m minus math_god> on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:28PM (#22984594) Homepage Journal
    Awesome. Thanks for passing on the link for that speech. Just goes to show how much Heston was blinded by the "culture war" and failed to see that those hyping it were busy taking away our real rights, like habeas corpus and the right to avoid arbitrary search and seizure.
  • Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slamb ( 119285 ) * on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:30PM (#22984614) Homepage

    Damn, I'm totally independant, but I wish I was republican for a moment, if for nothing else but to throw out that zinger.


    No need to be Republican - it's important to admit when people on your side are being dishonest. (And "Bowling for Columbine" misrepresented Charlton Heston's actions and basically everything else it portrayed.) One could argue that the party of Lincoln fell so far because Republicans wouldn't call out Republicans for ethical lapses, and it'd be sad if the Democrats followed them any further down that road.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greg_barton ( 5551 ) * <greg_barton@yaho ... m minus math_god> on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:35PM (#22984644) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by STrinity ( 723872 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:45PM (#22984702) Homepage
    You know, the man starred in over 100 movies, won an Academy Award, was the longest serving president of the Screen Actors Guild, and marched with Martin Luther King on Washington. But all people can do is make jokes about him being in the NRA.
  • 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.
  • by STrinity ( 723872 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:49PM (#22984740) Homepage
    ZOMFG! An actor doesn't agree with all my political views! That disappoints me. People who don't share my outlook on life make me uncomfortable.
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:57PM (#22984794)
    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.

    No, it wasn't. He wasn't giving an anti-gun speech at all, in that role. He was showing (as an ape) the fear and loathing of the intellect that could make the guns...

    Heston spent many years pointing out that people who fear the gun are too chickenshit to admit that it's really other people they fear. His ape character was a really good, (classically Heston!) over the top indictment of the irrational habit of blaming the tool and/or the symbol, rather than the person who uses them in a way you dislike. It was brilliant, and the only irony to be found is in the mis-comprehension of what he chose do with it by so many people who saw it.
  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @10:59PM (#22984810)
    When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."

    I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?

    What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retreive my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"

    What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?

    What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"

    Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?

    In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?

    What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??

    In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgement takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.

    His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.

    Pro-gun types actually beleive that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.

    One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever, is people like my neighbor with 3 huge guns. Specially states that he feels safer having them because he lives alone, but thinks that home security systems and dogs are ineffectual. Yet, a big gun in the closet... that will stop criminals from attacking him...

    Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-gun, myself. But lousy reasoning exists on both sides of the argument. And bottom line, the only questions I'm interested in:

    Does having a gun actually make me safer? Or is it more likely to get me or someone I care about killed?
    Am I more likely to prevent a crime with it, or is it more likely that it will enable / escalate one?

    I don't know the answer to those questions.

    I do know I hear daily about some gun being misused, or accidently fired, or used in a fit of passion... I don't often hear about people who were able to fend off murderer/rapists with their gun. Call it media bias if you want... but until I see a REAL credible study done... well... I have serious doubts that guns will make me safer. I firmly beleive, for my own family, that the odds of the kids having an accident with it, FAR exceed the odds we'll get our home invaded by a murderous/rapist. But that's just me.

  • Re:Oblig. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:02PM (#22984842)
    Let's not get carried away here. Those films he starred in weren't real. He wasn't really Ben Hur, or Moses. It's just make believe, and he didn't even write the scripts, build the sets or whatever.

    Being the president of the NRA is one of the most notable _real_ things he's actually done.

  • Re:Oblig. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by STrinity ( 723872 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:13PM (#22984906) Homepage
    Yeah, acting in films isn't a real achievement. Anyone can do it.

    Right.

    Incidentally, he did write a film and directed three.
  • Re:Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chipset ( 639011 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:33PM (#22985012) Homepage
    It's not that he really hurts his causes. He does create a large uninformed population that takes what he has done as "truth" without actually critiquing what he is really presenting.
  • by thomasw_lrd ( 1203850 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:41PM (#22985062)
    You bring up good points. I think we should drop the crime/crime prevention angle. I own guns, cause I like to kill small and large furry animals. Yeah, maybe it's a power trip, maybe not. But I do so love the way furry, feathered, and scaled animals taste.
  • by Zerth ( 26112 ) on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:52PM (#22985164)
    See, it's stuff like that which keeps me from owning a gun. Takes to long to get ready and if you have one ready, somebody's kid might shoot themselves.

