I Gotta Hand It To Him!

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bud Helms

Senior Member
With all the "problems" I have with Charlton Heston's questionable stand in the past on some specific issues and with the NRA Exec Cmte shenanigans with the BOD elections and the by-laws over the past few years, I still have to give Heston credit for an unbelievable presence on stage and an ability to spellbind the listener.

When he held up that musket at the end of his speech and said, "From My Cold Dead Hands!", I just can't express how it made me feel. Of course, I am a romantic about a lot of things. He just blew away Kaynes (sp?) Robinson and Weenie LaPierre with sheer force of style.

Jesus, what a speaker!
 
AMEN BROTHER! I've never been more proud to be an American and an NRA member! Charlton Heston eloquenty put into words everything I feel deep down in my heart. The man is a true patriot, who fully understands that God, guns, and guts have made us the greatest nation on earth. I raise my AR15 into the air and say, "From my cold dead hands!"
 
I would have felt better if Heston had been holding the AR-15. We have yet to see him holding any firearms except muzzle loaders or double barreled shotguns.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"

[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited May 21, 2000).]
 
Look up : presence in the dictionary.
If it doesn't have Mr. Heston's picture, it should. I have yet to see anything on film that detracts from his talent. Even his little cameo in Wayne's World was unforgettable. Too bad he had to cancell his appearance here in Akron last year. I really wanted to see him on stage. Awesome actor, awesome patriot.
 
We all know that muzzle-loading firelocks were the assault weapons of their day. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would keep and bear an M16. That Charlton Heston thrust a muzzle loader in the air, and said "from my cold dead hands" is purely symbolic. If he had hoisted a modern assault weapon, the press would have had a field day with it, but we all "know" what he meant, don't we? ;)

BTW, did you happen to catch the reaction of the audience when Kayne Robinson mentioned veterans owning civilian versions of the military weapons they had used to save their lives and defend their country? BIG CHEER! :)
 
Originally posted by Big Bear: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BTW, did you happen to catch the reaction of the audience when Kayne Robinson mentioned veterans owning civilian versions of the military weapons they had used to save their lives and defend their country? BIG CHEER![/quote]I did notice. The irony to me is it was most often to defend some other country.

JimV, maybe assault weapons is something the Heston-meister should just stay away from. He has pretty well f___ed that up every time he has gone there. I think the use of the muzzle loader is just as inflammatory to the antis and it helps set a "Revolutionary" and "Constitutional" tone. Maybe that is the best way to frame the debate.

SLightly off-subject, but with regard to the use of the musket as the symbol of choice ... Arguments and discussions about the difference between semi and full auto are just too much for the antis. They look too much alike and you know what that means. As long as our primary communications media players and the Exec Branch inherently support the dumbed down approach to the subject, we may, in the end, be limited to the argument, "Is it (the 2nd) a guarantee or not?" The danger there has always been: it's all or nothing. No nibbling around the edges of RKBA if the Supreme Court ever gets cornered in ruling on the constitutionality of the 2nd. Now think of the most supreme irony you can. The Supreme Court's primary duty is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions. How ironic is it for the Supreme Court to rule in judgement of the constitutionality of the Constitution (or a portion thereof)? While we long for the Court's interpretation of what the Second really guarantees, at the same time we eshew the interpretive powers of the Court in other areas. It is analogous to the LEO's exercise of judgement on the job. We hear he's not supposed to do that, he's just supposed to enforce. Sorry, can't do one without the other! By the same token, the Supreme Court can't rule on the constitutionality of a law or action without interpreting (judging) the Constitution.

I say go for it, once and for all. I can't wait to see if I'm a felon with the stroke of a pen when I awake tommorrow. And the day after, and the day after, and the day after ... Is that living in fear? For some perhaps. I say no, but it's living with the beginnings of oppression.




[This message has been edited by sensop (edited May 21, 2000).]
 
That muzzleloader was presented to him when he first became president and that is when he said the impromptu "From my cold dead hands" for the first time. Last night, he was just recreating that first event. I got to give the guy credit. He may not be the best debater, but he can give one hell of a speech. No wonder the anti's hate him. :D

Joe

------------------
Need help writing a letter to Congress or whomever?
Do you have a great letter or post that you would like to share with us?
Then stop by the NEW 2nd Amendment Activist's 'Copy & Paste' Forum!!!
 
He stood there he told the story of the original presentation and the first time he said that. He admitted it was a live replay. You could tell he was gonna do it again and I still came outta my chair!
 
testing.... this thread seems to have major html problems. All I can get is the title with none of the posts showing. TFL was messed up all day May 22nd. Anyone else having any problems?



[This message has been edited by nralife (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
NRALIFE, no I had no problems accessing anything at TFL on either 21 or 22 May.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sensop:
With all the "problems" I have with Charlton Heston's questionable stand in the past on some specific issues and with the NRA Exec Cmte shenanigans with the BOD elections and the by-laws over the past few years, I still have to give Heston credit for an unbelievable presence on stage and an ability to spellbind the listener.

[/quote]


Well, of course he's a great speaker...he's an actor! Just as Ronald Reagan was a great speaker.
Not criticizing...both these men are heroes in their own right...
I suppose when Heston said something to the effect the "assault rifles" weren't needed back when he first became NRA president, he blew some of us off...
Well, he's right...we don't need them, but we've the right to own them (qualifier: there isn't much we can do about the imported guns if the government bans importation, as long as that ban affects LE and military as well as civies. That ban wouldn't violate the Second Amendment. Domestically produced guns are a different matter though.
Heston is probably the best thing that's happened to the NRA in years.
 
sensop, good points on the SC. However, bear in mind the Court does not have the constitutional authority to change the Constitution. Neither does Congress nor the President nor even all of them together working in unison. The Constitution can only be ratified to be changed and that requires three fourths of the State's legislatures in agreement to the change.

If there is any confusion at all with the meaning of any word, sentence, or paragraph in the Constitution then the proper place to find meaning is the Federalist Papers. The authors of the Federalist Papers also wrote, or helped write, the Constitution. And the purpose of the Federalist Papers were to explain the meaning of the Constitution. We have to believe the Constitution still means exactly the same thing today as when written, or else it means nothing at all.

All federal gun control legislation directed at citizen's ownership are unconstitutional and those enacting such legislation are none other than democrats and republicans. And that type of legislation has been around all of my lifetime (66 years) and getting worse by the day. I see no alternative but to use our power against those enacting unconstitutional legislation, democrats and republicans alike. I suggest using the power of the vote by voting third party come November. And I see no rational excuse to do otherwise.
 
Alan,

LOL Every time I see one of your posts, I don't even have to read it, because I all ready know what you have to say, "vote third party." LOL

We can be talking about the best gun to shoot big game with, and Alan says we should vote third party. LOL If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be hilarious. ROTFLMAO

I don't have any way to prove it, but I would bet my last box of ammo that you are an Al Gore plant. LOL

Yes, vote third party, Al Gore needs all the help he can get!

nralife
 
I'll agree the use of the musket as a prop is least offensive to those who easily get their knickers in a knot. It symbollically portrays the material means of last resort to maintain our liberties.

Perhaps an update, with, say, an M1 would be more direct in referring to the military nature of 'common defense' arms. It harkens to WWII, a time the country can remember when sacrifice and arms were clearly needed to defeat tyranny. An M1 should not make the faint hearted queezy as opposed to seeing a plastic varmint rifle ;).

In any event, he was pumping up the faithful . Not likely any anti viewing the clip received it as a mountaintop revelation that Moses said God wants me to arm myself under the 2nd amendment.

Ezeckial,

I believe I understand the core of your 'need' statement but respectfully I believe, philosophically and historically, we do 'need' assault rifles or whatever the current military weapons are for the modern infantryman. It is comparable to the 'need' for the material means to produce the modern methods of communication/information for a free press. We would no more have a fully functioning 1st and a free press if the NY Times, Washington Times, etc, were limited to using a 1780's printing press than we would have a true 2nd without the current equivalents to modern common defense arms. Sure, they could print, but how timely would it be compared to the information the government could crank out. The disparity and limitation would render them ineffective, thereby denying the right. The material means of it's production go hand in hand with the content and control of information.

