"As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated."
by:
Charlton Heston
(1923-2008) American actor, former president of National Rifle Association
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
 -- Anonymous      
Way to put it Moses.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  • 3
  •  
    A great summation of things as they are.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
  •  
    Sad to say he's right, but it is not his thoughts & speech that are in question but those of the sane who see that providing to criminals with no checks and balances is... well... crazy! But then again, this goes without saying, just look what these same people have done to our government... heck, they put King George W into power... again... crazy!
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US     
  • 1 1
  •  
    People are allowing their rights to be taken without so much as a whimper, all in the name of political correctness.
     -- Joe, Rochester, MI     
  • 3
  •  
    In this quotation of course, Heston is NOT speaking of guns but censorship by the politically correct crowd...and its obviously only one-way. Reston...guns are NOT provided to criminals with no checks and ballances. Far far from it. There are 1000s of laws on the books regulating gun sales and ownership...and guess what, only the law abiding obey them--by definition. All of us are concerned about violent crime no matter what the instrument, and none more than legal gun owners. There are other remidies that do not violate the 2nd amendment and the rights of the law abiding...Project Exile for example. Funny how, when threatened, many gun control advocates either hire armed bodyguards, or buy a gun. Rosie O'Donnel is a perfect example of this...she just doesn't want anyone else to be able to defend themselves. That is my definition of a hypocrit.
     -- Michael, Houston     
  • 4
  •  
    If one cannot defend one's freedom, then servitude is not far behind.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 3
  •  
    It is sad but always interesting that people who are most afraid of freedom and would most restrict it seem paranoid of their own. For Heston to use Orwell as a support for his own argument is risible.
     -- Dick, Fort Worth     
  • 1
  •  
    You got it right, Dick. Typical Heston pompous bluster.
     -- Jack, Green, OH     
  • 1
  •  
    Ditto E Archer/Michael Dick/Jack...do you actually think that freedom from fear/crime/oppression/etc. is free? It is a gift to you only because your forefathers bled for it...and there are many others in the modern day who have bled in your stead as well. At least show a little respect! It was Thomas Paine who said "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." And incidently--there are souls that are tried and found wanting (see Daniel 5 for details).
     -- R Van Winkle, USA     
  • 3
  •  
    Those who take citizens guns deserve to be shot. Those who allow their guns to be taken deserve to be shot too.
     -- JT Ready, Mesa, AZ     
  • 1 1
  •  
    Obviously, JT shoulc not be allowed to carry a gun
     -- Jack, Green, OH     
  • 1
  •  
    Thanks Mr. Jack Meoff. Why don't you come on over and try to take my gun from me then big guy?
     -- JT Ready, Mesa, Az     
  • 1
  •  
    The culture wars are over. He lost. Get used to it.
     -- Anonymous     
  • 1
  •  
    I find myself coming to your blog more and more often to the point where my visits are almost daily now!
     -- tramadol cod search list, USA     
  •  
     -- Roland, Bonner's Ferry      
    True freedom is very expensive.

    Americans are no longer willing to pay the price.

    Semper Fi.

    B
     -- Bruski, naples FL     
  • 2
  •  
    There is no intellectual justification for owning a gun. Question why you need to have that shiny metal thing that goes bang and makes you feel powerful. Nice to squeeze off a few to release a bit of tension at the range after a tough week? While there a more guns than guitars and nutters like JT in the world it will remain a very dangerous place and parts of the US especially so. Death by gunshot in the US has been monetized and the real power is with those that profit from it - the manufacturers of guns and bullets.
     -- Mick, manchester     
  • 2
  •  
    Heston gets it right. We are in a culture war.
     -- Jim K, Austin     
  • 2
  •  
    Heston's well-observed Orwellian fervor culture war that is ragging is a clash of religions. Here on this blog over the years I have defined what religion "IS" ad nauseam (by way of example, a god may or may not be helpful in defining what religion "IS" there is currently at least one major world religion with no super-human focus - and, how religion differs from secular natural law). I can define religion again if someone so desires or needs. By way of an extremely terse list: tenets of, principles equating to, attributes expressed by, and acts that display that defined religion are: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, financing the indigent, tending to the needs of the ill or injured, lessoning another's load, looking after the poor, caring for the elderly, use of birth control, addressing the religious sacrament of marriage, beliefs that corporeal man's law can supersede natural law (by way of example: profit and other economic issues morally justify implementation of such dogmas as Keynesian economics vs. natural law / fiscal law), and how one ethically understands and morally deals with immanent danger or possible dangerous tools. It does NOT matter that such religion carries a name, does NOT carry a specific name, or otherwise, when religion mingles with secular government, a theocracy is the result. When the resulting religion becomes the hegemony over all other religions (Constitutionally recognized as a national establishment of religion) such canons as 501 (c) (3) dictate what minor religions can recite from their pulpit and how such united believers may handle their separate finances. Said hegemonic theocracy, along with its devotee patrons religiously attack, radically deny, and otherwise use ridicule and force to reduce or eliminate all together - other religion's beliefs and actions. Another attribute of a hegemonic theocracy is illuminated when only certain clerics, officers or designates of that theocracy may use implements of destruction (under any circumstance).

    For Mick's quandary, there are also secular / at natural law ways to address the subject. Mick's conceptual understanding is extremely narrow and intellectually dishonest.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    A full, substantive and complete peace with a non-violent existence can only be completely realized when love, truth, liberty, freedom and inalienable rights are expressions of nature's being (an in-side out experience). When control by force is exerted from the out-side in (even to the extreme such as with gun control), peace and non-violence will NEVER result (only anger, violence, despotism, tyranny and slavery will grow exponentially).
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Mike I'm really curious as to what your 'inside out' existence looks like 'substantively' and materially. Unfortunately a dispassionate view of the world indicates that we are no more than sophisticated apes with guns throwing s**t at each other. What material circumstances allows this 'natural' self actualisation in a non-violent loving world of liberty? D'ya think that Chuck Heston shared your vision or was he just a macho mouthpiece for a perverse pressure group peddling the tools of death and violence?
     -- Mick, manchester     
  •  
    Mick, I agree with your genral assessment of the world's status. I believe a religion change would correct most of that; canons and statutes will not. Even a large portion of those calling themselves Christians are not adhereing to the teachings of Jesus the Christ but rather, following some of the religion/theocracy I stated above. From the inside out world - liberty, freedom and rights recognition would be inherent to a person (individually and in concert). I don't know if Heston shares my vision, religion or perspective of humanity; nor do I think he is "just a macho mouthpiece for a perverse pressure group peddling the tools of death and violence."
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    Mike it's the 'in concert' bit that I'm struggling to understand. How do people come together and react socially in your vision of the world? Where does politics play a role if any? Does the state have any interim function to get us to your world view of liberty and haromony?
     -- Mick, manchester     
  •  
    Mick, In my vision of the world, people unite as sovereign equals. The "in concert" can do nothing the individual can not do himself. A body politic is a group of individuals hired to represent and administer the rights and justice of individuals (not the individuals themselves) at natural law (rules of that which "IS" without or beyond man's intervention). Examples: In any incident where an individual has no authority to license another, he can not give that authority to which he does not possess to the body politic (governments have no de jure, or otherwise legitimate authority to license or give license) The body politic can possess no rights but, duties only. Each individual has the same rights before the law - a right to travel for example. To travel from point A to point B or B to A is a right but if everyone did it at the same time the chaos would be lethal. The body politic, by authority of the individual sovereigns, would order a pattern of traveling either on the right or the left so that everyone's right to travel would be protected. Driving on the left or the right is not "law" but rather, a rule of order. If driving on the left or the right were rules of law, everyone in the U.S. or the U.K. would be dead. The State is an inorganic phantasm and as such, in and of itself plays no interim function to get us (individually or in concert) to a place of liberty while administering individual sovereign rights and justice (as I've explained here) will play a part in harmony with the united sovereign's rules of order. I know, way too brief to really do any explaining but, I hope it helps.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
     
    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

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca