Total Recall - Original Script (Interesting GUN tidbit)

L

Little Wolf

New member
Here is a segment from the 5th draft of "Total Recall" that I believe will interest all of you. What do you guys think? Sound like a good law or what?


http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/TotalRecall.shtml
INT. SUBWAY STATION - EARLY MORNING

Quail enters the station. Everybody must pass through a weapons check
before proceeding to the platforms.

TWO ARMED GUARDS stand at either side, as commuters pass through an
electronic beam. On a screen, the entire body of each person is seen in X-ray. All of them are clearly carrying a gun in their inside coat pocket.

GUARD No weapon again, Mr. Quail?

QUAIL I keep forgetting, Herb. They frighten me.

GUARD Yeah? Well, it's the law, Mr. Quail. Has been since 1990 they tell me. Tomorrow - ya carry ya gun or ya get reported.

GUARD gestures to his associate. They've obviously been through this with Quail before.

QUAIL Okay. Herb, okay.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What city is it, VA or someplace, that requires firearms ownership? This would be the next step in that direction.

On the other hand, that would probably be as rough on the antis as a ban would be on us.

"An armed society is a polite society. One must be polite when he may have to back up his actions with his life"

Can't remember who said that, but it would definitely fit there.
 
"An armed society is a polite society. One must be polite when he may have to back up his actions with his life"
Click to expand...

That was said by Lazarus Long, a character by Robert Heinlein. Look up "Time Enough for Love" for the whole book.
 
+1 to that.

This is supposed to be "America land of the free" not "America land where you have to". It's just as much my right to carry a concealed pistol as it is someone else's right not to carry that pistol.

No more laws.
 
Have you taken a good look around at the people you see out in public. And then you would want them required to carry a firearm.:eek: Now that thought is as scary as hillary in the white house. I wouldn't ever leave my house!
 
A law requiring people to carry firearms would be just as oppressive as one prohibiting the same.
Click to expand...
A law requiring people to wear clothes would be just as oppressive as one prohibiting the same.
 
A law requiring people to wear clothes would be just as oppressive as one prohibiting the same.
Click to expand...

True, but a lack of education about proper attire will not lead to someone's pants going off and injuring people.

:rolleyes: well, that sounds kinda bad...


If something firearms related is someday required, I would much prefer to see mandatory safety education as opposed to mandatory ownership or carry.
 
Ya but it will be alot more fun with everybody carrying as aposed to a land where nobody has cloths, yuk.

The full body scan screen mentioned above is not just sci fi, with the new millimeter radar becoming small enough to hand hold this type of search is being used at some points in the US, and being considered for airports. Make you look like your not wearing cloths, rats, back to that again. :eek:
 
Not sure what your point is, tyme. Are you suggesting that laws prohibiting people from going about naked is oppressive somehow? Sometimes reducio ad absurdum is absurd on its own.
 
Thinking back in my short years alive well short compared to most of you old guys :D :D :D
There are alot of ppl I would nvr want to have a gun much less carrying one around... To many Hot Heads and drunk ppl, or someone upset by a girlfriend being taken by someone else. I know alot of really good guys that have lost there minds for awhile when it comes to females.
 
Are you suggesting that laws prohibiting people from going about naked is oppressive somehow?
Click to expand...
It's a simple analogy. Society has reasons for requiring people to wear clothes. There are plenty of available reasons for requiring the wearing of guns, too. A belt or tie can be used to strangle someone; a gun can be used to shoot someone. As long as a gun remains in a holster, it's about as dangerous as a pair of cufflinks.

If you want to believe that any requirement for people to wear or carry things is unreasonable, clothes are just as much at issue as guns.

True, but a lack of education about proper attire will not lead to someone's pants going off and injuring people.
Click to expand...
As a more specific instance, I seem to recall a requirement that drivers wear shoes as they allegedly allow better pedal control. Even sandals aren't legal, iirc. I don't think that's particularly reasonable, and that's one of the few clothing laws with a functional reason backing it up. I can drive just fine barefoot.
 
I'm assuming that Quail in this draft of the script is the same as Quade in the final production.

Glad he gets more comfortable with guns as the movie progresses. ;)
 
If you want to believe that any requirement for people to wear or carry things is unreasonable, clothes are just as much at issue as guns.
Click to expand...

Clothes aren't an issue because they aren't controversial; pretty much everyone agrees with their use if not their fashion. Not so with firearms.

Both boil down to the use of governmental force for the "good" of society. Some of it is good. Some of it ain't.
 
There are more regulations relating to the safe operation of vehicles beyond footwear. Similarly carrying a firearm takes more than just a pair of pants to stick a gun in.

Clothing is not something that can cause death or injury to other innocent people simply by its presence or lack thereof. Now, if I am foolish enough to spend some time outdoors here (Michigan, January... its cold out) and freeze to death, thats just me being dead. If I go outdoors and start fiddling with my gun, and it goes off; that can kill someone else. That said, I personally don't care if someone is clothed or not, I may not want to see it, but I don't have to look at it.

Your analogy would make more sense to me if you compared carrying a firearm to driving a vehicle. Both are capable of taking a life if used incorrectly, both require training to operate safely.

I do, however, agree that most things don't need to be mandated or banned due to the conflict that creates with the nature of a free society.
 
"An armed society is a polite society. One must be polite when he may have to back up his actions with his life"
Click to expand...

That was said by Lazarus Long, a character by Robert Heinlein. Look up "Time Enough for Love" for the whole book.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't.

It was said by Hamilton Felix, a character in Beyond This Horizon by Robert Heinlein.

pax
 
When the radical "Everyone must own and carry a gun" people meet exactly halfway with the radical "No one may own or carry a gun" people, the result is the 2nd Amendment.

Just an observation.

pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top