    That's why I keep a sword zip-tied to the bedstand behind my pillow.
  • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday April 06, 2008 @11:54PM (#22985174) Journal
    You do realize the Ten Commandments was in the Old Testament, right? Which is pretty much the Torah?

    Maybe if you said something about judeochristianity, you'd have a point... No, wait, then it couldn't be "fundamentalist" anymore.

    And yes, you are a troll, which is probably why you were modded as such.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Monday April 07, 2008 @12:11AM (#22985278) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Xonstantine ( 947614 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @12:53AM (#22985504)

    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.
    The NRA is only an "extreme" organization when considered from the perspective of an anti-gun individual. The NRA has frequently colluded with anti-gun politicians and compromised away gun rights.

    "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?
  • Re:Oblig. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by STrinity ( 723872 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @12:55AM (#22985508) Homepage
    If you won the highest award for programming, you'd get a Wikipedia entry. Heston won the highest award for film acting. So yes, his achievements as an actor are notable, and they are what he's remembered for.
  • by sir fer ( 1232128 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:42AM (#22985742)
    perhaps the largest pile of idiotic shit ever to appear on /.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stealth Potato ( 619366 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @01:53AM (#22985790)
    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...
  • Re:He was legend (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Samah ( 729132 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:57AM (#22986062)
    I think the part where Smith "puts his dog down" is brilliant directing and quite possibly the most believable performance I've ever seen from him.
  • by servies ( 301423 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @02:59AM (#22986070) Homepage

    Heston spent many years pointing out that people who fear the gun are too chickenshit to admit that it's really other people they fear.
    So if you (as a pro-gun person) don't fear other people, then why do you need a gun...
  • Re:Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slamb ( 119285 ) * on Monday April 07, 2008 @03:23AM (#22986170) Homepage

    For once, I'd like one of Moore's critics to address the points he makes rather than the techniques he uses to make them.

    That's a bit hard to do because his most insidious, dishonest points are ones he denies making at all. His subtle edits and omissions of facts lead the viewer to an erroneous conclusion that was never explicitly stated.

    It's been a long time since I looked into this, but iirc Moore manipulated Charlton Heston into saying something which could be seen as racist (neglecting to mention that the man actually marched with MLK Jr!), implied that Heston led a rally in Colorado in response to Columbine (it was planned well in advance), and that Heston used language which, given the situation, was quite inflammatory (those snippets were actually spliced together from several different rallies). He made many other, less topical, manipulations of fact.

    I suspect it has something to do with his politics, since the ones who complain the loudest tend to be die-hard Republicans.

    I am a Democrat, and I am disappointed that so few Democrats complain about Moore.

  • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @06:04AM (#22986682)
    In defence of the troll (UbuntuDupe) I'd like to point out that the socalled Christian fundamentalists in the US, and everywhere, do put a huge emphasis on the Old Testament; thus the silliness of the Creationsist, to take one example. If they focused strictly on the teachings of Jesus or even the whole of the New Testament, we wouldn't see Christian evangelists who live a life of luxury, and we wouldn't hear them claim that being rich is God's reward to you.

    That aside - I have no idea what mr Heston's impact on anything was, but I have see the 10 Cmds, and I found him overly pompous; he didn't make me believe in the character he portrayed. But, hey, I may just be ignorant and uncultured.
  • by Grant_Watson ( 312705 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @06:40AM (#22986816)

    Personally, I wouldnt mind it if muskets and Revolutionary War era arms are allowed, but nothing more recent.

    You know, I won't dispute your right to distribute pamphlets printed on a hand-crank press using lead type, but nothing more recent.

  • by Capt James McCarthy ( 860294 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @06:51AM (#22986850) Journal
    "So if you (as a pro-gun person) don't fear other people, then why do you need a gun..."

