PRINT
EMAIL
DISCUSSThanks For Not Shooting Us, Chuck
| 04/07/2008The Door wasn’t very kind to Charlton Heston, even though he starred in arguably the greatest Christian movie ever made, Ben-Hur, not to mention playing Moses in The Ten Commandments, John the Baptist in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and Michelangelo in The Agony and the Ecstasy. (Does the Planet of the Apes series qualify as cinematic religion? I say “YES!”) At any rate, we didn’t feature him on our cover until 1998, when he was making himself public enemy number one of the gun-control movement as president of the National Rifle Association. Paul Somerville did a classic dissection of Heston’s political positions as well as NRA propaganda in general, in “The Ten Commandments of Charlton Heston,” which we’re reprinting here along with the amazing pen-and-ink drawing of Door editor Robert Darden, and the same issue included Darden’s sendup of that year’s Academy Awards ceremonies, also reprinted here, prominently featuring Chuck, the Chuckster, Charlton, one of the legendary movie stars from another era. If he’d done nothing except Ben-Hur, it would have been plenty.
Mr. Heston had an opportunity to say a few last words before he passed, which are now making the rounds on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE&feature=related
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."
I do not own a gun. Never have. Never been hunting...heck, I feel sorry for the fish when I catch one. Many NRA types might think me a girly-man for these things. But I tire of the liberal hysteria over guns. I'm not bothered one bit by the thought of a law abiding citizen having a gun. All these quotes attributed to Heston are obviously to be construed that he was a scary rabble rouser. It is worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, he never shot anyone. The old cliche "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is true, whether it's a cliche or not.
"if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns": well, this might be true. Here in Colombia guns are msotly forbidden..., but see it: we have been at "civil war" for the last 60 years. Anyway, I don't bother for people carrying guns if they don't shoot anyone. If it is to shoot empty cans of beer, its ok (hey: I told EMPTY cans of beer. Shooting at cans full of beer - or for that matter, bottles full of wine- this is a SIN)
Firstly, the liberal "hysteria" is reserved for NRA nut cases who think machine guns are perfectly fine in every citizens home. That is unreasonable in civilised industrialized nations.
Every DAY, sixteen children are killed accidentally every day by guns in homes in the USA. Some might say that is an acceptable price. How about if it is your child?
More people are murdered by guns in a medium-sized American city, than in the whole of Great Britain (pop. over 70 million).
Very few people think it realistic that we can roll back to clock to the point where there are very few guns out there in public (though it would be nice to join the rest of the developed world in that regard!)
All we are asking is that gun advocates listen to little reason, let us have a bit more gun registration and control (which is NOT the same as taking away your precious guns) and give up their rabid, mouth-foaming love affair with automatic weapons and howitzers! THAT'S the sort of irrationality that Heston promoted constantly. If you don't believe it, then google his speeches and you will find plenty of evidence!
Ya! I say, damn those damnable statistics that say America has the most violent gun culture on earth, why you can do almost anything with statistics, ceptin maybe raising gunshot victims from their graves.
Well, you've crapped on your own argument! Without the guns, there would not be gunshot victims in the grave!
And without statistics, there are just opinions. What makes the USA the most gun-violent nation on earth? Why, duh, guns do! Knives, ice-picks, and paper airplanes do not cause gun deaths and injuries!
Pretty much every one around the world (except NRA members) agrees that the USA has the most gun violence of ANY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. (Try Googling "gun violence in society", except that you would accuse Google of twisting the stats!) Get real and stop being afraid of the black and white statistical truth!
Yet a cliche is just that. "If murder is a criminal offense, then only criminals commit murder." If we can make smoking a socially unacceptable activity, then why can we not do the same for carrying killing machines? Again, just a question.
Smoke may repel some attackers, however, more serious defensive weapons are desirable.
But, you may be right, some felons would not carry socially unacceptable killing machines.
I happen to live in a community where handguns are socially acceptable for self-defense.
Yes, and we've all noted that by making murder illegal, it no longer occurs, right?
Just like a lib to think the constitution is a pick and choose buffet. A lover of freedom doesn't care what someone does about smoking in their own home and believes in the complete constitution.
I've heard it said that a polite society is a well-armed society.
I am sure we could make "killing machines" socially unacceptable. They already are in many, many social circles. However, if we don't have "killing machines" what do we use to keep those people who want to hurt, kill, or steal from us at bay? Some of us are very concerned about that.
