Charlton Heston Died Today

Death does not automatically confer goodness on people.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • Sean D. Martin

    Sean: “Again, not what I said. I didn’t say “merely” mixing races will lead to gun violence.”

    CSS: But that’s what he said… he just said, “a more mixed ethnicity” as if this explains the level of gun violence. Like Lou Dobbs, he quickly realized how racist that is, but too late.

    No, he said “we have probably a more mixed ethnicity” offering it as a possible cause and followed it with “I wouldn’t go that far as to say [it’s an ethnic thing]… I have no answer.”

    He put forth mixed ethnicity as a possible cause but specifically did not agree that it is a sole cause. To me it comes across as someone attempting to answer a question that has no simple answer. To you it simply comes across a complete answer and as an extremely racist statement.

    Clearly, we’re going to disagree here. Let’s leave it at that.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Me: “If you think merely having people of difference races mix will increase gun violence, then you are racist.”

    Sean: “Again, not what I said. I didn’t say “merely” mixing races will lead to gun violence.”

    But that’s what he said.

    He didn’t say racial tensions, he just said, “a more mixed ethnicity” as if this explains the level of gun violence. Like Lou Dobbs, he quickly realized how racist that is, but too late.

  • Sean D. Martin

    If you think merely having people of difference races mix will increase gun violence, then you are racist.

    Again, not what I said. I didn’t say “merely” mixing races will lead to gun violence.

    Will mixing races always lead to violence? Of course not.

    But there have been situations where mixing races has lead to tension and even violence. Forced busing, for example, did not go over with everyone holding hands and singing kumbayah. Mixing races at lunch counters was received with more closed fists than open arms. To observe these facts, to make note of them, does not make one a racist.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Anyway, if you’d like, I can rephrase my statement (I’m such an accommodating person): Saying mixed ethnicity is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.”

    Yes is does. If you think merely having people of difference races mix will increase gun violence, then you are racist.

  • Sean D. Martin

    Sean: “Saying racial tension is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.”

    CSS: And that’s not what he said.

    No, it’s not. It response to a question about why we are a country that kills each other on this level with guns his exact words were “Well, we have probably a more mixed ethnicity than other countries, some other countries.” So, yeah, his wording didn’t include the exact phrase “racial tension”. But I think it’s a fair understanding of what he was trying to get at in his answer. What did you think he was saying?

    Anyway, if you’d like, I can rephrase my statement (I’m such an accommodating person): Saying mixed ethnicity is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Still waiting for those statistics proving that gun violence is higher in cities with strict gun control laws.”

    I suspect you will be waiting a long time.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    Still waiting for those statistics proving that gun violence is higher in cities with strict gun control laws.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Me: “Bullshit. Heston blames it on mixed ethnicity, but realized how racist that was and immediately backtracks.”

    Sean: “Not the way it seemed to me. But I don’t have that keen ability of yours to know what someone else is actually thinking despite what they may say themselves so I guess I’ll have to defer to you on this one.”

    It’s called not being fucking stupid. You would have to be terminally naive to believe some of the spin you’ve come up with. Some people actually believe, ‘Macaca’ isn’t a racist term and Allen didn’t know the connotation when he said it. He claims he didn’t know the connotation when he said it. Just because he claims he didn’t mean to say something bigoted doesn’t mean he didn’t say something bigoted.

    Sean: “Now, having responded to your reference to the other thread I will say no more about it here. Leave it over there, C.”

    It goes to your credibility. You seem to be willing to swallow any load of bullshit to avoid coming to grips with reality. So no, I will not leave it over there. You don’t like it when I bring up stupid things you’ve said in the past? Then don’t say stupid things.

    Sean: “Saying racial tension is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.”

    And that’s not what he said.

  • http://alankhenderson.blogspot.com/ Alan K. Henderson

    “Why? Because it might be more favorable to your hypothesis?”

    No, because it’s dishonest to compare a member of a statistical sample to outliers.

