Topic awaiting preservation: Heston steps down. (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2003/04/27/nation.20030427-sbt-MICH-A10-Heston_steps_down.sto

What lies ahead for the future of the NRA?

While this is sad, it wasn't unexpected. Mr. Heston has been ill for a while.

The NRA will continue, hopefully growing stronger every day. 'The drive for five' continues.

And those U.S. citizens that believe in their 2nd Amendment right should be members.

I can't read the artical, it's seven days old now, but I can understand enough to know that this means Charlton Heston is resigning as the leader of the NRA.

I'm not a huge fan of a non-evolving constitution, one that doesn't keep up with the times, and I wish changes were easier to have implemented. However, one thing I do believe must always be guarenteed, is that freedom has to be unlimited, until the point where it directally effects the freedom of someone else, and with that, I believe that anyone who wants to own a gun, should be allowed too.

Charlton Heston took lots of criticism for his role as a gun activist. But he had an important message, regardless of his means to get it out. He'll always be remembered as a symbol of freedom, a symbol of keeping a population from being controlled.

He'll be missed.

Amen Dan. Well said.

I have a feeling this is quickly going to move to the Philosophy forum.

quote:

---

We recoil in horror and search for explanations, but we never face up to the obvious preventive measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy.

Josh Sugarmann

---

I wish I could be there to prise that gun from Mr Heston's 'Cold Dead Hands' when his time comes.

[edit] Allow me to elaborate on my point...
The amendment was written/ratified at a time when the Americas were still relatively volatile and one could easily be gunned down in the street for looking at someone in the wrong way.

To add an extra layer of volatility, the country was reeling from war and the smell of gunpowder was still fresh in the nations memories.

In the 21st century, the only real threat is via that very constitutional amendment which declares everyone has the right to be a potential murderer, and by allowing such weapons in such quantities, and so freely, it's no wonder there are so many gun related deaths each year.

As long as people are encouraged to shoot first, talk later, the USA and other gun tolerant nations will NEVER be truly civilised societies.

We are quick to send our troops into Iraq and their likes, under the alleged threat of WOMD, yet we turn our eyes from the threat on our own doorsteps.


[This message has been edited by Dufty (edited 05-05-2003).]

i knew i shouldn't have poked my head in here......

the 2nd amendment: 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.

to me, that means A.) we could defend our country/selves and B.) that our government wasn't the only one with guns....so if the government became oppressive....we could overthrow it.
right or wrong...that's what it means to me.

gunlaws...as they are now... have not done anything to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
it's so much easier to just say "ban guns" rather than fix the problems of WHY these people are criminals in the first place.



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Dufty

..and while we're at our constitution tamperring, lets regulate cars to be able to drive no faster than 15km/hour, that way, if people choose to break the law and drive drunk, the risk of killing people will be much lower.

Stupid, right?

There's nothing wrong with guns, they arn't poisonous, don't spread racist remarks. They don't steal from you, hit your spouse, make long distance phone calls when you're out. A guns not going to molest a child, starve a puppy, or hack into a computer network. Nor can a gun commit murder.

Regulating something, based on the possibility of someone breaking the law with it's use is against the very freedoms that allow a consitution, to exist.



[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 05-05-2003).]

There is a difference however between a car, whose primary use is transportation, and a weapon. Yes, cars can become dangerous when used improperly, but people don't buy cars in order to kill people. Guns can ONLY be used to shoot things. Guns cannot be used responsibly as utilitarian objects. In this age, and in this country, there is no need.

Edit: Grammar and such.

[This message has been edited by SPyX (edited 05-05-2003).]

"In this day and age there is no need"

Perhaps not, for some people.

But just because your daily life deosn't warrant owning a gun doesn't mean that everyone else lives in the same circumstances...

And of course, more importantly, once you take away the right of the individuals to arm themselves, you have taken a major step towards a totalitarian society in which the people can't defend themselves from the government or the masses...

That is a bad thing, plain and simple.

A cars use is to transport people, a guns is to trasnport bullets. Neither were designed with murder in mind.
I could kill someone with a meat cleaver, designed to be able to cut meat. That doesn't mean cleavers should be outlawed.

Oh yes, the local PTA versus the U.S. army. Good thing they had their .45s with which to defend themselves. Weak argument mate.

I suppose I should clarify my stance a bit. I think concealable handguns should be outlawed for civilians. At least as the next step.

quote:

---

A cars use is to transport people, a guns is to trasnport bullets. Neither were designed with murder in mind.

---

Oh please. Do I even need to say it?