Why don't we make cars illegal? Cars kill people. Why not knives? Knives have killed long before guns. Better include the kitchen knives, just had someone up here go to jail for killing with a butcher knife.
Alcohol causes death, and abuse. Better rid the country of alcohol, again. Remember, it worked so well the first time.
Just saw were people were killed in a bus accident. Better eliminate buses. Tractor trailers as well.
Logging is a very dangerous occupation, so better stop doing it. Same with mining. Can't have anymore coal mine cave-ins kill people. Haul up the miners, shut down the shaft!
People have heart attacks while shoveling snow, so either make it stop snowing, or give up shoveling it. I'd say use a snowblower, but those are dangerous. Plow trucks are not much safer.
In fact, people have heart attacks for no apparent reason. Perhaps we should give up our hearts.
While we're at it, we should just give up our brains as well. If we're not willing to read, understand, and support the Constitution of the United States of America, there's no sense in having a brain.
People can not claim Freedom of Religion without allowing the Right to Bear Arms. The Constitution is not a buffet, you can not pick and choose which aspects you want to partake.
I took my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States some 18 years ago. I served only four years in the Marine Corps, but I still hold that oath dear to my heart. It pains me to hear or read people denouncing aspects of it.
The difference between all those things and guns is that guns are designed for only one purpose: killing. (Say they can be used for "recreation" if you want, but recreational use of guns basically boils down to pretending you're killing things.) Mining, cars, and snow shovels are not made to be killing machines. Guns are. They make it possible for anyone to kill whoever they want, whenever they want. Now please expain to me how this is a good thing for society. :)
And as for the Constitution...defending the Constitution does not mean ignoring all the nuance and debate surrounding it. At least, I hope not. For our sake.
For most law abiding citizens, our desire is not "...to kill whoever they want, whenever they want." as your quote might suggest.
and...
I'm hoping you'll at least read through what I have written as I read through your response.
I wear a seatbelt and drive a well-built vehicle (Land Rover) is to protect myself and my family from drunk drivers and unavoidable accidents. (In fact, I've had 5-point belts installed in our smaller sports car for safety.) Statistics tell us that 327 people die each WEEK in alcohol-related crashes (I refuse to call those "accidents" so we are prepared, so to speak, to save ourselves from 40% of crashes caused by manslaughterers who intentionally get into a car while intoxicated).
If a jumbo jet carrying 327 people crashed each WEEK do you think someone might take enough interest to do something about it? Fact is, 19,500 people die from "medical mistakes" each year--that's even more than die in alcohol-related crashes. But, is anyone going after the doctors with the same venom they are going after law abiding gun owners?
Back to my safety habits--There are many other "preventative" habits I have adopted because they are helpful. One of them is to have a weapon at-the-ready in my home because the statistics tell us that criminals do not break into a home unarmed and with no ill-intent.
I have already halted one armed criminal who broke into our remote house at 3am. I heard him and was able to come up behind him (keeping a safe distance). I told him to put down his weapon or I would shoot him. He was quick to comply, got down flat on his face on his own as was quickly arrested by the law enforcement officers who commended me for two things--that I didn't randomly shoot him to "rid the system of one more criminal" (I am not a vigilanté) and that I was well trained in firearm safety and gun handling (I have a concealed weapon permit and was in the military and grew up hunting deer, waterfowl, and prong-horned antelope for food).
If more criminals knew they might be confronted by someone with a weapon (designed to kill) in each home they break into, more of them would be deterred.
I still hunt for food. It is a part of wildlife management (now, stop your giggling--it honestly has become a way in some states to balance wildlife over-growth) and I love eating a variety of meats throughout the year. My family and I go target shooting to have some competitive fun and sharpen our skills.
This you've heard countless times but it is still true--criminals will still get guns even if guns are banned from our society--that's the way it is, AND they will know that ANY home they go into will be defenseless.
I read that too fast. I thought he said he stopped a one-armed criminal...wasn't there a TV show about that?
Hardy Har Har!!
OoRah, Marine!
It is the second amendment (the RIGHT to keep and bear arms--for those of you who have never read the Constitution) that protects and ensures the first amendment (No, not just freedom of speech, you illiterate boobs--Freedom to exercise our religion without prohibition by "the man"). While I hate to throw around such a powerful word as "inspired" randomly, the U.S.Consitution, including the Bill of Rights is definately a Divinely inspired secular document. Even the parts that don't fit into our "peace at all cost" politically correct worldview.
