The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Charlton Heston Dies
In defense of heston's 'cold dead hand'
It would have been fitting to see a gun salute to this Hollywood star, who was for so long catigated by liberals worldwide all because he truely believed in individual freedom - far more so than his critics. Heston, unlike many of his critics was at least consistent when it came to standing up for the rights of Americans to bear arms - many have forgotten that he was also an ardent defender of black civil rights, even when it was highly unfashionable to do so. The Second Amendment enshrines the right of Americans to bear arms, critics of the Amendment believe you cannot trust ordinary people, especially ordinary Americans to have all that freedom - Heston to his credit mistrusted those who supported gun controls - and illiberal liberals against freedom like Michael Moore, who also happens to be a great advert for going out, and actually buying a M16 - and signing up to the National Rifle Association.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-28 17:41
reply No defence - but the man...
I did not agree with Moore's interview with the ailing Heston. It was journalism of the most exploitative kind. Heston was indeed a liberal minded man in his younger days. I am sure that conservatives will say that his prominent views (on guns)of later years was due to increased wisdom and liberals will say it was onset of Altzheimers. I don't believe he meant any ill by the views he held. The interpretation of the second amendment is open to question and, in any case, a constitution founded in the environment of the 18th century may not be wholly applicable today. The reason for the rights of Americans to bear arms was to protect the security of the state. The reason citizens bear arms today has absolutely nothing to do with this and is almost totally redundant today. Using this amendment as any excuse to not change the current US environment is a completely spurious technical argument. The prime reasons behind the desire of many Americans to wish to have the freedom to bear arms is because of a paranoia about being attacked by others within the society and because this is encouraged by a powerful and influential lobby of arms manufacturers. The fact that most deaths and injuries from gunshots are accidental or within a domectic environment gets glossed over too easily by the power of these spurious counter-arguments. A random statistic is that in 1995 there were about 40,000 deaths from gunshots in the USA compared with 17 in Japan. Either you have to accept that American society is made up of a lot of homicidal maniacs or that guns maight have an influence on this. Personally I find the logic of this compelling, but you have to ask why most Americans do not, and then relate this to the power of the political influence of the weapons industry.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-04-27 16:47
reply The Gun Debate
englishman; The 2nd amendment debate is far too complicated to resolve in one post. A few things to point:: 1) Most Americans do not possess guns even though they have a right to. 2) Gun possession is a pandora box that can never be closed. To outlaw them would not keep them out of the hands of criminals. 3) most gun deaths involve criminal activity 4)The US has a very diverse population. That diversity does lead to conflict among various groups. That is true in similar countries. Countries like Japan (which still manages somehow to exclude large scale immigration, how do they do that?) have homogenous populations and less domestic conflict. 5) Just like many prurient interests, gun violence makes for juicy conversation. In truth, it is exaggerated. For example, your references to homicidal maniacs and the weapons industry is pretty wild. From what I have read and seen on the BBC, England and Europe have more than their fair share of violence. I doubt Heston favored criminal activity. I think he favored the rights of average Americans.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-28 02:08
reply englishman wrote:
The
[quote=englishman] The reason for the rights of Americans to bear arms was to protect the security of the state. [/quote]
I'm afraid not, englishman. The reason for the right to bear arms was to protect the citizens against the state (i.e., the second amendment was intended to give citizens the means to defend their liberties, against tyrrany. Quotes, from the founding daddies: George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Patrick Henry: :"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." George Mason: "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government." Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." It is because he was liberal-minded that Charlston Heston upheld the right to bear arms -- the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States being to allow the people the means to enforce their Rights & Liberties.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-05-11 01:28
reply Define fair share
TT [quote]From what I have read and seen on the BBC, England and Europe have more than their fair share of violence.[/quote] In 2006 the UK had less than 800 murders for a population of slightly less than 61,000,000. That's approximately 1 murder for every 75,000 people. In the same period the US had just over 17,000 murders for a population of 300,000,000. That's approximately 1 murder for every 17,000 people. My limited mathematical abilities allow me to calculate that as a ratio of 4.25:1. It's a fair share I'm happy to accept on this occasion. If you want to know about the world perhaps you should stop listening to general hacks and do some serious research. It's very interesting.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-28 10:29
reply BigC Displays His Knowledge Of......Nothing
BigC(RAP); Your rant reminds me of when I was a teenager. At a friend's house one day, his father ranted he knew all about our rebellious generation because he watched TV, saw movies and read the newspaper. He knew no more about my generation than you do about the US. From watching the BBC and French TV, I could say both countries are awash with immigrant Arabs wanting to blow up planes, burn cars, kill police and convert both to Sharia law. Am I correct?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-04-28 18:13
reply mottes and beams
TT
[quote]At a friend's house one day, his father ranted he knew all about our which is exactly what you are doing here: [quote]From what I have read and seen on the BBC, England and Europe have more than their fair share of violence.[/quote] I was making the point that the UK has 4 times the murder rate of the US in response to your implication that Europe is comparably violent. In a little devillment I added emphasis by turning around the words you used to scold me in a recent thread.