Should people be able to defend themselves?
-Well yes if there is a reasonable thread.
(eg when you live in suburbia where nothing ever happens, and there is a guard at the entrance off the block there is no need for a gun whatsoever)

Should people have guns for doing so?
-Certainly NOT when they don't know how to use it. Buy a gun but learn to shoot first.
This way you get rid off a whole lot off stupid accidents.

Should children play with guns and being able to kill or hurt each other?
-NO Fucking WAY. Not ever!

Should adults play with guns and being able to kill or hurt each other?
-NO, but if they want to play let them do it on proper rifle-range.

Is your neighbourhood saver when you carry a gun around?
-I don't have stats on this but i think not, due the people who want's to be a 'hero'.
or who want to tell the neighbour: "Turn the fucking radio down or i shoot"
or who are plain stupid and shoot themselves in the foot.

Should criminality be prevented when possible?
-Yes.

Should people have guns to overthrow an totalitary regime?
-We invented democracy to do this. But we need to check constanly if the democracy is still working.

Do we want criminals to have easy acces to guns and bullets?
-Don't think so.

Do you think a human live is worth less then your own stuff?
-Nope

Do i care about the NRA?
-Not realy, but i think they are to important.

Do i care about the chairman from the NRA?
-No

Should this be discussed on this forum??
-Doubtfull, but i think not.

__________________________________________
"Art has to be forgotten. Beauty must be realized."
Piet Mondriaan

[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 05-06-2003).]

quote:

---

Oh yes, the local PTA versus the U.S. army. Good thing they had their .45s with which to defend themselves. Weak argument mate.

---

So...you're gonna base your opinion on the right to bear arms on one hypothetical situation...and a silly one at that?

Talk about weak arguments, mate...

I don't believe in guns, I don't own one nor do I want one...

...but, ladies and gentlemen, I'm in the Army- it's my job to make sure I can't impose my views upon you.


Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342

Tricky issue, full of rhetoric on both sides that often does more harm than good.

Right to own a gun? sure

Guns to fight off US Army? Not a chance. .45s, 9mms and .30-30s don't win battles with 3rd world armies...even a couple platoons of M-16s and 5.56mm Squad Assualt Weapons don't win battles with the US Army. You wanna beat them, you need F-16s, B-2s, Abrahms tanks and Howitzers...not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, likely. Even if one were so 'pro-gun' to think civilians should own Howitzers and anti-tank rockets, how many of us could afford such a ridiculous armory? Not many, I'd guess.

Right of the people (through their representatives) to require gun owners to show proof of safety knowledge and a moderate competancy with their weapon? Absolutely.

That does not take away the rights of people to own guns. I don't advocate that at all. I do think that those people who own guns should show the public that they know how to treat the tool with respect. We do it with cars...we have marriage licences...we have business licences. There is no reason at all we couldn't do the same thing with guns. Exceptions could be made (like is often the case with autos) for rural/farming people. Beurocracy should be kept to a minimum...NYC is NOT a good model...but I'm not opposed to a bit of regulation and very strict enforcement of those gun laws that are reasonable.

Each right in the Constitution comes with a matching responsibility. The right to speech and press includes a responsibility to not libel or slander, nor to 'yell fire in a crowded theater.' The right to own a gun, I believe, comes with a responsibility to know how to use that gun safely, how to store it safely, how to keep it from the dangerous curiosity of an unsupervised child, etc. That's not unreasonable at all.

The NRA is as guilty of useless, even problem causing, enflaming rhetoric as any number of 'anti-gun' groups. Sometimes their representatives come out and say the most ridiculous statements -- for shock value maybe? -- instead of seeing that a real problem does exist right now and then trying to use logic and compromise to find a satisfactory solution. For that reason alone they are near the bottom of my 'I like them' list. I will say, though, that the NRA DOES do a lot to advocate gun safety classes and the like. That is the reason they're on my 'I like them' list at all, even if near the bottom.

well said mobrul

and this should probably be in the Philosophy forum

ohh and the future of the NRA is not in any sort of doubt I'm sure Ted Nugent will step up to the plate. Wango Tango baby!~



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 05-06-2003).]

quote:

---

you're gonna base your opinion. . . on one hypothetical situation

---

It was a rebuttal, not a full statement of my position. I simply wanted to point out how foolish it would be for a local militia to try and fight the U.S. Army today. Come now.

Ok spyx, but again, you're going on a single assumption (us vs. US army).

Who says that's the way it would be?

Besides which, the odds of winning have little to do with the right to bear arms. It obviously doesn't mean exactly the same thing these days, but the basic principle has certainly not changed.

And of course, there is also the very basic fact that even if you could completely eliminate hand guns, it would have little to no impact on crime. There were murders, rapes and robberies on a very grand scale before the advent of the handgun - changing the choice of weapons available to a criminal does not alter the thought process that makes a man act as a criminal.

Period.

Now, I do not own a gun, I have never owned a gun, and I have no plans to ever own a gun. But that's me.

{{edit - and of course, as usual, Mobrul is very much on the money with his statements. I am certainly not opposed to legislation that attempts to regulate gun ownership. But you can't simply say 'we don't need guns anymore, so you can't have them'}}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-06-2003).]

Well said, mobrul.

The right to own fire arms is very important and I think people overlook just how much crime is averted by the lawful ownership of guns.

Bottom line: We should have the right to own guns *and* our representatives should pass a minimal amount of legislation to ensure a reasonable level of competency for their use.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well, I've watched as both sides unfold and I still can't get my head around the argument.

Maybe it's because I'm British (and as such, have never been exposed to guns), or maybe because I'm a humanitarian by nature, but I fail to see how the ownership of objects whose sole purpose is to kill efficiently, can bring anything but misery.

OK, I'll stop. I obviously don't have much support on this and I'm not an activist. No one will ever be able to get handguns banned, but no one will ever be able to convince me of the righteousness of the ability to own a device whose only viable function is killing.

Edit: Well, didn't see dufty's post. So I guess I'm not the only one. But I'll stop all the same.

[This message has been edited by SPyX (edited 05-06-2003).]

quote:

---

Bottom line: We should have the right to own guns *and* our representatives should pass a minimal amount of legislation to ensure a reasonable level of competency for their use.

---

This represents my main issue with the NRA. I personally am not a fan of guns and don't think they really do much for improving anything in modern society. That being said, that's my opinion and I don't have an issue with someone like Pugz owning a gun (the thought of InSiDer with a prop gun however makes my knees wobble for some reason. hmm... ) However the NRA takes such a hardnose stand against any sort of gun regulation unfotunately tends to force one into a "for them or against them" type stance. An example being the recent attempt to have a gun "fingerprint" database. Personally none of my gun owning friends were against this legislation (for those of you that don't know, it basically would make it so that when someone buys a gun, it gets shot into a barrel and the striations created by the barrel get added to a database ala a ballistics test so that later comparisons could be made on slugs from a crime scene and make it easier to trace the weapon used) yet the NRA fought against it out of hand. This kind of blind distrust of any gun legislation bothers me.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

...something related: http://www.designerslounge.org/board/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=2388&s=640e1296d6d513ed56e552b8bc9b8713

I've a question for my European friends here.
I've heard various things about guns being illegal in various parts of Europe. On the other hand, I know that hunting and other shooting clubs exist. How does this work? I'm very serious.
Is it maybe that pistols are illegal?
Or maybe that firearms are limited to specially licensed shooting clubs?
Please explain.

Edit

Essentially, you CAN own a shotgun or rifle, as long as you're over 17, and intend to use it and store it (unless granted permission from the home secretary), in a Gun Club.

The main exceptions being if you're a practicing farmer/game keeper.

/Edit


[This message has been edited by Dufty (edited 05-06-2003).]

Ummm...isn't the topic about Heston stepping down from the NRA? How did we go from that, to gun ownership (and the right to bear arms), then on to 'militia' vs US Army?

Well, in response to the part about the US Army...assuming it is only the Army...an easy win, really, for the militias...it's not really about the kind of weapons used here...though local militias do have access to more potent forms of weapons than just pistols and rifles.

Case in point, it wouldn't be a 'stand up war'...more like guerilla tactics (if the militias are smart). Also, I take it we are not talking about the Guard units, right? Well, if the Militias could then get the Guard units on their side...the picture starts to change radically, now doesn't it? That's actually a good question...let's say a couple of states have a problem with the Federal Government...so, they have their Guard units, right? And any local militias that they could 'muster'...

Really depends on a lot of factors, I'd say...

Let's take a look at the worst-case scenario...the Federal Government 'runs amok', and a President refuses to allow elections, and declares himself as a dictator. Assuming that he can remain in control of the military (Commander in Chief), it's the US Army (in this case...not sure what happened with the other Armed Forces) against the rest of the US. That means all Guard units, plus all local militias...I think the US Army would go down in nothing flat...that's a hell of a lot of Guard and local militia units...

Assuming it is the total military of the US vs local militias...now, that would be an interesting scenario...I'm not sure about that one...

well, yeah...

...remember that most regular army are OCONUS anyway..


Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342

OCONUS
acronym; Outside Continental United States

(had to look it up, so I figured I'd post it to save anyone else the trouble.)

heh..oops... sorry...




Code - CGI - links - DHTML - Javascript - Perl - programming - Magic - http://www.twistedport.com
ICQ: 67751342