Thank you for your service, and for speaking the truth.
Semper Fi!
A few facts:
The Federal Convention of Philadelphia, which produced the Constitution, wrote Article 5 TO PROVIDE for amendments to be made to the Constitution. It was never intended for the Constitution to be unchangeable.
There have been 17 amendments made to the Constitution since the ratification of the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights). Most of these amendments CHANGED the original Constitutional directives, e.g, direct election of Senators, changes in the electoral college, repealing the three-fifth's rule which allowed slaves to be considered as three-fifths of a person for apportionment and other purposes, allowing women to vote. On average that is one amendment every 12 years, of course there are periods when there are many and periods when there are few.
There have been thousands of amendments introduced into the Congress in the past 210 years. This is an intended part of our governmental process.
Unlike the storied Ten Commandments, the Constitution is not, and has never been intended to be, chiseled in stone. It was not an object of worship for those who wrote it.
An attempt to amend the Constitution cannot be considered an attack on the Constitution, since the Constitution itself provides for amendment. The Constitution does not need to be defended against amendments, it provides for amendments.
If someone wants to amend the Second Amendment, it is their right as a citizen to make that effort. If you want to keep it just as it is, it is your right as a citizen to make that effort. You can think they are wrong, you can think they are illiterate boobs, you can think it is the worst idea in the world, but it is not an attack on the Constitution. It is simply an attempt to amend the Constitution as provided for by the Constitution.
This all misses the point. Heston was more than just a gun advocate. He represented, in many ways, much of what was wonderful about that time. He had the misfortune of taking an anti-liberal position during the 90s, before the internet and conservative media had taken off, and was thus at the mercy of the left (and the left showed little mercy to those who refused to submit).
I own no guns. But the gun control movement in the 90s had begun to speak of eliminating or simply pushing aside the 2nd amendment. And once that begins, the Bill of Rights becomes worth less than the paper it is written on. I disagreed with some of the NRA's stances, but fully supported the defense of the Bill of Rights against a new movement willing to say if the Bill of Rights is in our way, it's time to get rid of it, or at least the parts we don’t like.
Thank goodness the man who played Moses stepped up to the plate and helped stop it. The crime problem is a problem in America's soul, not its property. Other countries suffer other problems, and need not play the moral high ground. Heston was comfortable enough with himself to say so. And I am glad he did.
Dave G. you are good.
I am glad you posted.
While I Do Get Tired of This"Conservative Vs.Liberal"Rehash*(*Personally,There's Not too Much Difference Between Them to Matter!!),I Fervently Beleive In The Right of Law Abiding*(*Note:I Said"Law Abiding"!!Gang Bangers;Mental Patients;Convicted Felons Are Hardly'Law abiding'!!The'Militia Movement'on the other hand are sort of like the Law Abiding Gun Owner's"Crazy Aunt In The Basement":While Essentially They Do Have The Letter of The Law,
These Dale Gribble/Barney Fife/Larry the Cable Guy Goofballs running around in East Texas;Northern Idaho;etc.playing like theyr'e the Late Richard Widmark in"Halls of Montezuma"and spouting about the"New World Order Coming to Get Them!!" Don't do us Much Favor Either!!)Citizens To Legally Own firearms!!
And The Late Charlton Heston Was Truly A Class act!!
He Was Always Able To Listen To Both Sides Of The Issue But Not Get Bent Out of Shape Over It,Which Is More Than One Can say About ann Coulter;Michelle Malkin;Fred Phelps;Jeremiah Wright;etal!!
Rest In Peace Chuck!!We'll Miss You!!
Heston is so right! All of the founding fathers supported the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Here in Florida crime went down when the right to carry a concealed weapon became legal. Long live the NRA. And watch out for the democratic candidates trying to pretend they are pro-gun. They arent.
No matter which of the three stinkers we get in the next election, Chucky will always be my president! ;-)
Amen, Brother!
I read the Academy Award 'acceptance' speech. Boy, Chuck had some issues with perceived persecution, didn't he? Poor kid; rich white male with a gun; no one takes them seriously, huh?
So Charlton Heston has died
Gone on last chariot ride
Gadzooks and forsooth!
He didst speak the truth
His guns from his dead hands were pried
Not by a pussy like you.
