RIP!

[Bast175]

I'm not the one that shot him.

Do you think banning guns is going to stop shootings, idiot?
Do you think that negroid gangbanger bought that gun legally?
Do you think it would be possible, in any way shape or form to get guns out of the hands of criminals?
Why in the fuck would you disarm honest people and allow the shit of society to have weapons?

There are a shitload of crippled kids  in/around LA as well from drug dealing, gang banging negroid spics, why get rid of the weapons, why not get rid of the real problem?

meltdown, apparently this issue is rooted deeply with you. God forbid they take away your shotgun and beer.

[Moosejay]

LOL... really, he should have let the cops show up and deal with it.  Maybe go shoot out their tires if you're really that trigger happy and eager to save your neighbor's flatscreen TV.

Coldly icing two unarmed guys for a nonviolent crime (and not a forcible felony) is something you just don't want on your conscience.  Of course, in teh bgiger picture, he was probably a war vet, probably tired of seeing scum feast on the meek, and decided to set an example for all scum by taking these 2 outta circulation.  In a utilitarian sense, maybe he did it for the greater good.  In an emotion sense, those two home invaders deserve to be pinkmisted, sure.

"pinkmisted"....never heard it put that way...

[240 is Back]

"pinkmisted"....never heard it put that way...

usually applies more to those pricks in iraq that you see on the chopper night vision... loading a 50 caliber machine gun into the back of their truck while our heroes in the birds calmly plan their imminent elimination. 

[Bast175]

usually applies more to those pricks in iraq that you see on the chopper night vision... loading a 50 caliber machine gun into the back of their truck while our heroes in the birds calmly plan their imminent elimination. 

You mean the brave freedom fighters?

[Moosejay]

Ahhh..yes. It is now more pisturesque for me. Thank you.

Kind of like 'Saving Private Ryan', when Barry Pepper, the sharpshooter, was in the tower, picking off Germans...and you'd see that red spray, their blood, bursting out of them...yes?

[Lord Humungous]

He was a grade B actor, a religious and rightwing nutcase and just a bad person overall....

and your a load swallowing retard, so who cares

[onlyme]

dude, you don't have to be a successful actor to know good acting.

Britney spears is a horrible actress.  You see that movie Crossroads?  Me neither.

I don't need to be a singer or actor to know this.


Hell, my garbagemen are terrible, they leave my lids in the street and spill trash sometimes.  I've never gone to garbageman school, but I've seen enough of them over the years to know bad trash behavior when I see it.

Nice try to get your point across but you fail horribly.  Britney Spears is not an actress she is a singer.  Is she a bad singer?  Heston is not a singer, he was an actor.  Your problem is everything becomes polliticial to you.  If they are politically incorrect in your eyes then they are bad all-round.  Was Heston in the past 50+ years always considered a bad actor.  If he was someone should have told the rest of the industry that. 

I see a lot of bad actors with a resume that looks like this   http://imdb.com/name/nm0000032/

[240 is Back]

Nice try to get your point across but you fail horribly.  Britney Spears is not an actress she is a singer. 

She starred in a major motion picture.  That makes her an actress.

My post simply said you don't have to be an actor to know good acting.

[timfogarty]

Can someone please me give some examples of what he did that made him so unpopular to some of you?

He became an ultra conservative icon late in his life, and on occasion would say some incredibly racist and homophobic things, but in the 1960s and 1970s he was quite different:

"In his earlier years, Heston was a liberal Democrat, campaigning for Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. A civil rights activist, he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C. in 1963, even going so far as to wear a sign that read "All Men Are Created Equal". Heston later claimed it a point of pride that he helped in the civil rights cause "long before Hollywood found it fashionable", as he often says in his speeches. Heston had also planned to campaign for Lyndon Johnson, but was unable to do so when filming on Major Dundee went over schedule.

In 1968, following the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Heston appeared on The Joey Bishop Show and, along with fellow actors Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas and James Stewart, called for public support for President Johnson's Gun Control Act of 1968.

He was also an opponent of McCarthyism and racial segregation, which he saw as only helping the cause of Communism worldwide. He opposed the Vietnam War and considered Richard Nixon a disaster for America. He turned down John Wayne's offer of a role in The Alamo, because the film was a right-wing allegory for the Cold War."

[The ChemistV2]

Oh Boy! Heston was president of an organization that believes a law abiding American should have the right to protect himself from low life scum that will acquire weapons whether they are legal or not. What a terrible person! I can just imagine the following scenario unfolding. Some liberal Get Big poster is in his car when up pulls some Lime green painted "Thugmobile" with 22 inch spinner rims, blasting Gangsta' Rap. Out pours a couple of unevolved,  primitive, unintelligble, ignorant crack-smoking, baby-mama producing Savages. They point their illegally aquired Glocks at the liberal and order him out of the car. The liberal tells them, "It's Ok guys. I understand your plight. You weren't given the opportunities that I had and you are merely a product of your environment. I will gladly give up my car to you..please have a nice day gentlemen." Then the primates proceed to pump 10 rounds into the pathetic liberal. As the Liberal Get Big Poster lies bleeding to death he thinks, "What happenned, I showed these disadvantaged youths empathy..and they still shot me. Maybe I should have gotten a license to carry a concealed weapon after all." Then, he dies.

[chaos]

meltdown, apparently this issue is rooted deeply with you. God forbid they take away your shotgun and beer.

I'll keep the shotgun, you can have the beer, and the chicken calves.

[G o a t b o y]

Step outside the US for a moment and you'll see that arming the population probably caused more problems than it solved. 

Too late to disarm, though.

"...arming the population probably caused more problems than it solved..."


Interesting the way that is phrased.  It presupposes that "disarmed" is the natural state of man, and that we took some kind of positive action to "arm" everyone.

It demonstrates the clear difference in not just opinion, but thinking and worldview between Europeans/Australians and Americans.

The world is a dangerous place, and man has armed himself since the dawn of time, first with clubs, the spears, then swords, the arrows, and finally guns.  The normal state of man is to be armed so he may protect himself if he is set upon by a group of thugs.  It is the European countries who have taken the extraordinary step to disarm their populations. 

There are several problems with this though.  While in theory it protects people from gun violence (assuming, of course there are no illegal guns out there, a ridiculous assumption), it does not change the violent nature of man.  There are still knives, clubs, and a host of other weapons out there.  You can still have a group of 10 thugs attacking one innocent.  You can still have a guy attacking a 70-year-old who can no longer defend himself.  By taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, you may have reduced "gun violence" a bit, but you have taken away every law-abiding person's fundamental right to defend himself and his family from violence.  To most Americans, this is an unacceptable trade-off.

But again, it shows the difference in world-view.  The more left-leaning countries are only interested in average outcomes, and don't care if it fucks over lots of individuals along the way.  In America we protect individual rights, and reject a "nanny" government that tinkers with lots of shit, but in the end can neither guarantee our safety nor allow us to guarantee our own safety.

[knny187]

I liked the guy. 

100% American

[timfogarty]

By taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, you may have reduced "gun violence" a bit, but you have taken away every law-abiding person's fundamental right to defend himself and his family from violence.  To most Americans, this is an unacceptable trade-off.

back in the day, teachers would have to break up the occasional school yard fight.  Today kids run home and grab a handgun because they've been dissed.

you can keep all the rifles and shotguns you want.  but let's get rid of all the handguns.

[chaos]

back in the day, teachers would have to break up the occasional school yard fight.  Today kids run home and grab a handgun because they've been dissed.

you can keep all the rifles and shotguns you want.  but let's get rid of all the handguns.

Why don't people realize that criminals will never give up their guns, the laws that are made only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals will always have guns.

[G o a t b o y]

back in the day, teachers would have to break up the occasional school yard fight.  Today kids run home and grab a handgun because they've been dissed.

you can keep all the rifles and shotguns you want.  but let's get rid of all the handguns.

And gun laws are more strict today than they were "back in the day".  What does that tell you?  Making them illegal will not "get rid of them", it will just ensure than only criminals have guns.

But again, you're arguing average outcomes, I'm arguing individual rights to protect oneself.  What good is a shotgun for self-defense, unless you happen to be at home? 

[Dorian01]

back in the day, teachers would have to break up the occasional school yard fight.  Today kids run home and grab a handgun because they've been dissed.

you can keep all the rifles and shotguns you want.  but let's get rid of all the handguns.

Get rid of rap music that made this fashionable.

[timfogarty]

And gun laws are more strict today than they were "back in the day".  What does that tell you?  Making them illegal will not "get rid of them", it will just ensure than only criminals have guns.

In Japan, organized crime has guns, the general population does not.  There are very few gun related deaths.  And the general population is no more terrorized by organized crime than here.   Adolescent gang activity is virtually non-existent.

But again, you're arguing outcomes, I'm arguing individual rights to protect oneself.  What good is a shotgun for self-defense, unless you happen to be at home? 

in a civilized society, why do you need to protect yourself with a gun?   Aren't there other better choices?  And if you have the right to protect yourself with a hand gun, then why not an assault rifle, a bazooka, or an anti-aircraft missle?

Branishing a gun is still illegal.  So a handgun is not a deterrent.   You can draw it in self defense.   But how often are you in a situation where you have no other choice than to fire your gun?   Compare that to how many people are killed in anger, how many kids use a gun because they don't know that throwing a punch is enough.

Yes I'm arguing outcomes, because sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[chaos]

In Japan, organized crime has guns, the general population does not.  There are very few gun related deaths.  And the general population is no more terrorized by organized crime than here.   Adolescent gang activity is virtually non-existent.

in a civilized society, why do you need to protect yourself with a gun?   Aren't there other better choices?  And if you have the right to protect yourself with a hand gun, then why not an assault rifle, a bazooka, or an anti-tank missle?

Branishing a gun is still illegal.  So a handgun is not a deterrent.   You can draw it in self defense.   But how often are you in a situation where you have no other choice than to fire your gun?   Compare that to how many people are killed in anger, how many kids use a gun because they don't know that throwing a punch is enough.

Yes I'm arguing outcomes, because sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Maybe we should ban gays as well. I don't agree with thier homosexual ways.

Your personal opinion shouldn't be forced on others, that's why this country is "free".

[SirTraps]

uh, this isnt Japan, go ride the subway in Philly 

[dr.chimps]

In Japan, organized crime has guns, the general population does not.  There are very few gun related deaths.  And the general population is no more terrorized by organized crime than here.   Adolescent gang activity is virtually non-existent.

in a civilized society, why do you need to protect yourself with a gun?   Aren't there other better choices?  And if you have the right to protect yourself with a hand gun, then why not an assault rifle, a bazooka, or an anti-aircraft missle?

Branishing a gun is still illegal.  So a handgun is not a deterrent.   You can draw it in self defense.   But how often are you in a situation where you have no other choice than to fire your gun?   Compare that to how many people are killed in anger, how many kids use a gun because they don't know that throwing a punch is enough.

Yes I'm arguing outcomes, because sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Uh, so you're saying the ends justify the means!? 

[G o a t b o y]

In Japan, organized crime has guns, the general population does not.  There are very few gun related deaths. 

How about deaths from knives, beatings, etc?  How about those poor souls who do encounter a criminal, whether he is armed with a gun, a knife, or is unarmed and just happens to be 20 years younger and 100 lbs heavier than the victim?

in a civilized society, why do you need to protect yourself with a gun? 

     

Do you read the news? 

 Aren't there other better choices?

Sure...  I'll just try to "empathise" with the disadvantage youths...  that'll make them leave me alone. 

  And if you have the right to protect yourself with a hand gun, then why not an assault rifle, a bazooka, or an anti-tank missle?

You're just being ridiculous now.  A handgun is sufficient to handle most situations.

Branishing a gun is still illegal.  So a handgun is not a deterrent.   You can draw it in self defense. 

I'm not looking for a "deterrent", I'm looking for the ability to defend myself should the need arise.

 But how often are you in a situation where you have no other choice than to fire your gun? 

How often does your house catch on fire?  Does that mean you shouldn't have insurance? 

Yes I'm arguing outcomes, because sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

"Let's take away people's fundamental rights for the 'greater good' ",  the overarching theme of the socialists. 

I don't plan on giving up my rights ever, and thankfully enough people feel as I do that you libs will never succeed.  Hope this helps.

[The ChemistV2]

In Japan, organized crime has guns, the general population does not.  There are very few gun related deaths.  And the general population is no more terrorized by organized crime than here.   Adolescent gang activity is virtually non-existent.
in a civilized society, why do you need to protect yourself with a gun?   Aren't there other better choices?  And if you have the right to protect yourself with a hand gun, then why not an assault rifle, a bazooka, or an anti-aircraft missle?

Branishing a gun is still illegal.  So a handgun is not a deterrent.   You can draw it in self defense.   But how often are you in a situation where you have no other choice than to fire your gun?   Compare that to how many people are killed in anger, how many kids use a gun because they don't know that throwing a punch is enough.

Yes I'm arguing outcomes, because sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Have you compared the racial makeup of Japan with over here? If they had our demographics, their crime rate would go through the roof.

[240 is Back]

Tim,

Let's look at your average joe sixpack, and your average joe nutcase.  Hypothetical case.

Sixpack is out at dinner with his family.  He cannot carry a rifle or shotgun with him of course - so they are unarmed.

Nutcase is going to pull up to applebee's (or whatever other place he chooses) with 2 rifles and a lot of clips.  He's going to shoot the place up and get 20 kills before he dies by the police.

Now, if each party had access to handguns (if they were legal), then Joe Sixpack might have had one (many people in FL carry one concealed when they go out in public) to defend his family.  And Nutcase might have chosen a handgun out of ease, and it would have meant less kills on his part.


Tim, I'm 32.  I've carried for 11 years now, legally in FL.  I had to pass a tough written exam (and now they have to test fire) and I had extensive background check.  If I get into trouble - domestic, mental, criminal, etc - I lose my permit.

I've been in fights (some kid threw a haymaker in crowded mall), I've been messed with like all, I've been mad in traffic, but I've never drawn it.  most people don't know I carry and never will because it's not something that's pleasant, but something that could save my skin if I ever find myself in a bad spot.

Would you really advocate me not being able to carry my gun anymore, so that *some* of the kids who are already carrying illegal might have a tougher time getting their next gun?

[The ChemistV2]

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Didn't Spock say that at the end of "The Wrath of Kahn"?