Dead Charlton Heston

[The Miser 17]

I am American and do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to ever own the gun. The fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and it will NEVER be amended in my lifetime. It would take a 2/3 vote of both sides of Congress which would never happen (Hillary Clinton would even vote against it, as she was talking this weekend about how much she enjoyed learning to shoot). Then you would need 3/4 of the states. I'm not sure that they would get 5 states at this point. So the mentions in this thread that the US should just amend the Constitution is not based in reality.

[Monoclinic 39]

I am American and do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to ever own the gun. The fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and it will NEVER be amended in my lifetime. It would take a 2/3 vote of both sides of Congress which would never happen (Hillary Clinton would even vote against it, as she was talking this weekend about how much she enjoyed learning to shoot). Then you would need 3/4 of the states. I'm not sure that they would get 5 states at this point. So the mentions in this thread that the US should just amend the Constitution is not based in reality.

 

Well, that just leaves plan B alors, time to fire up our Heath Robinson H-bomb and undiscover the new world. We could then convince the Portuguese, who don't appear to be too busy finding Maddy, to set sail on a voyage of discovery to refind the now undiscovered new world, send out all the most despised European politicians (er I'm guessing that's most of them) to colonise and more importantly write a constitution outlawing the use of guns. After all it was the Chinese who invented gunpowder and there are those that wish to surpress the rise of this superpower. The embargo on Chinese gunpowder could be disguised as a Free Tibet protest.

 

Stay tuned, next I intend to tackle climate change with the use of a tin of brasso, an ostrich feather and the population of Liechtenstein.

[The Miser 17]

I am American and do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to ever own the gun. The fact of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and it will NEVER be amended in my lifetime. It would take a 2/3 vote of both sides of Congress which would never happen (Hillary Clinton would even vote against it, as she was talking this weekend about how much she enjoyed learning to shoot). Then you would need 3/4 of the states. I'm not sure that they would get 5 states at this point. So the mentions in this thread that the US should just amend the Constitution is not based in reality.

 

Well, that just leaves plan B alors, time to fire up our Heath Robinson H-bomb and undiscover the new world. We could then convince the Portuguese, who don't appear to be too busy finding Maddy, to set sail on a voyage of discovery to refind the now undiscovered new world, send out all the most despised European politicians (er I'm guessing that's most of them) to colonise and more importantly write a constitution outlawing the use of guns. After all it was the Chinese who invented gunpowder and there are those that wish to surpress the rise of this superpower. The embargo on Chinese gunpowder could be disguised as a Free Tibet protest.

 

Stay tuned, next I intend to tackle climate change with the use of a tin of brasso, an ostrich feather and the population of Liechtenstein.

 

It all makes sense to me, except the signature line asking people to vote for Dunn as it has become clear to me that he is indeed, immortal.

[TAFKAG 70]

but I sincerely believe that an armed and educated population is much harder to tyrannize.

 

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (starring Babs Windsor?) obviously believe the same thing. That'd certainly make you think twice before proclaiming Heidegger's views on the nature of being are utter poppycock in your 9am seminar, eh.

[Terminator 13]

Now that Chuck's well and truly popped his clogs, does anyone know if a rifle was finally taken from his cold dead hands?

[deadsox 892]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,305]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

[Dave to the Grave 11]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

It seems that Charlton beat Bill Clinton's daughter 5-4 in a penalty shoot out back in October 2005.

 

Edit to add, it was Robert Huth.

[deadsox 892]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

 

The liberals.

[Tomb raider 9]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

 

The liberals.

 

Congratulations! Those nasty liberals drew level when Senator No popped his clogs, but the historic relevance of your success will propably proven to be far more significant.

 

I just searched for some information on the Supreme Court's decision you mention and I must admit that much of it made sense to me. I agree that the Second Amendment was never meant to include just the militia, so from that point of view there is no reason to alter its interpretation - assuming of course that a nation is willing to base its morality on a legal phrase that was written over two centuries ago in an entirely different context and that has not been altered ever since.

 

Leave it to an imbecile like Scalia though to defend his views by making up complete cock-and-bull arguments:

 

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

 

Oh, plea-se! Not even the most deluded American right-winger would fall for that argument, would he?

[deadsox 892]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

 

The liberals.

 

Congratulations! Those nasty liberals drew level when Senator No popped his clogs, but the historic relevance of your success will propably proven to be far more significant.

 

I just searched for some information on the Supreme Court's decision you mention and I must admit that much of it made sense to me. I agree that the Second Amendment was never meant to include just the militia, so from that point of view there is no reason to alter its interpretation - assuming of course that a nation is willing to base its morality on a legal phrase that was written over two centuries ago in an entirely different context and that has not been altered ever since.

 

Leave it to an imbecile like Scalia though to defend his views by making up complete cock-and-bull arguments:

 

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

 

Oh, plea-se! Not even the most deluded American right-winger would fall for that argument, would he?