    You ask for apples-and-apples comparisons, but comparing cities of similar size doesn’t accomplish the task. That involves finding cities that have *all* the same crime rate factors except for the one being tested – in this case, gun control.

    The truest apples-to-apples comparison one can make is to compare a city to itself, before and after changes in city (or county) gun control laws. I know of no examples where local gun control initiatives were followed by reductions in crime – it tends to go the opposite way, as in DC and New York.

  • Sean D. Martin

    “First, again, saying gun violence comes from ethnic diversity is not a racist statement.”

    I stand by that. Saying racial tension is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist. That an American tendency toward gun violence exists because of the history this country has of racial tension is a comment that could be put made by Jesse Jackson as legitimately as by Charlton Heston.

  • Sean D. Martin

    Bullshit. Heston blames it on mixed ethnicity, but realized how racist that was and immediately backtracks.

    Not the way it seemed to me. But I don’t have that keen ability of yours to know what someone else is actually thinking despite what they may say themselves so I guess I’ll have to defer to you on this one.

    And you don’t think calling someone Pia Zadora isn’t an insult, so forgive me if I don’t trust your judgment here.

    Calling someone Pia Zadora may indeed be an insult. At the risk of pushing one of your buttons, I have never said otherwise. What I had said, repeatedly, was that I hadn’t yet seen anyone here do that.

    Now, having responded to your reference to the other thread I will say no more about it here. Leave it over there, C.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “First, again, saying gun violence comes from ethnic diversity is not a racist statement.”

    And you don’t think calling someone Pia Zadora isn’t an insult, so forgive me if I don’t trust your judgment here.

    “Second, it is not clear that Heston blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. I transcribed the relevant portion of the clip for you since your browser was having problems with it and Heston is clear that he doesn’t think it’s an ethnic thing.”

    Bullshit. Heston blames it on mixed ethnicity, but realized how racist that was and immediately backtracks.

  • Sean D. Martin

    But blaming gun violence on ethnic diversity shows he never did.

    First, again, saying gun violence comes from ethnic diversity is not a racist statement. Second, it is not clear that Heston blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. I transcribed the relevant portion of the clip for you since your browser was having problems with it and Heston is clear that he doesn’t think it’s an ethnic thing.

    Moore: You think it’s an ethnic thing?
    Heston: No, I don’t. I wouldn’t go that far as to say that… I have no answer.

    Do you have some other place where he’s blaming gun violence on ethnic diversity?

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Or march with MLK because you recognize your racism and are trying to overcome it.”

    But blaming gun violence on ethnic diversity shows he never did.

  • Sean D. Martin

    CSS, yeah, I can understand that. I have at times been uncomfortable around those who have a different skin tone than I. Although when I try to honestly figure out why I’m uncomfortable it usually is because I’m out of my element or not in a particularly safe place. The kinds of situations where it isn’t really the other’s race that’s the unsettling factor. That is, this guy is making me wary because of the way he’s dressed or acting and I honestly think I’d feel the same way whatever his pigmentation.

    You can also simply hate black people, know its wrong to hate black people, and therefore March with MLK to ease your guilt.

    Or march with MLK because you recognize your racism and are trying to overcome it.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Sure, but that [actually believing in the civil rights cause] doesn’t stop him from being racist.”

    Sean: “Uh, I don’t quite get that. It appears kinda contradictory to me.”

    Yes, but not impossible. In fact, it is not even unlikely.

    You can think black people are inferior and therefore need assistance. You can think blacks are more violent and more likely to shot someone, but still think they should have the same rights. You can even believe blacks should have every right and opportunity you have, and still not want to sit next to one at a restaurant. You can also simply hate black people, know its wrong to hate black people, and therefore March with MLK to ease your guilt.

    Evidence that he hold non-racist views in some areas doesn’t override evidence that he holds racist views in others.

  • Duros62

    I’m going to have to remember this thread …</i
    (whispers)

    let it go

  • Sean D. Martin

    Sure, but that [actually believing in the civil rights cause] doesn’t stop him from being racist.

    Uh, I don’t quite get that. It appears kinda contradictory to me.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Does it occur to you that, um, maybe at the time he actually believed in the cause?”

    Sure, but that doesn’t stop him from being racist. He wasn’t KKK level racist, but he was clearly racist. Everyone’s a little bit racist, and what he said in Bowling for Columbine was his Macaca Moment.

  • http://zaiusnation.blogspot.com/ Zaius Nation

    After making a really good a point about Canada and America’s news coverage of violence, I thought that Michael Moore pulled a really cheap stunt on Heston in his film, “Bowling For Columbine.” He just badgered the poor man. I’m glad you found the clip, so people can decide for themselves.

    The stunt that Michael Moore pulled was more like what we would expect from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. More importantly, he muddied a far more salient point that he had made just moments before in the film. Moore sort of cut off his nose to spite his face.

    I don’t actually bear Heston any ill will, even if I didn’t agree with his views. He was a conservative from a different era. Men like him were nothing like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are today.

    The fact that he played both Taylor and Zaius in both versions of “Planet of the Apes” is very cool, I thought.

  • Sean D. Martin

    I’m going to have to remember this thread the next time CS jumps on someone for not getting their facts straight.

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    Civil-rights leaders in Los Angeles held a moment of silence in Heston’s memory Sunday after an unrelated news conference.

    Heston had contributed and raised thousands of dollars in Hollywood for Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement, said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Round Table.

    “We certainly disagree with his position as NRA head and also his firm, firm, unwavering support of the unlimited right to bear arms,” Hutchinson said. But, he added, “Charlton Heston was a complex individual. He lived a long time, and certainly, there were many phases. The phases we prefer to remember were certainly his contributions to Dr. King and civil rights.”

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIhnqF6LygGpQ54CQdntp6c74tTwD8VSPI7G1

  • SpiderJ

    Guilt. Or perhaps he was trying to cover for his racism.

    Again, nonsensical. MLK was a target every time he appeared in public, and whites who supported the civil rights cause were at least as much a target. Heston was a lot of things, but he wasn’t so stupid as to fit into this conspiracy theory.

    Does it occur to you that, um, maybe at the time he actually believed in the cause?

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    If you can’t prove you and the gun you want to buy are fit for a well regulated militia, you can’t buy it.

    The scrutiny applies to the state, not me. For instance, the so-called “assault weapons” ban doesn’t pass the constitutional sniff test. The state can’t just arbitrarily pick out weapons it deems ‘scary’ and make ownership of them criminal without a compelling reason for doing so.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “So you agree that ownership of weapons should be subject to regulation.”

    Jay: “Only in the context of strict scrutiny.”

    How’s this…

    If you can’t prove you and the gun you want to buy are fit for a well regulated militia, you can’t buy it. Periodically after you have bought the gun, you have to prove nothing has changed with the above.

    We need to check for mental health issues, criminal background checks, safety training, target practice, etc.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “Do you know why he has a lifetime membership? Because he won target-shooting competitions when he was in high school.”

    “No CS, that is not why he has a lifetime membership. He had a junior membership when he was in the boy scouts. He purchased his lifetime membership after the Columbine shooting in an effort get others to sign up so that he could run for NRA President against Charlton Heston. Those are the facts.”

    You are correct. However, you can’t dismiss his membership as purely political in nature. He was a member first because he likes guns. He just wants the right people to get guns and make sure the crazies can’t. I can’t see how anyone could argue against that.

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    So you agree that ownership of weapons should be subject to regulation.

    Only in the context of strict scrutiny. If it were up to me, there would be hundreds (perhaps thousands) of laws that would be swept off the books because the state had not provided a compelling interest in passing those laws and as such are in violation of the second amendment. DC’s ban on handguns and their requirement that shotguns and/or rifles be unusable are perfect examples.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    “Oh yeah, one more thing – gun-control cities should be compared to the national average, not to a small portion of the sample.”

    Why? Because it might be more favorable to your hypothesis? Why shouldn’t New York or Philadelphia be compared to cities like New York or Philadelphia? Why should they be compared to an average that includes small cities and rural areas where there is little crime? Shouldn’t we compare apples to apples?

    Post cites in support of your position.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    No problem Alan, still waiting for you to post some facts in support of your points.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    “No right protected under the constitution is absolute.”

    So you agree that ownership of weapons should be subject to regulation. You just disagree over how much regulation. So what really is your problem?

  • http://alankhenderson.blogspot.com/ Alan K. Henderson

    Oh yeah, one more thing – gun-control cities should be compared to the national average, not to a small portion of the sample.

    There are certainly other factors that contribute to high crime rates. Police laxity is one that comes to mind. IIRC, that was a big problem in pre-Giuliani New York.

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    So I’m sure you agree that a personal nuclear weapon is perfectly ok in the hands of a citizen, right?

    The classic red herring. No right protected under the constitution is absolute. But there should be strict scrutiny applied when it comes to what the state does with regard to gun control and they should prove their is a compelling interest with regard to the legislation they propose.

    Do you know why he has a lifetime membership? Because he won target-shooting competitions when he was in high school.

    No CS, that is not why he has a lifetime membership. He had a junior membership when he was in the boy scouts. He purchased his lifetime membership after the Columbine shooting in an effort get others to sign up so that he could run for NRA President against Charlton Heston. Those are the facts.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “So, seems to me Heston is making a hypothesis but doesn’t really suggest it is the answer at all.”

    And it seems to me he said something that was incredible racist and realized it, but too late. His clarification screams damage control.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “I guess someone ought to tell Jay that Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA.”

    “Anybody can pay the $1000 to get a lifetime membership. This proves nothing.”

    Do you know why he has a lifetime membership? Because he won target-shooting competitions when he was in high school. Michael Moore likes guns, he just doesn’t think any fucker should be able to own one.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your prejudices. You never have in the past.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “This makes not a lick of sense. Why would a racist have marched with MLK?”

    Guilt. Or perhaps he was trying to cover for his racism.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    “You just want to take away people’s right to defend themselves, their family, and their property.”

    So I’m sure you agree that a personal nuclear weapon is perfectly ok in the hands of a citizen, right?

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com Gravypan

    “Nobody wants to take away your freaking liberty. ”

    You just want to take away people’s right to defend themselves, their family, and their property.

    Got it, you moron.

  • PD100

    “I also know that vast gun control measures in the UK led to rapid increases in its crime rates.”

    Oh yeah, it’s a real bloodbath over there.

    From March 2006 to March 2007 there were 755 murders / homicides in Britain, compared to 12,658 in the United States during the same period.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    Why don’t you find that information then? You made the assertion, you are the one that is required to back it up. My link doesn’t necessarily prove my point, but it is inconsistent with yours. The highest crime areas are in the Sunbelt, where gun control laws are generally more lax.

  • http://alankhenderson.blogspot.com/ Alan K. Henderson

    My bad – gun ownership deters more than just violent crimes. A listing of city per-capita crime rates not limited to just violent crimes would be useful. Also useful would be before-and-after stats for cities that have instituted gun control and any that relaxed it.

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    I guess someone ought to tell Jay that Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA.

    Anybody can pay the $1000 to get a lifetime membership. This proves nothing.

    Nobody wants to take away your freaking liberty.

    Do you support Washington DC in the Heller case? If so, that’s exactly what you want to do.

  • Enlightened Liberal
  • Enlightened Liberal

    I guess someone ought to tell Jay that Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. Either he doesn’t know or he doesn’t care because it gets in the way of a Michael Moore diatribe.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    “I do know that cities with gun control tend to have more violent crime in general than cities without such laws. I also know that vast gun control measures in the UK led to rapid increases in its crime rates.”

    Cite? Because I see this that identifies that large southern cities like Atlanta, Memphis and Atlanta have crime rates far outstripping northern cities with tight gun laws like New York and Boston.

  • bill l.

    Heston may have once championed civil rights, but apparently, later in life…not so much.

    What does it say when Storm-freaking-front thinks you were “on the right track?”

    gun nuttery = defending liberty …classic. It’s not 1776 any more, ace, and from where I sit, the gun nuts seem more concerned with building fences and killing brown folk then defending liberty.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver Willis

    Nobody wants to take away your freaking liberty. We just don’t believe in unregulated militias within our borders.

  • http://www.popandsports.com Jay

    Thankfully, Charlton Heston doesn’t need Oliver to validate whether or not he was a good person.

    Heston spoke out in favor of civil rights before it was fashionable to do so in Hollywood. Unlike so many in Hollywood who think wearing a ribbon helps cure AIDS, Heston was on the front lines.

    As for his supposed ‘gun nuttery’, there’s nothing ‘nuts’ about defending liberty, something which Michael Moore and his ilk will never understand or comprehend. I still cannot understand why there are people who could care less about our second amendment protections being pissed on, especially when allowing the government to abrogate those particular rights only makes it easier for them to chip away at the others. And it’s all done under the guise of “common sense” and “reasonable” gun control laws.

  • http://www.crablaw.com/weekly Bruce

    Regarding gun control, it is not sufficient to note (if true) that cities with gun control have more crime or more gun crime than those that don’t. It could be that only a massive crime problem from other sources would induce citizens to vote to give up their right to keep and bear, or to reelect officials who pass such laws.

    In other words, gun control may be a political effect of high crime, not a cause of it. This is separate from the question of whether a given city with gun control laws will have more or less (or the same) crime than that city will without such laws.

    My suspicion, but that’s all that it is, is that the cultural factors that make gun control less popular also make a more brutally effective law enforcement regime. In other words, when you get Texas concealed carry, you also get Texas justice which is either effective or insanely brutal, your mileage may vary. There is no political experiment by which one could turn Texas into Maryland or Massachusetts regarding guns without also turning Texas into Maryland or Massachusetts on most everything else. In simpler terms, you don’t get DC-style gun control and Sheriff Arpaio in the same decade in the same place.

  • Sean D. Martin

    I tried but I just can’t quite bring myself to just pass it up.

    CSS: “He blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. He may have marched with MLK, but he was racist.”

    Jerry: “Before you call someone a racist you should probably at least include one link that supports your position.”

    CSS: It’s probably in the clip above. I can’t confirm because I’m having issues with Firefox playing video clips.

    If Jay, JT, me or anyone else you’ve had in your crosshairs had posted such a comment, and then admitted they had no support for it other than saying only it’s “probably” in the clip, how would you respond to them?

  • SpiderJ

    There was a (2), once, but I no longer recall.

  • SpiderJ

    “He may have marched with MLK, but he was racist.”

    This makes not a lick of sense. Why would a racist have marched with MLK? What possible agenda could that racist have had?

    What I got from Moore’s interview was this:

    1) Heston believes that the history of violence in our country is directly correlated to our ethnic diversity. This is, in fact, a true statement–every time a new race made it over to these shores, either by their choice or by their imprisonment, they became a new group target of violence, and then would go after those who attacked them, in turn. Moore’s question was “why does America have a gun homicide problem where Canada, another country rife with guns, does not?” Heston’s answer is that our country’s culture is rooted in killing each other, and part of that scheme is the way whites reacted to Indians, the way the Italians reacted to the Irish, the way that the blacks and the Koreans reacted to each other, and so on and so forth.

    He’s not eloquent in that statement. But then, he was also in the early stages of Alzheimer’s.

    I say again, I’m not a fan of Heston’s gun-nuttery. But let’s stick to that instead of making up additional charges to lay against his corpse.

  • http://alankhenderson.blogspot.com/ Alan K. Henderson

    “They [the Brits] ruled the world for 300 years at the barrel of a gun.”

    Moore is an idiot. Heston is clearly talking about private-sector gun violence, but Moore pulls out examples of government use of guns – examples that many would cite as reasons for defending individual gun rights, I might add.

    If Canadians (or Swiss) have more guns per capita than the US, some other factors must be responsible for the murder rate. Heston cites one, but doesn’t explain it well. Throughout history, ethnic mixing through migrations and conquest brought lots of tensions with it, and where social tensions increases the risk of violence rises. Switzerland’s ethnic mix settled down a long time ago, just as the Irish-English mix in this country has.

    But how much of this country’s violence (with or without guns) is inter-ethnic? Is it a major factor? I haven’t seen any stats, but to me it doesn’t seem likely. We’d be hearing about more James Byrds and Reginald Dennys if it were otherwise, I believe.

    I do know that cities with gun control tend to have more violent crime in general than cities without such laws. I also know that vast gun control measures in the UK led to rapid increases in its crime rates.

  • Sean D. Martin

    CSS: It’s probably in the clip above. I can’t confirm because I’m having issues with Firefox playing video clips.

    Yeah, hate it when things won’t work in ‘fox. ONLY reason I keep dregs of IE around is there are some places my job requires me to go that just won’t work in Firefox.

    Anyway, allow me to assist. From the video:
    Moore: You don’t have any opinion as to why we are the unique country, the only country that does this, that kills each other on this level with guns.
    Heston: Well, we have probably a more mixed ethnicity than other countries, some other countries.
    Moore: You think it’s an ethnic thing?
    Heston: No, I don’t. I wouldn’t go that far as to say that… I have no answer.

    So, seems to me Heston is making a hypothesis but doesn’t really suggest it is the answer at all. And even it he was, saying “This is an ethnic thing.” doesn’t mean one is racist. Many of the struggles MLK faced were because of ethnic differences. Does recognizing that make one a racist?

  • Randy Brown

    …From your cold, dead hands. FINALLY.

    I’m with Oliver on this one. Get ready, you mutha, for the Big Payback.

  • Mark

    Can we pry his gun from his cold dead hands now?

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com Gravypan

    I agree with Oliver.

    When you die, I’ll have absolutely nothing good to say about you.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Me: “He blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. He may have marched with MLK, but he was racist.”

    Jerry: “Before you call someone a racist you should probably at least include one link that supports your position.”

    It’s probably in the clip above. I can’t confirm because I’m having issues with Firefox playing video clips.

  • duros62

    Perhaps we could call it jerry’s law.

  • jerry

    He blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. He may have marched with MLK, but he was racist.

    Before you call someone a racist you should probably at least include one link that supports your position.

    I wish there was a godwin’s law about labeling people racists or misogynists without presenting any evidence in support.

  • Tyro

    The man was good enough to make the right decisions at the right times when it counted. I feel sorry for him that he fell in with some unsavory characters towards the end of his life, but he was in some damn good science fiction movies when sci-fi was considered a distract, not something that “act-ors” did.

    He got old an senile and somewhat embarrassing at the end, but that was all in service of ultimately losing causes. But I think that falls under the “in old age you can say whatever you want” rule.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    “I invite you to check yourself, Oliver. Heston also marched with the Greatest American Ever and stood near him as he gave his speeches.”

    He blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. He may have marched with MLK, but he was racist.

  • SpiderJ

    I invite you to check yourself, Oliver. Heston also marched with the Greatest American Ever and stood near him as he gave his speeches.

    As much as death does not confer goodness on people, nor does the highest profile position you attain at the end of your life confer evil in perpetuity throughout the universe.

    Heston’s gun-nuttery saddened me. There was more to the man than that, though.