Youth in Asia 1,086 Posted April 6, 2008 I liked him in Planet of the Apes and that film about Columbine. Not a big fan of the rest of his output. And I still feel he should have died last year rather than this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Godot 149 Posted April 6, 2008 I wonder if they'll stick him on his horse as they did in El Cid. Either way there should be a run on new improved "essence of Charlton" Soylent Green in the supermarkets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 6, 2008 I'm confused. Was he 83 or 84? CNN state that he was 84, yet a lot of other reports say he was born in 1924 which will make him 83 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave to the Grave 11 Posted April 6, 2008 I heard that Charlton's quite Athletic. Not any more, he's not. Charlton walks through The Valley of the shadow of Stone Lake retail park.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mortician 2 Posted April 6, 2008 Bless Charlton and all the little wheelies, always reminds me of a very obscure band from the mid 80's called Stump, who had a song with the line 'Charlton Heston put his vest on' and fighting Pharoahs! Pure genius and more accurate historically then Chuck sword and sandal efforts. I wonder if St Peter will be packing assault weapons at the pearly gates, or Moses will be read to complain about the hair do! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave to the Grave 11 Posted April 6, 2008 I wonder if St Peter will be packing assault weapons at the pearly gates, or Moses will be read to complain about the hair do! How it stayed in place on that chariot is a mystery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Typhoid Harry 23 Posted April 6, 2008 He brought us 10 tablets of command He rode that charriot on land He told us "It's people!" Saw the 'quake fell a steeple Now we can pry that gun from his hand Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Yes Phantom, he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue and switched. Strangely enough, I sometimes get cut off by people who have liberal bumper stickers. I'm not sure how you arrive at the reasoning that because somebody with a pro-gun sticker cut you off in traffic, then everyone who supports the Second Amendment must be just like them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Yes Phantom, he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue and switched. Strangely enough, I sometimes get cut off by people who have liberal bumper stickers. I'm not sure how you arrive at the reasoning that because somebody with a pro-gun sticker cut you off in traffic, then everyone who supports the Second Amendment must be just like them. Actually most people that cut me off in traffic are the ones that have the Jesus fish bumper sticker or the pro-gun sticker or both. The second amendment is complete bollocks anyway. you get a gun and the criminals just get bigger guns. It doesn't solve anything. Although with Minnesota's "Conceal and Carry" law, I do suppress a sN-word when I see the sign outside a yarn store stating, "Guns are banned on these premises". I never said that everyone who has a pro-gun sticker cuts me off in traffic. In fact it's more often than not the ones who can't bear to put down their cellphone while they are driving. They tend to be from all walks of life. The pro-gun ones just seem to be on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Yes Phantom, he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue and switched. Strangely enough, I sometimes get cut off by people who have liberal bumper stickers. I'm not sure how you arrive at the reasoning that because somebody with a pro-gun sticker cut you off in traffic, then everyone who supports the Second Amendment must be just like them. Actually most people that cut me off in traffic are the ones that have the Jesus fish bumper sticker or the pro-gun sticker or both. The second amendment is complete bollocks anyway. you get a gun and the criminals just get bigger guns. It doesn't solve anything. Although with Minnesota's "Conceal and Carry" law, I do suppress a sN-word when I see the sign outside a yarn store stating, "Guns are banned on these premises". I never said that everyone who has a pro-gun sticker cuts me off in traffic. In fact it's more often than not the ones who can't bear to put down their cellphone while they are driving. They tend to be from all walks of life. The pro-gun ones just seem to be on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Phantom, you really have no idea of what you're talking about. I didn't say that "everyone" with a pro gun sticker cuts you off, I said "somebody". The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Most people who are victimized by criminals don't get trumped by "bigger guns" they just get robbed, raped or killed by people who are either younger and stronger or who have a firearm when they don't. Your assumption that you are on a higher evolutionary scale than gun owners or Christians is frankly evidence of your bigotry toward people who think differently than you do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Yes Phantom, he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue and switched. Strangely enough, I sometimes get cut off by people who have liberal bumper stickers. I'm not sure how you arrive at the reasoning that because somebody with a pro-gun sticker cut you off in traffic, then everyone who supports the Second Amendment must be just like them. Actually most people that cut me off in traffic are the ones that have the Jesus fish bumper sticker or the pro-gun sticker or both. The second amendment is complete bollocks anyway. you get a gun and the criminals just get bigger guns. It doesn't solve anything. Although with Minnesota's "Conceal and Carry" law, I do suppress a sN-word when I see the sign outside a yarn store stating, "Guns are banned on these premises". I never said that everyone who has a pro-gun sticker cuts me off in traffic. In fact it's more often than not the ones who can't bear to put down their cellphone while they are driving. They tend to be from all walks of life. The pro-gun ones just seem to be on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Phantom, you really have no idea of what you're talking about. I didn't say that "everyone" with a pro gun sticker cuts you off, I said "somebody". The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Most people who are victimized by criminals don't get trumped by "bigger guns" they just get robbed, raped or killed by people who are either younger and stronger or who have a firearm when they don't. And that is the same in any country. however in the US there were more firearm related crimes in Minnesota in 2007 than there were in the whole of the UK. Banning guns in