    I'm "pro-choice." If I want to own one, it should be my choice. (and my responsibility) Thus, freedom to chose. Are you saying you want to limit my freedom of choice?

    And FWIW, when I go skeet shooting, you kind of need a gun for that. Somehow throwing flowers at the skeet just doesn't work as well. The weapon I chose, should be whichever I chose. Though I'll probably get modded flamebait on this post.
  • by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @07:03AM (#22986908)
    armed = citizen
    unarmed = subject
    It's so simple. What do you not understand?
    But I do feel better knowing idiots like you aren't carrying guns.


    Uh-huh. And could you please explain exactly why it is that you think that having a collection of hunting rifles, handguns, or the occasional semi-automatic weapon somehow makes you immune to having the government impose it's will on you by force? Because if it's a pissing contest between you and the government about who has the most firepower then you'll lose every time. If the government doesn't like you and wants to take you out, your guns will be about as effective in defending yourself as nerf balls. Just ask the guys at Ruby Ridge or the Branch Davidians in Waco. I assure you, the media coverage of the events did far more to prevent the government from steamrolling both groups than their ownership of large quantities of guns ever did.

    Man, it chills me to know that idiots like you are wandering around armed.
  • by Capt James McCarthy ( 860294 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @07:25AM (#22987000) Journal
    "Good riddance... one gunhappy moron less"

    Don't forget to include "civil rights moron." AC, you can be such an idiot.
  • Re:He was legend (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hansamurai ( 907719 ) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Monday April 07, 2008 @08:44AM (#22987404) Homepage Journal
    Well, they technically win, but there are really two types of zombies/vampires. The intelligent type that wants to be civilized and the crazy, non-thinking type that just want blood and flesh. They're fighting each other, and it appears that the first group is winning. But since Robert Neville was killing them indiscriminately during the day, the intelligent group feared Neville more than the dumb vampires. So they went for him at the end and captured him. A sympathizer gives him the death pill so he can die in peace without being subjected to everything this group of vampires would do to him. His final thought is that he's a legend among this new human race, and forever will be.

    Much better ending than the movie. And I still think it's appropriate for film. The viewer probably will start to sympathize with the intelligent vampires near the end, because of the compassionate woman and because they are an acceptable replacement for the human race.
  • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @09:10AM (#22987636) Homepage

    So, feel free to think less of him for it (I'm sure that while he disagreed with what you had to say, he would have defended to the death your right to say it) but while you're doing so, also think about the notion that if you start to pick and choose what rights you think people ought to have, and try to redefine those rights out of existence, then someone else later will have an easier time of stripping the citizenry of the rights that YOU yourself hold dear. One need look no further than the current occupant of the white house to see such a process in action.


    Basically:

    They came for the Second Amendment by taking away our right to own a gun.
    I didn't own a gun so I remained silent.

    They came for the Fifth Amendment with warrantless wiretapping.
    I didn't think I had anything to hide so I remained silent.

    They came for the Sixth Amendment by declaring people "enemy combatants" and detaining them indefinitely without trial.
    I wanted to seem Patriotic so I remained silent.

    They came for the First Amendment with DCMA Censorship and by marking off Free Speech Zones.
    I didn't want to rock the boat so I remained silent.

    Then they came for me and I realized that I had no rights left.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2008 @09:59AM (#22988126)

    I'm "pro-choice." If I want to own one, it should be my choice. (and my responsibility) Thus, freedom to chose. Are you saying you want to limit my freedom of choice?


    Society does this all the time. What if I want a blonde and a brunette as a wife (and perhaps a red-headed lass as well)? Society is limiting my choice to only one.

    Now, in the US, it was decided way back when that the choice of owning arms could never be taken away. Whether this was wise or not remains to be seen (the story is still being written).
  • by greyhueofdoubt ( 1159527 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @11:45AM (#22989476) Homepage Journal
    >>See, it's stuff like that which keeps me from owning a gun. Takes to long to get ready and if you have one ready, somebody's kid might shoot themselves.

