Charlton Heston dies

although i agree with you 100% about his gun stance and affiliation with the NRA, C., i for one choose to reflect on the man who publicly stood up for and subsequently fought for, racial equality during a time when it was most definitely NOT the popular thing to do. he did it at the risk of being blacklisted (no pun intended) in hollywood. i give him this -- charlton heston stood strong for what he believed it, practiced what he preached, and didn't give a damn how it would affect his career and livelihood.

oh, and the other thing i appreciated about him is the fact he married his college sweetheart in the 40's and he remained married to her throughout his lifetime.

for you, Original Glove Hat, i hear and i obey!

<param></param><param></param>

A class act, the likes of which we'll never see again in Hollywood.

The narrow minded can only focus on his gun stance.

"Heston campaigned for Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.[10] When an Oklahoma movie theater premiering his movie was segregated, he joined a picket line outside in 1961.[11] During the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C. in 1963, he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. In later speeches, Heston said he helped the civil rights cause "long before Hollywood found it fashionable."

RIP

eggcream wrote: The narrow minded can only focus on his gun stance.

Yeah, a shame, isn't it?

Kind of like how some narrow-minded folk can only focus on what Barack Obama was doing with his hands when the National Anthem was playing once at a campaign stop somewhere once...it's a shame, isn't it?

queencallipygos wrote: Yeah, a shame, isn't it?

Kind of like how some narrow-minded folk can only focus on what Barack Obama was doing with his hands when the National Anthem was playing once at a campaign stop somewhere once...it's a shame, isn't it?

Okay!

MichaelKeys wrote: So, what happened? How did this progressive and seemingly forward-leaning individual have a change of heart, switch his party affiliation and become nothing less than a right-wing caricature shilling for the NRA and the likes of Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Shrub?

Oh, and he was a pretty wooden actor, IMHO.

This book is pretty much a blueprint for how it happens...

not to mention, wasn't reagan a friend of his from hollywood?

MichaelKeys wrote:

[quote=sweet tea]...wasn't reagan a friend of his from hollywood?

That's not much of an excuse. .

perhaps not, but it might be an explanation.

Drano wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys]my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is for us to have an army not for each of us to be cowboys.

Sorry, dude, but even leaving aside the "cowboys" straw man, that's just silly. Provisions for the armed forces are made in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2, among others. The framers would not have bothered to put, "You have the right to join the army when we're not conscripting you." in The Bill of Rights.

I think that MichaelKeys was referring to something a little different.

The exact text is:

"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."

The confusion seems to come in over whether "the people" is an individual or a collective sense -- in other words, whether the document meant that "an individual can have guns" or whether it meant "a community can arm itself". Since the document refers to the security of a free STATE, as opposed to a free PERSON, my wager is that they meant more of a "you can build an army" as opposed to "you can assemble an exhaustive personal armory."

Not that I'm saying that the individual shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm just thinking that the intent was more of a community sense, and not that we should each be issued our own ICBMs or anything is all.

"How is it narrow minded? He made a point of being a spokesman for the NRA."

That wasn't the only thing he stood for hence my narrow minded comment and my post on his civil rights stance. Liberals will never comment on that issue, most probably didn't even know, they'll just focus on the gun issue.

"Kind of like how some narrow-minded folk can only focus on what Barack Obama was doing with his hands when the National Anthem was playing once at a campaign stop somewhere once...it's a shame, isn't it?"

You bet it is especially if you're running for President for gods sake. The majority of Americans salute the flag when the national anthem is playing.


"A class act, the likes of which we'll never see again in Hollywood."

"I'd bet good money the people affected by the Columbine massacre think otherwise. Or anyone else with a sense of decency and respect for innocent kids gunned down. "

Um, you quote my class act comment yet reply about the Columbine massacre?

"Oh, and he was a pretty wooden actor, IMHO"

Whatever you say

"Neither do I. But then again, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is for us to have an army not for each of us to be cowboys. "

Yes, that's "your" interpretation.

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=Drano][quote=MichaelKeys]my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is for us to have an army not for each of us to be cowboys.

Sorry, dude, but even leaving aside the "cowboys" straw man, that's just silly. Provisions for the armed forces are made in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2, among others. The framers would not have bothered to put, "You have the right to join the army when we're not conscripting you." in The Bill of Rights.

I think that MichaelKeys was referring to something a little different.

The exact text is:

"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."

The confusion seems to come in over whether "the people" is an individual or a collective sense -- in other words, whether the document meant that "an individual can have guns" or whether it meant "a community can arm itself". Since the document refers to the security of a free STATE, as opposed to a free PERSON, my wager is that they meant more of a "you can build an army" as opposed to "you can assemble an exhaustive personal armory."

Not that I'm saying that the individual shouldn't have the right to own a gun. I'm just thinking that the intent was more of a community sense, and not that we should each be issued our own ICBMs or anything is all.

That is a substantially different argument than "You can have an army", and definitely a better one. Still, the army, the armed forces, in fact "the militia" by name are all over the Constitution. The ground has been covered, and it's well established by that point in the document (The Bill of Rights) that there will be armed forces. Too, a goodly number of the framers (and later the original Republicans) regarded militarism as the road to tyrranny and a standing army of any sort as a manifestation of same. In that context, maybe it means, "Well, it appears that we're going to need an army. But we don't want the army to have a monopoly on guns, so this here says that other people have the right to one."

Now on balance, I don't entirely subscribe to that. But the thing isn't a model of clarity (face it, you could toss the opening clause altogether as the second part is not expressly made conditional upon it), and I can't discount it either. My personal view is that the framers had it in mind that adult males should or would have a couple of firearms that had contemporary military application but could be used for hunting, personal defense, community defense or other legal pursuits.

Anyhow, in the interests of disclosure, two things: 1) I come from a place where most people had a couple of guns and nobody got shot, so that of course colors my view, and 2) I tend to prefer the broadest reasonable reading of the Constitution in all cases, not just that of gun ownership. That said, I do not own a firearm. I abide by the laws of communities where I choose to live, and it's too much of a pain in the neck to have one(legally) in NYC.

Keep an eye on this Supreme Court thing though. It'll be interesting.

eggcream wrote:
"Kind of like how some narrow-minded folk can only focus on what Barack Obama was doing with his hands when the National Anthem was playing once at a campaign stop somewhere once...it's a shame, isn't it?"

You bet it is especially if you're running for President for gods sake. The majority of Americans salute the flag when the national anthem is playing.
.

Eggcream, you have to move on, bro.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem3.jpg

[b]Hand Over Heart

Claim: Photograph shows Barack Obama without his hand over his heart while the U.S. national anthem is being played.

Status: True.

Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2007]

...(It's also not clear from the photograph or the video just what the candidates are looking at. The Flag Code advises that they should be "standing at attention facing the flag," but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they're standing. Presumably there's another flag off to the right of the platform, since most of them are facing that direction.)

Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web.Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner.

[b]"I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant."
As for whether this incident was an "accident," whether Senator Obama habitually declines to perform the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there's any particular meaning to the (non-)action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded: "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." The senator himself said that "My grandfather taught me when I was 2. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing." When television's Inside Edition ran a segment on this issue, they included some images (supplied by the Obama campaign) of the senator standing with his hand over his heart during other playings of the national anthem:

See images on site with hand over heart.



there are also videos of him with his hand OVER his heart during the pledge in the Senate - he is reciting and leading the pledge as he does this.

Eggcream, I am starting to wonder about you.
This is a non issue.

P.S.

Charlton Heston.
Happy trails.

I really liked "Ben Hur" and the "Ten Commandments".