We arm the military, hoping they never need fire a shot but we know there is a 'need' for their modern arms even during peacetime. We know the military 'needs' them when they NEED them. As participants in the common defense it should be and is the same for us. And we are already behind here.

Assault rifles are fun to shoot. We like them, we enjoy them. We do not now, nor will we 'need' them.....until we NEED them. That's my reply and I'm sticking with it. :).

Chris..


[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
sensop, I agree. I have personally attended three of Heston's stem-winders, all were significant emotional experiences.

When I consider that Heston is the symbolic leader, the NRA's personification of RKBA, his use of the symbolic musket is only fitting.
 
nralife, I laugh too, LOL, at how easy some citizen's votes are stolen with/by political rhetoric. But, if you didn't notice I did not respond to hunting posts but to sensop's post concerning the Supreme Court.

Have you come up with any proof of why a vote for one candidate elects another one? Doesn't make any sense to me, I always believed the vote went to who it was cast for.

Then why do you believe electing another republican will reverse a majority republican Congress? I mean haven't you figured out who is enacting, for the last 6 years, unconstitutional gun legislation? You do know federal gun control legislation directed at citizens is unconstitutional? Don't you and haven't you complained about it? Well, let me tell you and it no doubt it will shock you, none other than a majority republican congress are enacting all kinds of unconstitutional legislation.

Voting for a republican or democrat will continue the unconstitutional agenda of the federal government. You cannot honestly say any third party candidate has a hand in unconstitutional activity, can you?

You may rest assured I will continue to try to wake up citizens from their political stupor of voting for either wing of the socialist party, that is a democrat or republican.
 
Charlton Heston's "performance" was banal, disgraceful and embarassing. He looked like a lunatic, and did not sound sincere.

It would have been one thing if he had given this speach to stir "the faithful" without the press (especially the broadcast press) in attendance. But to do this when he/they knew it was going to be the bite that made the news was politically tone-deaf and stupid.

The NRA is alienating alot of people, like me, by their bull****, non-productive rhetoric. The sad thing is, I believe in everything the NRA stands for.

I stand up and argue my Second Amendment rights whenever I have the opportunity in an intelligent forum. The crap that comes out of the NRA Convention leaves me open to ridicule, and destroys in one sound bite what I try to overcome with "antis" in months of conversation and honest intellectual debate.

The garbage from Heston embarasses me! Today, I am ashamed that I am a member of the NRA.
 
Susan, I'm sorry you feel that way. Understand, though, that the press is never, ever going to like us. I don't doubt for one split second that LaPierre and Heston wanted those words out on the airwaves, to rouse the
gun owners who couldn't attend. If, in your conversations with non gun owners, the speech should become an issue, you can disavow it if you like and move to other points. If those you are talking to have positions that are so intractable that the "cold dead hands" remark
is a stone wall for them, then you probably couldn't ever convert them anyway.

Dick
 
View


As for the "need" for anyone to own an assault rifle, my opinion somewhat parallels that of Thomas Jefferson, that the beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be "needed" until they try to take it away.

AllanHampton, I agree with you in principle, but not in practicality. I'm a registered Republican and a (small l) libertarian, though I don't agree with everything they say either. Realistically speaking, I have to make it my priority to keep AlGore OUT of the White House. I don't think voting third party will accomplish that, in fact, we may have never had Clinton to deal with had it not been for a man named Ross Perot. So I will be voting for Bush, and without even holding my nose.

Susan, sorry you feel that way. I disagree that Heston wasn't sincere. Read some of his books. The man is a true patriot, and I don't think his performance was an act.

I too stand up for the Second Amendment, but after many years of arguing, pleading, and reasoning with mostly unreasonable people, I believe there comes a time when one has to throw down the gauntlet, and let them know where the bottom line is. Some of us are willing to fight and die for something we believe very strongly in, and I'm not just talking about guns here, it goes much deeper than that. If that draws a blank, incredulous stare, then so be it. I'm with Heston all the way on this one. He sorta reminded me of a dead white guy who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Oh yeah, there was another dead white guy who said, "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Oh, wait a minute, I'd better stop quoting the founding fathers, or I'll be labeled as a right-wing extremist.

[This message has been edited by Big Bear (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top