Hey! Watch your language.
Let's have a little respect for pussy here.!
When the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, there were no National Guard Units in any of the States. That's why individual citizens were given the right to bear arms at that time.
--
But, the 2nd Amendment has no connection with folks who are gun collectors who don't even have a legal need to own a firearm in the first place. The NRA has abused the 2nd Amendment to suit the purpose of its members.
--
I don't have a problem with citizens being licensed to have a firearm for self-protection in certain cases or have a rifle and/or a shotgun for hunting game which they are actually going to eat after they kill it.
--
Just this past weekend, at a Tulsa Gun Show, a man who was selling handguns let a person attending hold one which he was selling. Well, the gun was loaded and the exhibitor and the guy who pulled the trigger were both lucky someone was not shot.
Be prepared to have Randman attack you for exercising your first amendment right to express an interpretation of the second amendment. And perhaps be called a pussy. Or a liberal. Freedom means having the right to shout down or name call those who have a different perspective, and its so much easier than reasoned discussion and attempting to understand each other. Shouting and namecalling- it makes America great!
I don't have a legal need to have an automobile, but I have one. I don't have a legal need to have a dog, but I have one. About the only thing I have a "legal need" to have is food, clothing, and shelter for my minor child. But that hasn't stoppped me from heading to the local Meglo-Mart to pick up the latest techno gidget my wife is allowing me to buy.
People do not need a "legal need" to own weapons. They have the legal right (for now) and that is all that matters.
Just because we now have National Guard units, doesn't mean we as citizens are "safe" from tyranny. Many a nation has been overthrown by its military.
You state that the NRA has abused the 2nd Amendment. What about those who have attempted to destroy the 2nd Amendment? People/Organizations like the Brady Bill backers. People like those in NYC who expressly prohibit guns within the city? That's right--private citizens are not allowed to have guns in NYC. So that means all those guns used by gang-bangers don't reallye exist. Same with Washington DC, which prohibits handguns.
In 1993, during the Los Angeles riots, the California National Guard was delayed in deploying to the streets of Los Angeles to protect property and people. The delay was actually quite substantial. Without this delay, the National Guard may have been able to stop some of the looting, property damage, and injuries that occured.
What caused the delay? Due to limits imposed by the city, the local National Guard Unit's weapons were OUTSIDE the city limits.
Religion has abused it's rights under the Constitution. Should we abolish organized religion?
The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Does it state anywhere that Religous organizations should not pay taxes? Does it state that churches should be exempt from labor laws, or not have to pay for city services? No. Nor does it state that religious displays should be prohibited, but that is for another time and place.
Luke mentioned above that the examples in my 1st post are different than guns, because they were not expressly designed as killing machines. There is very little difference between "intention to kill" and "unintentionally killing". Someone is dead regardless. People who drink and drive know they might kill someone. People who use drugs and show up for work know they might hurt someone. People who fly know the plane might crash. Most people who own guns know they will do everything possible to NOT kill someone. Of course there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions to every situation.
I have seen cars slip out of gear and hit something. I have heard about mines collasping, killing people. I have never, ever, heard of a gun jumping off the counter/gun rack/seat, aiming, and firing to kill someone on it's own.
Since the first killing machine created was a human, should we outlaw humans?
The comment above is correct, never has a gun jumped off a table and fired a shot by itself, let alone killed anyone. Firearms are used in legitimate self-defense about 2 million times a year according to Prof. Gary Kleck, criminologist at FSU. That's a real figure! Although I'm not too bad with my fists I have no illusions about whipping anyone who wants my wallet or my life cause he doesn't like my looks, or because he hates the world. But that firearm, legally carried concealed makes me the equal of anyone, except maybe those who can shoot better. Last thing I would ever do is pull that trigger, but I would NEVER carry one if I were not prepared to pull that trigger. Never bluff with a firearm, criminals have no sense of humor. My hat is off to that lady security officer at the church in Colorado who wounded the psycho who had just killed two teens at a youth camp. He decided to finish the job she started. No further senseless murders that day. And long live the NRA, and yes Charlton Heston was my president during those years when he was head of the NRA.
Are you now on the faculty at Charis Divinity School? Hope that's going well. Did you finish your doctorate from the University of South Africa? (congratulations are in order, I see you are using Dr. in your writing- you should have Charis update their website, it says you are "in progress"). Is it as dangerous in South Africa as it sounds like it is in Plantation?
