Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => Topic started by: rogerzilla on 06 April, 2008, 06:38:02 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7332960.stm
-
I didn't know he was an advocate of Martin Luther King.
-
I would have liked him a lot more if it wasn't for his vocal support of the gun lobby. :-\
-
He made some good films, but (and this may surprise you) politically I can't say I found much to like about him. I found him too right wing in later life. :o
He dropped even lower in my estimation after seeing the Michael Moore interview with him.
Edit - he seemed like a good Democrat in the 1960's. :-\
-
One suspects that his appeal was strongest to gay men and to straight women. His tendency to play Patriarchs always meant that he was a target for anti-establishment feeling, especially in a period uneasy about the authoritarian father figure. He did look good though. Anyone got his wigmaker's address?
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44543000/jpg/_44543818_charlton_heston_hur_226afp.jpg)
Damon.
-
I didn't know he was an advocate of Martin Luther King.
I was about to write him off as just another right wing fascist until I read about his (peaceful) activism - at least in his earlier days. Still doesn't excuse his crap about guns though.
-
You start off all radical & idealistic when young, then turn right wing when you get older.
Wowbagger - there's still time for you to repent, and see the light. ;)
-
You start off all radical & idealistic when young, then turn right wing when you get older.
Wowbagger - there's still time for you to repent, and see the light. ;)
Wowbagger with guns? Run for the hills!
-
John Charles Carter doesn't quite have the same ring does it?
-
You start off all radical & idealistic when young, then turn right wing when you get older.
Wowbagger - there's still time for you to repent, and see the light. ;)
I remember being told this when I was in the sixth form politics class - not by the teacher, but by fellow-pupils.
I didn't see why it should be true then, and I certainly don't now. I think that as I have become older and more cynical if anything I have moved further to the left.
I do remember seeing a very amusing cartoon, I think in Private Eye, in which the caption was something along the lines of "I do think these Bader-Meinhof reunion dinner parties are lovely evenings out, dahlink."
-
I didn't see why it should be true then, and I certainly don't now.
Nor me. I suspect it's people who when young think that being a lefty is morally sounder, but actually are fundamentally right-wing. As they get older they just stop trying and revert to their true selves - or maybe learn to be happy with who they really are.
People go the other way too - John Bercow being an example. When I knew him he was an obnoxious crypto fascist FCS shit, with a "hang Nelson Mandela" T-shirt. He's grown up into a sensible, thoughtful, liberal one-nation Tory
-
My favourite memory of Charlton Heston is actually the reference from the first "Men in Black" movie, where Vincent D'Onofrio's character says "You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" and the alien replies "Your proposal is acceptable!"
-
You start off all radical & idealistic when young, then turn right wing when you get older.
Wowbagger - there's still time for you to repent, and see the light. ;)
I remember being told this when I was in the sixth form politics class - not by the teacher, but by fellow-pupils.
I didn't see why it should be true then, and I certainly don't now. I think that as I have become older and more cynical if anything I have moved further to the left.
Interesting. I had the opposite experience in the sixth form. The other pupils & the teacher mainly had a left wing bias and all told me I'd alter my political views when I got older.
I'd agree about me being more cynical though.
-
I'd agree about me being more cynical though.
I think cynicism is the key. Most lefties tend to be reasonably idealistic and believe in trying to make a fairer world. Most people of the right (as far as I can see) reckon the world's fundamentally unfair and the best approach is to accept that everyone is in it for themselves and to make sure that a system based on that gives a reasonable outcome.
Maybe most people do become more cynical, and hence more rightwing with age. It's certainly the case that we all see things less in black-and-white as we get older, but that's actually made me less cynical; I can see that most people are just trying to muddle along and that most people are pretty decent if they're given the space to be. No heroes and baddies (or at least, not many) just people. Comrade. ;)
-
Good points Mal.
I don't think many people (unless they're truely gifted or insane) think they can change the world when they're young, but I think you accept your place in the world. However these days, there's more of an acceptance that little steps taken by a lot of people can make a difference in the long run - recycling for instance.
Evolution not revolution.
-
I was in my early teens in 1968. which was a period of great optmism. I thought that things would improve systematically as people took more power for themselves.
I've been consistently disappointed in that the progress made has been largely undone and there is, I think, far less power in the hands of ordinary people, and far more with governments and big business, than there was 40 years ago.
-
I don't think many people (unless they're truely gifted or insane) think they can change the world when they're young
I dunno...I think a lot of idealistic young people do think they can change the world - I know I did* - and it can be a rude awakening when they realise that they can't. I can't help feeling, though, that it's better to have had that optimism than to have been cynical and pessimistic from an early age. If the optimism survives, so much the better.
*I prefer to consider myself truely gifted... :)
-
The world is smaller when you're young. The older I get, the more I see how deeply patterns of behaviour are dug in, and how reluctant people are to change. Mind you, I also think that individuals are more wonderful, and society less so. Cynicism and an understanding of shades of grey can cohabit :(
I'm still deeply heartened that we're a polite enough society that the idea of going armed is wacky. Nice cup of team, vicar?
-
Y'see, much as Chuck H's ramblings in Bowling For Columbine made me very uncomfortable, I still have to waft gently down onto the "right to bear arms" side of the fence.
I'm so going to get stick for saying this on here, so go gently with me please...
I believe that, done properly, a legally armed citizenry is a Good Thing.
*stands back*
*watches touch paper burn*
-
Y'see, much as Chuck H's ramblings in Bowling For Columbine made me very uncomfortable, I still have to waft gently down onto the "right to bear arms" side of the fence.
I'm so going to get stick for saying this on here, so go gently with me please...
I believe that, done properly, a legally armed citizenry is a Good Thing.
*stands back*
*watches touch paper burn*
Ah, but there's the problem. Define 'done properly'. I don't think it's possible, but I'm prepared to listen... ;D
-
No need to hide under the table m'dear, we already have legally armed citizenery.
P'raps 10% of houses out here in the sticks will have a licenced shotgun / rifle. It was tightened up about 15 years ago so everything has to be kept in a gun cabinet, no repeating rifles etc. Before then, most farmers kept the shotgun by the back door just to get that bloody rabbit / crow / pikey in the orchard.
Do you mean we should be able to pack heat walking round the city? Would make it easier to deal with chuggers, I suppose.
-
Here's the thing. I know it's an old chessnut, but if you're a scrote who wants to own a firearm for the purposes of criminality, you're highly unlikely get a legal one, are you?
I'm not saying that firearm possession should be available to all. Of course there should be checks and balances.
But I'm really quite convinced that responsible firearm ownership is a Good Thing. You only need a very small percentage of ordinary people to be properly trained in how to safely and legally keep and use a firearm in the home before nobody other than the state knows where the guns are. Similarly, if the bad guys had no idea whether or not the person they were about to mug was an ordinary citizen with a concealed carry licence, it would make people think a lot harder before committing crimes against the person.
Not everyone wants to own or carry a weapon. Not everybody is fit to do so. Even if they are, it's a hell of a responsibility to carry a deadly weapon and to take the choice that in extremis, you'd be prepared to use it to take life in order to defend life. It's a judgment call on the part of the proper authorities to say who is unfit to be given a license and then a judgment call on the part of the individual as to whether or not they can bear the responsibility. But that's not to say that some people won't think that responsibility is worth the benefits for the individual and for society as a whole.
It's a bit like cycling. Sure, every so often, someone on a bike is going to get hit and maybe even killed by a car. That's horrible and it's seemingly quite avoidable. But is it reason enough to deny the massive good that can come of the population owning and using what are no more than sophisticated tools?
-
Or, guns become easier to get and all sorts of people get them. Cue big increase in slayings as Friday night punch-ups and kickings escalate into drunken gun battles.
Cue also sudden incidence of armed road rage incidents; WVMs taking pot shots at each other on the M25, and the possibility that if you give the finger to that sales rep in the Vectra he'll pop a cap in yo' ass.
I have friends who cycle in Texas - where road rage is much, much rarer than here - and that's pretty-much what happens. They've been shot at a lot on the bike. Red neck target practice. If it happened here, now, you'd get an armed response squad and it'd be a major incident. Make guns commonplace and that won't happen
No, ta. We're not in Switzerland, Dorothy.
-
The trouble with your argument Charlotte is that if I am armed (having been been deemed responsible), and end up getting mugged, if I then try and shoot the mugger, it's possible I might miss and hit a bystander, or the gun might be taken off me and used against other people.
-
The arguments are pretty well-trod. Arguments that escalate into violence can now escalate into deadly violence; White Van Man gets a cannon as well as trusted folks; I'd sure as hell have sucked a bullet by now in one of my depressive funks.
On the other hand, gun sport is fun. Shooting things is fun. But overall, I'm a strong advocate of not having an armed society. It's not a police society, it's at best a cowed society.
This may not apply to other countries, but it's how I see the situation in the UK.
-
Looking at the wider issue of gun ownership, I think the right to bear arms is taken too literally in the USA. As an example, my father in law is a deputy sherriff in Wyoming. He has a very extensive collection of guns that he does keep locked up securely, and when we're over there, he takes us out shooting in the desert - which is good fun.
He personally agrees that it's daft he's allowed to have so many weapons and won't have a sub machine gun, but of course over there, it's not an issue to use a gun to stop someone breaking into your house.
Here, we have the saying an Englishman's home is his castle but no way of enforcing it, for fear (percived or otherwise) of infinging the criminal's human rights.
I can see where you're coming from with your comment Charlotte but that would only work if the citizens as a whole respected other people and their property more. Social responsibility needs to be made a core part of education.
-
Given just how litigious the yanks are, gun ownership can be a surprisingly simple matter. But if a legally armed citizen actually has to draw his or her weapon, let alone use it, you can bet that a lawsuit will almost certainly result.
Before being issued with a concealed carry permit, most states insist that you complete and pass a course, during which, amongst other things, it's impressed upon potential permit holders that drawing their weapon in public without lawful excuse and proper control is going to get them either bankrupted, imprisoned, shot or worse. It's not the sort of thing that anyone takes lightly.
I'm as frightened of untrained people waving unlicensed guns around as the next cyclist. But you still haven't persuaded me that legal and responsible gun ownership isn't a Good Thing.
And bear in mind, I'm talking gun ownership expressly for the purpose of self defense here - something that's not been allowed in Great Britain since WWII. Any argument to deny responsible sporting gun ownership is even dafter IMHO.
-
I'm as frightened of untrained people waving unlicensed guns around as the next cyclist
I'd be more frightened of trained people who've temporarily lost it waving licensed guns around, because there'll be an awful lot more of them.
We have a society of random violence and selfishness in this country. Throw guns into the mix and it'd be just terrifying.
-
We have a society of random violence and selfishness in this country. Throw guns into the mix and it'd be just terrifying.
Sadly, I agree. If a licenced gun carrier gets cut up, what's to say he doesn't decide to wave his weapon around, or even just flash the holder, if he thinks he can get away with it without being spotted by anyone else.
-
But you still haven't persuaded me that legal and responsible gun ownership isn't a Good Thing.
I think the issue is that people aren't always responsible. Someone can be responsible 99% of the time, certainly enough to get a license for a gun, but occasionally get drunk and irascible. Now you have an angry drunk with a gun. Things escalate they always do. If you have a lot of people with guns no matter how well intentioned there will be times when what would have been a punch will be a shot instead.
I am however with you on sporting guns in gun clubs. Banning them was just silly. Especially as almost anyone can can get a shotgun license.
-
I know I'm sounding like the devil's advocate here Pat, but hear me out because it's a matter of personal freedom and responsibility.
By your logic, we should prevent people owning cars because they might get drunk and drive them?
-
Yep, we occasionally get police armed response units getting carried away and shooting the wrong person, now. :-[
I can't see how any system will ensure that gun owning members of the public are level-headed enough to carry in public, when we can't even ensure that it's foolproof with the police.
I'm going to wheel out my favourite quote on the subject, again:
Have you ever been in a pub where everyone goes armed? Oh, things are a little polite at first, ... then some twerp drinks out of the wrong mug or picks up someone else's change by mistake and five minutes later you're picking noses out of the beer nuts...
Commander Vimes, "Jingo", Terry Pratchett
-
because it's a matter of personal freedom and responsibility.
That's the key thing. I don't disagree with the principle. However the sad fact is we don't have a society able to act responsibly.
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one" to quote Spock & Kirk (Star Trek II)
Too many people think they have a right to do what they want.
-
we should prevent people owning cars because they might get drunk and drive them?
Ah but that's an old chestnut - cars' primary purpose is to move people and stuff, and injury results only from errors or villainy. Guns are weapons, and their primary purpose is to make people dead at a distance.
Convince us that people can be responsible - that's the challenge. Unfortunately you've got a tough crowd here, because every day we see the humpties on the road who, despite training, exams, and a massive safety-design infrastructure, still manage to bollocks it up enough to justify the existence of organisations like Roadpeace.
If there was a need to be armed, then this may be acceptable - just as there is a need to travel, so society finds the cost in lives acceptable. But there isn't that need: no bandits or bears on my commute.
-
But Andy - you've no need to drive an eight litre Chevvy 4x4 pick up with bullbars and snow tyres either. Such a vehicle could be argued to have no place on your daily commute.
But if there a freak snowfall and your life is in danger, with the appropriate skills and training, that vehicle could save yours or someone else's life, no?
I'm not talking about your right to own a firearm as a stand alone "this is my inalienable right" thing here (although it works for the yanks). I'm saying that if I'm trained, responsible and accountable in the use of what is only a tool for making my life safer, why should my government deny me the protection that it affords?
I carry a resuscitation mask on the strap of my courier bag. I've never had to use it and I hope I never will. But I am trained to use it and one day, it may just save my life or the life of someone else. That's a good enough reason for me.
-
But Andy - you've no need to drive an eight litre Chevvy 4x4 pick up with bullbars and snow tyres either. Such a vehicle could be argued to have no place on your daily commute.
That's the equivalent argument to carrying a small pistol vs an AK47. Not gun/not.
I'm saying that if I'm trained, responsible and accountable in the use of what is only a tool for making my life safer, why should my government deny me the protection that it affords?
Because most people don't want that to happen, and what governments are meant to do is to implement the social contract that binds us all. Same as why nanny state governments make me pay income tax.
-
I'd prefer to know that people around me were not armed. I'd be especially unhappy at the thought of anyone having a weapon that works at more than arm's length. Can you imagine the sort of carnage that could result when someone loses a wallet in a crowded street and tries to shoot the mugger who's running away?
-
I'm saying that if I'm trained, responsible and accountable in the use of what is only a tool for making my life safer, why should my government deny me the protection that it affords?
I disagree with the premise that a sidearm is a tool for making your life safer.
If I agreed with it, I'd have to agree with your argument, but I don't - I think that the presence of weapons simply ups the ante on everything from deliberate confrontation all the way to jiggly-pannier cockup.
FWIW, if I moved to the USA, I would probably play with guns, but only at the range or huntin', and just because they rock. I would absolutely not daily-carry.
-
I'm not talking about your right to own a firearm as a stand alone "this is my inalienable right" thing here (although it works for the yanks).
Really? :o
I have to say if that's a system that you think is 'working', then you've got to work even harder to convince me that people can be trusted with guns than you did before. ::-)
-
Carrying a weapon can also give people a false sense of security and so they get into arguments where unarmed they would back off. Then it escalates and bang someone's dead.