    See, it's stuff like that which keeps me from owning a:
    -swimming pool or hot tub
    -swingset
    -hammer
    -electrical outlet
    -car or truck
    -anything made out of glass
    -climbable tree
    -pet
    -knife
    -rope
    -paint or other chemical
    -soldering iron
    -aspirin or other OTC drugs
    -5-gallon bucket
    -charcoal grill
    -washing machine or dryer
    -large freezer
    -baseballs or bats
    -stairs
    -powerful magnets
    -matches

    The number one killer for kids 5-14 is accidents (mostly vehicle accidents). Anything and everything that can possibly kill someone, HAS killed someone. 5-gallon buckets have that infant warning sticker on the side for a reason (also mandated by law). I understand the desire to childproof the home, but there is NO such thing as childproof. Haven't you people ever been 5-14 before? My 14-year-old cousin killed himself. I knew how to pick locks at that age. Some of my friends were already starting to experiment with drugs.

    My point is that we cannot surrender our every right and privilege in the name of protecting a demographic that has proven consistently to have no other aim in life besides getting hurt and disobeying simple commands. I feel absolutely terrible for any family that has had to work through the loss of a child (been there); however, it bugs me that on BOTH sides of the debate, guns are imbued with special powers and emotional baggage that turns them into semi-human enemies/saviors. They are pieces of metal, people. If violence scares you, then come to grips with violence, not guns. If violence turns you on, then you need to come to grips with that. Anyone with a fierce opinion in this debate needs to take a fearless inventory of their own emotional baggage and discern their real agenda. I'm not saying that one side is inherently more correct than the other.

    For the record, I believe in waiting periods, gun registration, background checks, submitting factory fired bullets to law enforcement, etc. I believe that once those conditions are met, and safety standards are continued to be met, guns should be available to those who want them.

    Of course I also think that kids shouldn't drive until they're 18, so whatever. My social contract would place a lot more responsibility on individuals than our current one.

    -b
  • by BarefootClown ( 267581 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @11:55AM (#22989604) Homepage

    ...if I have good reason to believe that it's very likely you're going to kill someone on the road, I'd be looking into measures to have your driving license revoked.
    You'd...what? You think he's going to commit murder, so you're going to take away a piece of paper? Yeah, that'll stop him.

    Seriously--this is the failure of thought that leads to a lot of these silly laws. People--smart people, even--think that, if you take away permission, then somebody won't be able to do something bad.

    You miss the point that if he's going to do something bad, he probably doesn't care about "permission."

    This is why many of us thing the "gun control" laws are silly: they assume that the person bent on committing a violent crime gives a tinker's damn about "permission" to own a gun.

    Guess what: he doesn't.

    And, beyond that, are you saying that the way to handle somebody you believe is going to commit murder is to waggle your finger at him and say "no, please don't do that?" Seriously--take away a piece of paper? Are you kidding me?

    Do something about it! If you have good reason, don't look into taking away his permission slip, look into taking away his freedom. He can't run people down if he's cooling his heels in a jail cell, and if you have (solid) reason to believe he's going to commit murder, he can be legally detained.

    These are the twin failures of the "gun control" movement: belief that criminals care about the rules (hint: criminals, by definition, break rules), and belief that behaviour is controlled by objects, instead of people. Address the person--the criminal--not the tool.
  • Re:Oblig. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuickSilver_999 ( 166186 ) on Monday April 07, 2008 @12:05PM (#22989736)
    Can we please get over this myth that civil rights and gun control go together? Gun control was started as a racist measure by the Democratic party, led by the KKK wing of the Democrat party as a method of stopping former slaves from getting their hands on weapons. Civil rights was actually pushed by the Republican party overwhelmingly. Here's a funny thing. The Democrats, who created and controlled the KKK, and which is the only political party to have a sitting Senator who was an Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, loves to call Republicans members of the KKK. Oh, and that former KKK member is 3rd in line of succession to the Presidency of the United States. KKK does not equal NRA, KKK=DNC. For more information click here [everything...swrong.com] and here. [wikipedia.org]

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Working...