 

Morality, tomb raider, such a heavy concept. Please explain to me why your take on the subject is more moral than mine. To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims? While the way that Justice Scalia describes the preference for handguns is not the same as I would describe it, I think that referring to him as an imbecile is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you agree? In fact, if he'd only see the argument your way, he'd suddenly become an eminent scholar. The reason a handgun is preferred is simply because most self defense situations occur indoors where a "long gun" such as a rifle or shotgun is at a disadvantage due to the close quarters. I would rather dispatch the criminal and call the police afterwards.

[Tomb raider 9]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

 

The liberals.

 

Congratulations! Those nasty liberals drew level when Senator No popped his clogs, but the historic relevance of your success will propably proven to be far more significant.

 

I just searched for some information on the Supreme Court's decision you mention and I must admit that much of it made sense to me. I agree that the Second Amendment was never meant to include just the militia, so from that point of view there is no reason to alter its interpretation - assuming of course that a nation is willing to base its morality on a legal phrase that was written over two centuries ago in an entirely different context and that has not been altered ever since.

 

Leave it to an imbecile like Scalia though to defend his views by making up complete cock-and-bull arguments:

 

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

 

Oh, plea-se! Not even the most deluded American right-winger would fall for that argument, would he?

 

Morality, tomb raider, such a heavy concept. Please explain to me why your take on the subject is more moral than mine. To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims? While the way that Justice Scalia describes the preference for handguns is not the same as I would describe it, I think that referring to him as an imbecile is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you agree? In fact, if he'd only see the argument your way, he'd suddenly become an eminent scholar. The reason a handgun is preferred is simply because most self defense situations occur indoors where a "long gun" such as a rifle or shotgun is at a disadvantage due to the close quarters. I would rather dispatch the criminal and call the police afterwards.

 

 

Though I agree that I might have expressed myself a little bit strongly, I never meant to describe my moral framework as superior to yours. Of course, I believe my views on the matter to be the best but I would never claim to be a better person than you or anybody else. In fact, I enjoyed our previous discussion immensely, and though I can't say It made me change my opinion, I must admit that I was out of arguments after only two posts. That sometimes happens when it comes to debating ethical or moral principles.

 

Calling Scalia an imbecile might be a little bit provocative but he certainly has a reputation for excentricity, hasn't he? I don't think it's fair to assume that I would have called him an eminent scholar if he were an outspoken leftwinger. I know enough about the world to know that no person is entirely good or entirely bad - no matter what moral standards you uphold. The thing is that the federal superior judges have been used for political reasons so often that I can barely take their verdicts seriously. The fact that all but two of the judges have been appointed by Republican presidents has a huge impact on their rulings. Especially when it comes to traditionally conservatives themes as gay-rights (remember the sodomy-discussion several years ago?) or abortion. In my opinion Scalia's stand in those debates clearly made him an imbecile, no matter how intelligent he actually might be. Is that an overstatement? Yes, but I'm actually very fond of overstating things. That's what drove me to this forum, actually.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims?

 

Well you've convinced me. I now fully support Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country having a nuclear bomb. Especially a small, easily hidden one.

 

What this has got to do with football I don't know, but since we're going off topic I thought I'd chip in .

[maryportfuncity 10,225]

I think we can bring it back to football if we say that small football clubs - League One and below - should be allowed to carry arms to away matches and permitted perhaps two fatal shootings of obscenely talented opposing players or obscenely rich opposing directors, per season.

[Madame Defarge 21]

I think we can bring it back to football if we say that small football clubs - League One and below - should be allowed to carry arms to away matches and permitted perhaps two fatal shootings of obscenely talented opposing players or obscenely rich opposing directors, per season.

Wait, Maryport, you start out letting footballers carry guns and then all the other sports will want them too! Can you imagine cricket players with the bat in one hand and a pistol in the other?

At least golf wouldn't be quite so boring...if you couldn't quite manage a hole in one on the green, you could always try to put one into your opponent instead.

[deadsox 892]

My side (and Charlton's) won an important Supreme Court decision today, 5-4.

 

Sounds like a penalty shoot out. Who missed the crucial kick?

 

The liberals.

 

Congratulations! Those nasty liberals drew level when Senator No popped his clogs, but the historic relevance of your success will propably proven to be far more significant.

 

I just searched for some information on the Supreme Court's decision you mention and I must admit that much of it made sense to me. I agree that the Second Amendment was never meant to include just the militia, so from that point of view there is no reason to alter its interpretation - assuming of course that a nation is willing to base its morality on a legal phrase that was written over two centuries ago in an entirely different context and that has not been altered ever since.

 

Leave it to an imbecile like Scalia though to defend his views by making up complete cock-and-bull arguments:

 

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

 

Oh, plea-se! Not even the most deluded American right-winger would fall for that argument, would he?

 

Morality, tomb raider, such a heavy concept. Please explain to me why your take on the subject is more moral than mine. To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims? While the way that Justice Scalia describes the preference for handguns is not the same as I would describe it, I think that referring to him as an imbecile is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you agree? In fact, if he'd only see the argument your way, he'd suddenly become an eminent scholar. The reason a handgun is preferred is simply because most self defense situations occur indoors where a "long gun" such as a rifle or shotgun is at a disadvantage due to the close quarters. I would rather dispatch the criminal and call the police afterwards.