Charlton Heston, as I remember him...
The Ten Commandments:
Sephora, played by Yvonne de Carlo, is talking to Moses, played by Charlton Heston in the 1956 movie The Ten Commandments, directed by Cecil B. DeMille. Moses has been offered to select among the daughters of Jethro whom he would marry.
Sephora: She was very beautiful wasn’t she, this woman of Egypt, who left her scar upon your heart. Her skin was white as curd. Her eyes green as the Cedars of Lebanon. Her lips tamarisk honey. Like the breast of a dove her arms were soft. And he wine of desire was in her veins.
Moses: Yes, she was beautiful as a jewel.
Sephora: A jewel has brilliant fire, but gives no warmth. Our hands are not so soft, but they can serve. Our bodies not so white, but they are strong. Our lips are not perfumed, but they speak the truth. Love is not an art to us, it is life to us. We are not dressed in gold and fine linen, strength and honor are our clothing. Our tents are not the columned halls of Egypt, but our children play happily before them. We can offer you little, but we offer all we have.
Moses: I have not little, Sephora, I have nothing.
Sephora: Nothing from some is more than gold from others.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In this scene Sethi, played by Cedric Hardwicke, is on his death bed. At his side is his son Rameses, played by Yul Brynner, and Nefretiri, played by Anne Baxter.
Sethi: You’ll be Pharaoh by sunset Rameses. I hope you are content at last.
Rameses: I[‘m content to be your son. You have restored Egypt to her greatness. I shall make her greatness feared among nations.
Sethi: No doubt you can overcome anything, but your own arrogance.
Nefretiri: Don’t exhaust yourself great one, dear great one.
Sethi: Why not, kitten. You are the only thing I regret leaving. You have been my joy.
Nefretiri: And you my only love.
Sethi: Ah hah. Now you’re cheating. There was another.
Nefretiri: Yes.
Sethi: I know. I love him too. With my last breath I’ll break my own law and speak the name of Moses, Moses.
Rameses: The royal falcon is flown unto the Sun.
I noticed that even those who read the constitution didn't bother to quote the entire amendment.
The full text of the second amendment 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.
I'm no expert, but certain things seem obvious to me:
1) The word used is "people," not "persons." The constitutional language is consistent - when it uses the former, it means the people as a whole; when it uses the latter, it refers to individuals.
2) The purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated: so that well-regulated militias may exist.
Therefore -
- communities have a right to establish and maintain militias. That means at least some members of the community have to have guns and know how to use them.
- government has a right to regulate militias. Thus, reasonable (and only reasonable) restrictions may be made on the type and number of weapons held and on the requirements to get a license.
The following are not well-regulated militias:
The national guard units who have to drive several miles out of town to recover their weapons because that town has outlawed all firearms within city limits.
The lone wolf who turned his home into a personal fort and kept an arsenal of assault weapons.
We live in the country. We can't wait for the town's militia to show up and defend us. We would be dead by the time anyone arrived.
Also, the right for a militia includes against domestic tyrany just as much as it does foreign tyrany. Remember, that our forefathers came from a government who tyranized them.
My husband belongs to the NRA. There are all kinds of quotes from our forefathers separate from the second amendment showing the writers meant for everyone to have a right to bear arms for far more than hunting. Hunting back then was a given. It wasn't like there were chain grocery stores down the block.
I also live in the country. Why could we not be part of that well-regulated militia? I have been part of a well-regulated fire department, which also responds to emergencies. I don't think a militia has to be formal to be well-regulated.
I also don't see a need for home protectors to have assault weapons or artillery. And, is it really an unreasonable burden to ask home protectors to observe safety regulations and obtain licenses?
Whatever system we choose, even the system of having no system, there will be problems and unavoidable tragedies. Right now, most of the tragedies -unless you count the ones in the movies - seem to be the result of not enough regulation (there must be stats; I wonder where I could look those up).
You are right about history. The people who wrote the constitution were worried about having the power of the sword overly concentrated in the federal government. Their solution was to maintain state militias. The state militia idea is arguably outdated. What can take its place? Individuals? Maybe so. But I still say the need for good regulation is not outdated; perhaps it is even more necessary than it was in the early nineteenth century.
I appreciate your comments, Jan. I think this is the difference between us: You trust individual citizens more than lawmakers, and I have it the other way around. Not so?
Post new comment