He was a man of strength and integrity, a proud American and a true patriot. But out of all the reasons to hate Charlton Heston's guts, the one he will be most remembered for was his irrational support for the so-called "Second Amendment": an obscure passage in the Bill of Rights which he, in his Alzheimer's-ravaged mind, believed protected an individual's "Right to Bear Arms".
The truth is, no one really knows what the Second Amendment means. The meaning of the words "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," has eluded even the best Constitutional scholars, from George Clooney to Rosie O'Donnell, for countless generations. Even the Supreme Court, a historically reliable bastion of progressive wisdom (albeit somewhat diminished since Bush began filling it with neocons and Uncle Toms), remains divided over the interpretation of the mysterious phrase.
The best theory anyone has for the existence of the Second Amendment is that the Founding Fathers were idiots and had no idea what they were getting us all into. Or maybe they just put the Right to Bear Arms in there as a joke. If so, then the joke is on the 12 million young people who die every year in campus shootings, thanks to Heston's twisted defense of an outdated right that has nothing to do with gay sex or abortions.
You left out of your reading of the Second Amendment the part about the well regulated militia (i.e. celebrity bodyguards), and it is really only that which the "right" in question pertains.
But more crucial, more central in this most important debate, is the question of whatever happened to Carl Schmalberg?
Posted by: First of Etiquette | April 07, 2008 at 07:35 PM
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
the meaning of that phrase and the origin of life are two things that are beyond human comprehension.
oh yeah and how they mmanage to spray paint the cheese on Doritos...
Posted by: Friend of USA | April 07, 2008 at 08:14 PM
blockquote>"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,"/blockquote>
What ever happened in english class. It is quite simple. The freedom it is talking about is to expose your arms of course. I think infringed has something to do with shaving them or not.
SEE!!
Now when Heston is layed out in his coffin he will have empty hands but exposed arms crossed on his chest.
PS Read the link, too many words.
Here are his "cold dead hands"
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! | April 07, 2008 at 08:19 PM
THE POWER OF CHARLTON COMPELS YOU!
THE POWER OF CHARLTON COMPELS YOU!
THE POWER OF CHARLTON COMPELS YOU!
Posted by: The Exorcist | April 07, 2008 at 09:29 PM
I guess you can, now...
Posted by: camojack | April 08, 2008 at 01:10 AM
What the Founders meant to write was that we have a Right to Bare Arms...a simple transposition of letters that even spell-check wouldn't catch. You gun kooks just don't get it. This ammendment was intended to counter the rampant puritanicalism that was sweeping the nation, making even 15 year-old girls feel compelled to wear bras and long sleeves.
Posted by: Big___Al | April 08, 2008 at 03:42 AM
I think we Enlyghtened Lyberals, I mean, Progressyves, should arm bears so they can defend themselves against hateful evil angry spiteful shrill evil shrieking screaming hate-filled evil KKKonservative KKKhristian RePugnantKKKan "hunters".
Posted by: Bush4Ever | April 08, 2008 at 03:43 AM
Actually, the Founding Mothers and Fathers were known to be dyslexic and devout equality activists. They meant to arm bears to protect them from hate crimes, as well as debunking the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and Arm Bears, shall not be infringed.
Posted by: Che Gaiavera | April 08, 2008 at 04:14 AM
You left out of your reading of the Second Amendment the part about the well regulated militia (i.e. celebrity bodyguards), and it is really only that which the "right" in question pertains.
That dude from Fast Times at Ridgemont High falls into this category, too. When the well regulated militia fails, you can count on Shotgun Sean!
Posted by: Che Gaiavera | April 08, 2008 at 04:20 AM
In light of this, we should ask Obama to issue a fatwa.
Posted by: feelthelove | April 08, 2008 at 05:52 AM
I'm going to have to stop reading this while drinking coffee. Or get a keyboard condom.
Posted by: DonnieDarko | April 08, 2008 at 07:00 AM
Footage of Charlton's last hunt proves he was a friend of nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqiXJ4b8yWc
Posted by: The Exorcist | April 08, 2008 at 08:19 AM
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
--- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the “Educating Heart Summit” in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.
Posted by: Friend of USA | April 08, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Exorcist... I went to the YouTube link and watched the video. Was that Heston? I couldn't tell. And the language of the commenters! Fuckity, fuck, fuck, fuck. Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! God damn fuck fuck!
Not a very wide vocabulary.
Posted by: DonnieDarko | April 08, 2008 at 10:09 AM
"Was that Heston?"
Fuck no!
Chuck wouldn't shoot an animal he wasn't going to eat, unless the democrat threatened him first.
Posted by: The Exorcist | April 08, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Because of Chucky H and his reichwing ilk spreading firearms to the unwashed masses, poor Hillary had to engage in a firefight with well armed neandrathals when she went to liberate Bosnia.
Posted by: neohamster | April 08, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Chomsky does not allow guns. He is a strict mistress and if he catches his disciples with a gun bad things happen.
By the way Chomsky.
Posted by: I Heart Chomsky | April 08, 2008 at 01:07 PM
"What the Founders meant to write was that we have a Right to Bare Arms"
That sounds plausible, because the Amerikan Taliban would have tried to stone women for showing their arms.
However as a Constitutional Interpretation professor at Berkely I've taught my acolytes that the founders actually meant to affirm "The right to arm bears", so that these peaceful, vegan creatures could defend themselves from the murderous approach of humanity.
Posted by: Menstrual Rainbow | April 08, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Did Michael Moore need a gun when he took on the truth? Did Robin Williams need a gun when he took on irony? Did Jane Fonda need a gun when she took on the USA/South Vietnamese propaganda machine? Did Alec Baldwin need a gun when he took on his daughter's voicemail? Did Randi Rhodes need a gun when he took on the pavement? Did Sean Penn need a gun when he took on Katrina victims?
Well, scratch that last one, as we've seen earlier that maybe he did. But you get my point.
Posted by: Fist of Etiquette | April 08, 2008 at 02:18 PM
I was thrilled to read this bumper sticker "a man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject". A land of subjects ruled by the Progryssve elite into a new day of enlightenment sounds like Paradise.
Posted by: RWing Nut | April 08, 2008 at 02:21 PM
no guns needed here. This from James Taranto at "Best of the Web"---- A Barack Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention was "ticketed for calling her neighbor's African-American children 'monkeys,' " reports the Chicago Sun-Times. (We didn't realize this was against the law, but the Chicago Tribune explains that the charge was disorderly conduct.) Here is what happened, according to the Sun-Times:
[Linda] Ramirez-Sliwinski "came outside and told the children to quit playing in the tree like monkeys. The tree was not on Ramirez-Sliwinski's property," Carpentersville Police Commander Michael Kilbourne said.
Ramirez-Sliwinski admitted she used the word "monkeys," but said she did not intend racism. She said she was only trying to protect them from falling out of the tree.
"Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski said she saw the kids playing in the tree and didn't want them falling out of the tree and getting hurt. She said she calls her own grandchildren 'monkeys,' " Kilbourne said. The mother of one of the children did not see it that way, noting she and Ramirez-Sliwinski have clashed before.
"She felt it was racist because of the fact the children were African-American," Kilbourne said.
Told of the incident Monday by the Sun-Times, Obama's campaign called Ramirez-Sliwinski and persuaded her to step aside as a delegate because the campaign felt her remarks were "divisive and unacceptable."
Finally, someone Barack Obama can disown! Let this be a lesson for other Obama delegates: If someone is bothering you, shout at the top of your lungs, "God damn America!" You know Obama will stand by you then.
Posted by: George C.Looney | April 08, 2008 at 04:50 PM
How to empower victims of perpetual outrage. Always be offended no matter what.
Posted by: feelthelove | April 08, 2008 at 05:49 PM
They don't have monkeys in Hispanicaniaolia?
Posted by: Che Gaiavera | April 08, 2008 at 05:50 PM
I question the timing.
I'm not sure of what, but it's kinda an all-purpose (ahem) ejaculation.
Posted by: Jay Guevara | April 08, 2008 at 06:11 PM
I question your alias. Surely you're not my long-lost sexually ambiguous brothyr with whom I was separated in that alley in the thyrd trymestyr?!
Posted by: Che Gaiavera | April 08, 2008 at 06:17 PM