"Political correctness is simply tyranny with manners."
by:
Charlton Heston
(1923-2008) American actor, former president of National Rifle Association
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
 -- Anonymous      
I find it ironic that those who would speak for equality would also be those who would deny certain liberties which grant us equality among men! Mr Heston is quite correct! The tyranny of political correctness has its roots in equality; an equality which is approved only if one agrees! Liberties, like guns do not avail themselves only to those who would use them with discretion. That is the essence of freedom!
 -- Amanda, Valparaiso, IN     
  • 4
  •  
     -- Anonymous, Buffalo, NY      
    Practitioners of political correctness are totalitarians, by definition.

    Totalitarians are, in their unbounded absolutism, uncivilized, thus without right manners.
     -- Patrick Henry, Red Hill     
  • 3
  •  
     -- DENNIS KOLB, WARRENTON      
    For the late Mr Heston to rant against 'political correctness' as some sort of tyranny is beyond a joke. That more Americans since the death of JFK have been killed by privately owned guns in America than the combined deaths of all Americans in all wars historical and current indicates that the discretionary ownership and use of guns should be maintained as a freedom in the USA defies any rational argument. How many 'cold dead hands' can you guys tolerate?
     -- Mick, Manchester     
  • 9
  •  
    Mick, get a grip. Mr. Heston's quote is right on the money.
     -- Jim K, Austin     
  • 2
  •  
    A polite overview. In applied reality, the referenced "manners" are a vain claimed excuse by theocratic totalitarians for enslaving sovereigns with inalienable rights.

    Mick, I happen to be a non-violent advocate while looking at events and facts without a politically correct perspective to block my view and I research more than polittically correct sound bites from progressive enclaves; - in the U.S., guns save more lives than are taken. In that focul grouping, such things as rape, robbering and other assorted crimes are reduced by the presence of guns while generally going un-noticed (or intentionally ignored) by totalitarian progressives promoting political correctness. A recent example may be the rise of assaults, rapes and other crimes in Germany, France, and Sweeden by invading anti-libertarians where, private arms are all but made illegal. That same statistic does not equally rise in Switzerland.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    Charlton Heston was absolutely correct. "Political Correctness" is nothing but the tyrannical despotic stifling of opinions, choice and unalienable rights.
     -- Mary-MI     
  • 2
  •  
    Mick has made "no rational argument" himself, using logical fallacies to prop up a politically correct narrative. The denial of the need to defend oneself against the group is the collectivist creed, and is a con that benefits the union leaders and helps protect their monopoly of power. Leftists are the primary reason to be prepared to defend oneself against their maddening claims upon the property and labors of everyone -- particularly their opposition.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
     -- Denise, Durango      
    Mick, I am a firearms instructor painfully familiar with what happens to unarmed law abiding citizens. The problem is NOT guns, they are incapable of an agenda, the problem is with a "justice" system that's been systematically weakened by design since Clinton fire 93 federal attorneys. Why? they were to hard on criminals. This is what has happened in at least 7 countries since the early 1900's. Weaken the justice system, let criminals do as they will with an occasional slap on the wrist and then lament "we must take those evil guns away from the populace!". Thanks to gun control over 55 MILLION have lost their lives by dictatorial "leaders". Many of my students are older folks who have no way of defending themselves against the thugs roaming freely on our streets! Many women carry because they can't fight off some dirt bag. Check your history.
     -- Denise, Durango     
  • 2
  •  
    P.S. Criminals do not obey laws...duh. Law abiding citizens who go through the time and expense of taking a firearms safety and self defense class, go to the sheriff's office, get finger printed, photos taken, go through an extensive FBI background check and then wait for up to 2 months to get their conceal carry license are probably the most honest folks you'll ever meet.
     -- Denise, Durango     
  • 2
  •  
    Is it really a belief that private gun ownership is a defence of individual sovereignty against state totalitarianism and an expression of freedom!? This may have arguably been true in the C17 but this assertion blinds you to the fact that the real winners here are the manufacturers of arms and bullets and not the upholders of constitutional beliefs. I can understand why someone may feel safer with a handgun in a purse capable of deterring or stopping a personal assailant in such a violent and crime ridden society - even though I may disagree with them. However, I fail to see the need to enable an individual to buy an arsenal of assault weapons capable of mass killings - in this respect I would be more wary of the mentally ill than those with criminal intent. The old 'guns are tools' argument is bankrupt. Guns are weapons and their political relevance is in the power they transfer to those who carry and use them - the power to kill - and thou shalt not kill. It is politically correct to suggest that guns and the phenomenal number of deaths caused by them are as much to do with capability and opportunity and their restriction and control is long overdue. To use an anti 'political correctness' argument in this respect is to do so in defence of the irrational - a bit like saying we do things because of tradition - another stock phrase to defend irrationality. Political correctness has its roots in respect for others, kindness, basic humanity and not harming others by deed or word. Ahimsa.
     -- Mick, Manchester     
  •  
    Mick, around the world, common people are disarmed and beholden to the dictates of their government. China is a slave labor country. The armed military revolution toppled the oldest empire in the world. The people have been ruled by a military dictatorship ever since.

    Perhaps being from Manchester, and with a Queen who counts you among her subjects, you are unfamiliar with the concept of individual sovereignty and personal responsibility. This is the American ideal, and the claims of the Crown and Church were decisively cut. The Crown does not allow its subjects to be independent, and war follows.

    Americans are not beholden to a King or Governor. Our government is chartered by We The People -- we are not subjects of the government, the government is a servant of the People. We rule, not the government. We are responsible for providing for ourselves and our security -- not the Crown. SO we will always have guns in nearly every house, even if it is simply a symbolic gesture -- but history has proven it isn't!

    Simply, whatever weaponry a soldier might carry, an American citizen has every right to bear. Also, in America, the military is a CIVIL power, that is regulated by the citizenry, not a dictator. Jefferson's view of an American was as "citizen-soldier."

    The denial of man as an animal that needs to fight and defend himself against aggressors is a pitiful argument by those that have agreed to give their personal responsibility to their 'lord.' A perfect slave.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Frankly, these arguments about guns would be clearer if we substituted the words for arms with "power." The argument against arms is an argument against the power that arms provide. For good or ill, the power is in the individual's hands. What he/she does with it will determine the outcome. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions.

    The same with 'taxes' and 'money' -- power. What do those with the power do with it? Who should have power and how much and who says? Who has the power to serve as a check against the power of the people? The people! And how do we do it? ;-)

    The theory that, in order to prevent the exercise of power with an intent to do harm, we must disempower (disarm) everyone simply makes everyone subservient to the one we have surrendered our power to. Mick, that is what you are furthering, more control over the powers of the people. Good intentions always leading the way...

    The continuation of the practice keeps pushing the line further. Until, like beasts of burden, the people become yoked to carry the debt (promise of power) of their rulers. Some people are treated like oxen, others like polo ponies and poodles with haircuts. I have a feeling Mick is more likely in the poodles category. You've got a good thing going and you can't understand why we all don't just practice ahimsa comfortably in the lap of our masters. Americans! ;-)
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Dear Mr Archer, I'm amused that you consider the UK to be a monarchy in all but name as even the most ardent royalist would admit that the Queen is no more than a token figurehead with no political power. She cannot dictate, create laws or unilaterally change them. The divine rule of Kings has been gradually eroded since the enactment of the Magna Carta in the C13, surely a document you are aware of as it forms the cornerstone of the American Constitution

    The UK citizenry is subject to the rule of law and Parliament, the monarch gives royal ascent to laws but she has no choice in the matter. The last monarch to directly challenge the power of parliament ended up with is head on a spike - we had our revolution and civil war in the C17 which led to the English Commonwealth and the subversion of the monarchy to parliament.

    I agree with your point about power to a certain extent and alluded to this in my initial post. I just think you are wrong if you associate real power with individual ownership of weapons. My central point is that associating gun ownership to a higher political purpose or point blinds you to the fact that gun ownership and the inevitable violence that it contributes to has been monetized by the manufacturers of guns and bullets and that's where the real power sits.

    Death by gunshot has been monetized and Mr Smith and Mr Wesson are laughing all the way to the bank.

    For your information as well, poodles are traditionally hunting dogs and a standard poodle - coiffured or not is a formidable animal. Ahimsa transcends politics. Keep your powder dry and your eyes peeled. Woof woof.
     -- Mick, Manchester     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2017 Liberty-Tree.ca