[quote]From watching the BBC and French TV, I could say both countries are I'm afraid I don't watch much French TV but I do watch the BBC and the answer is no. I have just watched a BBC news bulletin and not one mention of terrorism - arab or otherwise. By the way, I'm sure it's not intentional but are you aware of how racist the term "awash with immigrant Arabs wanting to blow up planes [& etc]" is? I do not view the US as awash with violence. I have only ever encountered warmth and friendliness there. But I do know, through research (ie, watching news, reading and googling - what do you base your knowledge on?) that it is much more violent than most (not all) European countries
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-29 09:07
reply BigC And Big Holes
BC; Thank you for admitting that the US is not awash in violence. You are correct about friendliness. I have met many Britain's, both tourists and residents in the US. They love it here. They love the people. Those who are residents wouldn't dream of going back. Opportunity is what attracts the vast majority. As for myself, I rarely post my own threads on OD. I only poke holes in the threads of others. For example: 1) Despite all the reporting of Arab violence in Engalnd and Europe, you yourself say that is an exaggeration. It is the same thing with negative reports about America. 2) If America has 100 times the number of guns as in the UK and only four times the number of homicides (your estimate, not mine) , the claim that America is much more violent deflates. But hey, that's just me poking more holes.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-29 17:25
reply poke, poke,
poke, poke, poke
[quote=Ttrryosborn] I only poke holes in the threads of others. [/quote] So they can look like the gruyere inside your skull? [quote]If America has 100 times the number of guns as in the UK and only four times the number of homicides (your estimate, not mine) , the claim that America is much more violent deflates. [/quote] If America has four times the number of homicides as England, then claims of American violence have not been exagerated. Four times!!! [quote]But hey, that's just me poking more holes. [/quote] In your own (lack of) argument...
Submitted on Sat, 2008-05-10 07:31
reply bluejay;
Guns and
bluejay; Guns and homicide statistics? From your post and mine it is clear that you can make statistics say anything. The inside of my head looks like gruyere? Gee. You're being mean. I'll just "poke" my head in my pillow tonight and cry.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-05-12 19:47
reply Bbluejjay, you are quite
Bbluejjay, you are quite right that the people in the 18th century distrusted any standing army that had the potential to enslave a populous, although this was really more of a concern that individual states should not be subjected to an unfair and over-zealous application of federal control. It was not really expected that individuals should take up arms against their government but more that individual states had the right to defend their authority against federal repression (should this occur) and that local state militias could call upon people trained and equipped when needed. Individual militias no longer exist under state control, however, and have been superceded by the National Guard. TT, I understand your point about a Pandora's box, but I believe it could be closed if the will was there. It is much easier to enforce a law against the bad guys if the law is there to be enforced. The following link has a graph showing correlation betwen gun ownership and deaths through suicide and homicide: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm The USA is high even allowing for the correlated trend which indicates there are other factors at work as you would expect (and as you suggest), but there is, nonetheless, a good correlation. There are some other interesting references there as well. As a matter of interest I have just spent a couple of weeks in downtown Vancouver and there was a shooting within a couple of hundred yards from my hotel. One person killed and one wounded. This is quite unusual in Canada but a rising problem in some areas.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-05-19 18:21
reply Suicide? People shoot
Suicide? People shoot themselves, let us abolish guns? People throw themselves out of buildings: let us raze down all buildings. People will just have to live in tents. Tents that require no ropes. So people can't hang themselves.
[quote=englishman] Bbluejjay, you are quite right [/quote] I know that. [quote] Individual militias no longer exist under state control, however, and have been superceded by the National Guard. [/quote] Added reason to maintain the Second Amendment: so people can have the means to defend their liberties against that new fangled... standing army: the National Guard. (Does anyone seriously believe Ben-Hur was a good film? The Ten Commandments?)
Submitted on Thu, 2008-05-22 05:33
reply Yes, OK, the suicide bit is
Yes, OK, the suicide bit is only there because I found a website which had a plot of the statistics of gun deaths but did not break out the suicides. I think you may conclude that this aspect does not change the overall point of the argument. Do you seriously consider that it is likely that there will be an armed revolution in the USA? Whatever the argument is here, it is no doubt the case that whatever weapons are possessed by any revolutionary populace, the government forces would have bigger and better ones, but, more importantly in today's world, have total control of communications and surveillance equipment. These reasons for possession of arms are outdated and, apart from the constitutional defence, very few people supporting the possession of arms would think of this as their prime reason for their views.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-05-23 12:53
reply Post new comment |
|
|
I just heard on the news that Charlton Heston passed away this evening. For anyone who went to the movies in the l950's and l960's, he was one of the must sees. I saw him on the London stage a dozen years ago in a production of The Caine Mutiny. He played the Queeg part. He was great. I went to the back stage with my friends after the performance and got his autograph. He was a very kind gentleman.
Does anyone have any comments?