 

 

Though I agree that I might have expressed myself a little bit strongly, I never meant to describe my moral framework as superior to yours. Of course, I believe my views on the matter to be the best but I would never claim to be a better person than you or anybody else. In fact, I enjoyed our previous discussion immensely, and though I can't say It made me change my opinion, I must admit that I was out of arguments after only two posts. That sometimes happens when it comes to debating ethical or moral principles.

 

Calling Scalia an imbecile might be a little bit provocative but he certainly has a reputation for excentricity, hasn't he? I don't think it's fair to assume that I would have called him an eminent scholar if he were an outspoken leftwinger. I know enough about the world to know that no person is entirely good or entirely bad - no matter what moral standards you uphold. The thing is that the federal superior judges have been used for political reasons so often that I can barely take their verdicts seriously. The fact that all but two of the judges have been appointed by Republican presidents has a huge impact on their rulings. Especially when it comes to traditionally conservatives themes as gay-rights (remember the sodomy-discussion several years ago?) or abortion. In my opinion Scalia's stand in those debates clearly made him an imbecile, no matter how intelligent he actually might be. Is that an overstatement? Yes, but I'm actually very fond of overstating things. That's what drove me to this forum, actually.

 

All fair points tomb raider and well spoken. Although we disagree you are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. I don't remember the sodomy discussion but it sounds like a fun topic.

[deadsox 892]

To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims?

 

Well you've convinced me. I now fully support Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country having a nuclear bomb. Especially a small, easily hidden one.

 

What this has got to do with football I don't know, but since we're going off topic I thought I'd chip in .

 

Thanks Dave. It's always comforting to know that common sense or rational thought don't need to be part of an argument. A backhanded slap at the US will always suffice.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims?

 

Well you've convinced me. I now fully support Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country having a nuclear bomb. Especially a small, easily hidden one.

 

What this has got to do with football I don't know, but since we're going off topic I thought I'd chip in .

 

Thanks Dave. It's always comforting to know that common sense or rational thought don't need to be part of an argument. A backhanded slap at the US will always suffice.

No, thank you Deadsox, I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Unfortunately, because of this, the US gun laws will remain unchanged and the 'War on Terror' will continue.

[deadsox 892]

To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims?

 

Well you've convinced me. I now fully support Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country having a nuclear bomb. Especially a small, easily hidden one.

 

What this has got to do with football I don't know, but since we're going off topic I thought I'd chip in .

 

Thanks Dave. It's always comforting to know that common sense or rational thought don't need to be part of an argument. A backhanded slap at the US will always suffice.

No, thank you Deadsox, I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Unfortunately, because of this, the US gun laws will remain unchanged and the 'War on Terror' will continue.

 

Given the colossal error of invading Iraq, the war on terror is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Islam, you are sadly mistaken and I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake. Yes, the US gun laws will remain basically unchanged, but that is fortunate.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

To my way of thinking, it is not immoral to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. Maybe you believe it would be more moral to condemn them to be helpless victims?

 

Well you've convinced me. I now fully support Iran, North Korea, Cuba and any other country having a nuclear bomb. Especially a small, easily hidden one.

 

What this has got to do with football I don't know, but since we're going off topic I thought I'd chip in .

 

Thanks Dave. It's always comforting to know that common sense or rational thought don't need to be part of an argument. A backhanded slap at the US will always suffice.

No, thank you Deadsox, I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

Unfortunately, because of this, the US gun laws will remain unchanged and the 'War on Terror' will continue.

 

Given the colossal error of invading Iraq, the war on terror is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Islam, you are sadly mistaken and I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake. Yes, the US gun laws will remain basically unchanged, but that is fortunate.

Zyxt.

[honez 79]

Given the colossal error of invading Iraq, the war on terror is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Islam, you are sadly mistaken and I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake.

I'm not for one second condoning radical Halibuts here, but to look at it from an average, non-radical, Halibut's perspective; Given the colossal error of invading an Islamic country, the Christian-fundamentalist's war on Halibuts is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Christians with guns, missiles, bombs, nuclear weapons and the ability and apparent eagerness to deploy them anywhere in the world, you are sadly mistaken. I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake.

 

Hello little nut, this is a sledge hammer called Uncle Sam...

[deadsox 892]

Given the colossal error of invading Iraq, the war on terror is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Islam, you are sadly mistaken and I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake.

I'm not for one second condoning radical Halibuts here, but to look at it from an average, non-radical, Halibut's perspective; Given the colossal error of invading an Islamic country, the Christian-fundamentalist's war on Halibuts is an easy target. But if you mean to imply that there is no danger from radical Christians with guns, missiles, bombs, nuclear weapons and the ability and apparent eagerness to deploy them anywhere in the world, you are sadly mistaken. I sincerely hope for the sake of you and your family that you never see the consequences of your mistake.

 

Hello little nut, this is a sledge hammer called Uncle Sam...

 

Excellent reply, honez. It just so happens that I agree with the gist of your statement.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

Some famous Heston film

[Monoclinic 39]

Heston heaven update

[Godot 149]

Old Charlton certainly liked his guns.