Australia worked to bring down the crime rate substationally in a country where firearms were originally permitted but now are not. Your assumption that you are on a higher evolutionary scale than gun owners or Christians is frankly evidence of your bigotry toward people who think differently than you do. This statement coming from someone who feels that their opinion holds more weight because they're American (I am of course refering to the Presidential candidate thread) also shows their ignorance of their own country's constitution in which it states in the First Amendment that everyone is entitled to free speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted April 6, 2008 Looks like it was Alzheimer's disease that got him in the end. Might be the explaination to the rather odd and agressive appearance in Shooting Columbine. Absolutely adored him as an actor, absolutely hated his stance on guns. Always found it strange that someone who portrayed so many religious related characters would be such a bigot in real life. I guess that shows how good and actor he really was. Gwyn- I liked his acting and also liked his stance on guns. He was President of the NRA but also marched with Martin Luther King. I really don't know where your conception the he was a bigot comes from. He campaigned for stricter gun laws after Bobby Kennedy was killed, then switched when he joined the NRA. Liked him as an actor, but also didn't like his stance on guns towards the end. Reminds me too much of the jerks who cut me off in traffic and have the bumber sticker "Have gun, will vote" on the back of their trucks Yes Phantom, he realized he was on the wrong side of the issue and switched. Strangely enough, I sometimes get cut off by people who have liberal bumper stickers. I'm not sure how you arrive at the reasoning that because somebody with a pro-gun sticker cut you off in traffic, then everyone who supports the Second Amendment must be just like them. Actually most people that cut me off in traffic are the ones that have the Jesus fish bumper sticker or the pro-gun sticker or both. The second amendment is complete bollocks anyway. you get a gun and the criminals just get bigger guns. It doesn't solve anything. Although with Minnesota's "Conceal and Carry" law, I do suppress a sN-word when I see the sign outside a yarn store stating, "Guns are banned on these premises". I never said that everyone who has a pro-gun sticker cuts me off in traffic. In fact it's more often than not the ones who can't bear to put down their cellphone while they are driving. They tend to be from all walks of life. The pro-gun ones just seem to be on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Phantom, you really have no idea of what you're talking about. I didn't say that "everyone" with a pro gun sticker cuts you off, I said "somebody". The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Most people who are victimized by criminals don't get trumped by "bigger guns" they just get robbed, raped or killed by people who are either younger and stronger or who have a firearm when they don't. And that is the same in any country. however in the US there were more firearm related crimes in Minnesota in 2007 than there were in the whole of the UK. Banning guns in Australia worked to bring down the crime rate substationally in a country where firearms were originally permitted but now are not. Your assumption that you are on a higher evolutionary scale than gun owners or Christians is frankly evidence of your bigotry toward people who think differently than you do. This statement coming from someone who feels that their opinion holds more weight because they're American (I am of course refering to the Presidential candidate thread) also shows their ignorance of their own country's constitution in which it states in the First Amendment that everyone is entitled to free speech. There are a lot more sociological, cultural, demographic and economic factors in determining the crime rate than just the availability of guns. There is also the fact that people have a right to defend themselves. I have never tried to quash anyone's freedom of speech. I have a very good understanding of the Constitution and admire it greatly. I have an opinion that many people who don't live in the U.S. but only read some drivel on the internet don't know as much about the people and customs as someone who actually lives and interacts with them on a daily basis. I would not presume to tell someone from Great Britain that I know more about their politics and customs than they do. I would listen to their opinions and try to learn something. I understand that you do live in the U.S. Phantom, and although your opinion has a greater chance of being based on good information, it doesn't mean that you are right all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 7, 2008 I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes. I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems. I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American. I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned. Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S. Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend. However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave to the Grave 11 Posted April 7, 2008 A little on the subject of guns. Haven't they both changed since winning the World Cup in '66? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honez 79 Posted April 7, 2008 I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes. I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems. I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American. I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned. Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S. Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend. However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you. Surely this could be solved quickly an easily by changing the right to bear arms to be the right to bear non-lethal arms? Using tazers, capsicum spray, non-lethal projectile guns, etc. as a means of self-defence has to be preferable to finding yourself up on manslaughter charges after "protecting your property," and it would stop dumb-arsed kids blowing their brains out playing Russian Roulette with the loaded gun they found hidden in the sock drawer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TAFKAG 70 Posted April 7, 2008 it would stop dumb-arsed kids blowing their brains out playing Russian Roulette with the loaded gun they found hidden in the sock drawer. Ah, those dumb-assed Detroit 3-year-olds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwynhafyr 0 Posted April 7, 2008 The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Actually the Second Amendment says the Americans have the right to bare arms to form militias. This was originally because there was very little formal policing around when the constitution was formed and therefore it was written in to the consitution to allow small towns and farms to protect themselves. It doesn't say that every American has the right to bear arms for self protection, that is a common misconception. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted April 7, 2008 The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Actually the Second Amendment says the Americans have the right to bear arms to form militias. This was originally because there was very little formal policing around when the constitution was formed and therefore it was written in to the consitution to allow small towns and farms to protect themselves. It doesn't say that every American has the right to bear arms for self protection, that is a common misconception. Indeed it does, here is the Second Amendment courtesy of US Constitution Online Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Miser 18 Posted April 7, 2008 I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes. I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems. I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American. I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned. Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S. Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend. However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you. Surely this could be solved quickly an easily by changing the right to bear arms to be the right to bear non-lethal arms? Using tazers, capsicum spray, non-lethal projectile guns, etc. as a means of self-defence has to be preferable to finding yourself up on manslaughter charges after "protecting your property," and it would stop dumb-arsed kids blowing their brains out playing Russian Roulette with the loaded gun they found hidden in the sock drawer. Good luck changing the Constitution to say that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Miser 18 Posted April 7, 2008 The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution which affords Americans the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection. Actually the Second Amendment says the Americans have the right to bear arms to form militias. This was originally because there was very little formal policing around when the constitution was formed and therefore it was written in to the consitution to allow small towns and farms to protect themselves. It doesn't say that every American has the right to bear arms for self protection, that is a common misconception. They just argued a big case at the Supreme Court to determine whether the Second Amendment is limited by the militia clause. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...historic_g.html Convention wisdom is that the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment is not limited to the militia's clause and that it creates an individual right to own a gun. We will see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tomb raider 9 Posted April 7, 2008 I agree there are many factors that determine the crime figures. However it has been proved that tightening gun laws does affect the crime rate concerning firearm related crimes. I do not claim to be right 100% of the time. I am merely saying that permitting everyone to have the right to carry guns causes all sorts of problems. I do come from England and have lived in the US now for 4 years. I am also married to an American. I'm asking you, Deadsox to take a step back for a moment and think of how many gun related homicides we get in say... Minneapolis alone over the course of a year. Or even just how many shootings there have been in schools, colleges and universities so far this year. Then take a look at firearm related crime figures from other countries where guns are banned. Despite the size of the population, there are still less crimes commited per capita compared to in the U.S. Banning guns or tightening gun laws I will admit is not the be all and end all, or a 100% solution to the answer. It's a start. And unless someone actually accepts that it's worked in other countries then the crime rate will continue along the same trend. However if you also think about that if you do have a gun in your house, a person is unlikely to break in while the occupants are awake and moving around. They will do so when no one is around or in the middle of the night. The chances of you getting to your gun first even if it's under your pillow are pretty minimal before they have used their gun on you. Surely this could be solved quickly an easily by changing the right to bear arms to be the right to bear non-lethal arms? Using tazers, capsicum spray, non-lethal projectile guns, etc. as a means of self-defence has to be preferable to finding yourself up on manslaughter charges after "protecting your property," and it would stop dumb-arsed kids blowing their brains out playing Russian Roulette with the loaded gun they found hidden in the sock drawer. Would you believe that I have actually never even thought about this solution? In all its simplicity, it tackles the notorious cock-and-bull stories of those retarded pro-arms-activists about not being able to defend themselves and their families without keeping a loaded gun within reach of their kids. In fact, the only remaining argument is that they have the right to bear arms because it says so in the Constitution. It really takes an American to not understanding the logical fallacy in that... 'It's our right because it's our right' makes sense only if your idea of succesful higher education is becoming a football captain and shagging as many dumb blondes with skirts and pom-pons as possible. That a nation that cannot part with the idea that it actually makes their streets safer to provide every lunatic with a lethal weapon has turned out to be the world's only remaining superpower really proves that God has a massive sense of irony. Not trying to be provocative, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Poetry Man 2 Posted April 7, 2008 "Get your hairy paws off me," Was what old Charlton said; He cannot say it more, Cos Charlton Heston's dead! He played so many varied roles, All good, so one supposes, But I guess the best he ever did, Was play that bloke called Will Penny. (Are you sure?) He held his rod up in the air, And the Red Sea? It did part, He rode in a race in ancient Rome, In a fancy horse and cart. He starred in a film where the theatre shook, As San Fran had a Quake, Then he played another part And was speared to death with a stake. So bye bye Chuck and thanks a lot For all the pleasure and fun; There'll never be another like you, You were the only one. Poetry Man Circa 4/07/08. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites