[AZTOY]

Hustler Magnate Larry Flynt Enters Governor's Race


LOS ANGELES, 2:33 p.m. PDT August 4, 2003 - Hustler magazine magnate Larry Flynt announced his candidacy for governor Monday in California's recall election, saying he would erase the state's deficit by allowing private casinos to install slot machines.

Flynt also said he would overhaul the state's education system and give amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the state, but then shut down the border.

The self-described smut peddler and free-speech advocate made the announcement from his 10th floor offices at Hustler, flanked by dozens of copies of the pornographic magazine. He sat in his gold-plated wheelchair with his wife, one of his daughters, and his black schnauzer nearby.

Flynt said he hoped Californians would see past his business.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/knbc/a1726747.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok i'm scared:uhoh: :uhoh:

[Duncan Idaho]

A match made in heaven.

[HBK]

Hmmm, it would be better than Davis or Feinswine.

[TarpleyG]

Flynt said he hoped Californians would see past his business.
Why? Is he ashamed of his business? I, personally, see nothing wrong with it.

GT

[MicroBalrog]

TarpleyG - I agree, but most Californians do not, I suppose.

[Henry Bowman]

OMG! Larry Flynt has a black schnauzer!:what: No wonder he was run out of Cincinnati!

[seeker_two]

Any state that would re-elect Gray-out Davis deserves Flynt...:rolleyes:

[braindead0]

At least Flynt doesn't hide what he does behind lies and facade.. the guys got iron nuts.. I say more power to him..

[Stinger]

I guess I'll be the voice of dissent, again.

I was raised with certain morals and values. Larry Flynt doesn't live up to those values. Yes, I know there are many politicians that do not, but I don't vote for them either.

Thank you, Lord, for not putting me in California :eek:

Stinger

[Mark Tyson]

It would be nigh on impossible to tar Flynt with any kind of moral scandal. I wonder what his views are on the big issues. On CNN he described himself as a civil libertarian(though he's running as a democrat), and says he believes in the constitution. His personal fortune should make him pretty much unbuyable.

[HBK]

I wonder where he stands on the 2nd ammendment. Wasn't he shot? Wonder if that effects the way he interprets the 2nd. He seems to be the kind of guy that would be pro gun, but you never know.

[Steel]

Welcome to the Apocalypse -- have a nice day.:evil:

[brownie0486]

Having worked for Mr. Flynt in 1983 as his corporate asst. dir. of security and security director for the mansion on St. Cloud street in BelAir East, the man won't be bought.

I have a large shirt pin that says "Flynt for President". One of my cherished items taken away from that protective gig while in his employ. This isn't the first time he has thrown his hat into politics.

The gold plated wheelchair, hey, there's a memory for ya. When there, he owned the mansion across from the Alfred Hitchcock estate, lived two doors from Jerry Lewis and had Robert Stack as his other bordering neighbor on St. Cloud.

It will be interesting to see what develops. He was making 20.5 million a year when I was out there. I'm sure he is making at least that today.

As Mr. Flynt would say " Think Pink"

Go Larry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brownie

[El Tejon]

Must . . . suppress . . . urge . . . to . . .list. . .suggested . . . campaign . . . slogans!:D

This is The High Road afterall.:)

[seeker_two]

Must . . . suppress . . . urge . . . to . . .list. . .suggested . . . campaign . . . slogans!

Now THAT'S a man in need of release....:D

(If necessary, feel free to PM me a few...:evil: )

[MicroBalrog]

(If necessary, feel free to PM me a few... )

I've been taught that "Me too!' posts are bad. But:


Me Too! :neener:

[Brian Maffei]

http://www.yale.edu/opa/v28.n19/story4.html

<snip>

The victim of a gunshot attack that has left him in a wheelchair, Flynt offered a less-liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, arguing from an historical perspective that the Founding Fathers were not thinking of modern assault weapons when they wrote the "right to bear arms" amendment. While making a bow to the use of weapons in some sports, Flynt pointed out that bazookas and AK-47s are not the weapons of choice for duck hunting. "As long as the gun lobby is as powerful as it is," he lamented, he sees no chances for major gun control efforts to succeed.

[rock jock]

The victim of a gunshot attack that has left him in a wheelchair, Flynt offered a less-liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, arguing from an historical perspective that the Founding Fathers were not thinking of modern assault weapons when they wrote the "right to bear arms" amendment. While making a bow to the use of weapons in some sports, Flynt pointed out that bazookas and AK-47s are not the weapons of choice for duck hunting. "As long as the gun lobby is as powerful as it is," he lamented, he sees no chances for major gun control efforts to succeed.
So let me get this right. He supports a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, sort of a "living Constitution" approach to something that the Founding Fathers almost certainly did not intend free speech to protect, but at the same time rejects the Second Amendment interpretation that the FF expressly did support. Typical Hollyweird hypocrite.

[300lbGorilla]

Typical Hollyweird hypocrite.

Hey, at least the dude was shot... he has some grounds for his bias (however idiotic).

Flynt's definitely NOT a typical Hollyweird hypocrite. He is a Hollyweird hypocrite, however. :D

[longeyes]

Given that politics is the new pornography his candidacy is most
appropriate.:evil:

[Lone_Gunman]

Oh yea, Larry Flynt is a real good choice. Thats just what CA needs.

Our leaders should be held to higher standards than oral sex from interns and porno-kings as governors.

[Standing Wolf]

While making a bow to the use of weapons in some sports, Flynt pointed out that bazookas and AK-47s are not the weapons of choice for duck hunting.

The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting. Never has been. Never will be.

[Bruce H]

This could have some real surprises. Will any candidate want to get in the mud with Larry Flynt? He has the recources to dig deep into the backgrounds of anyone throwing mud and fecal matter at him. They just might have to discuss issues. Wouldn't it be a shame if they had to talk issues and positions instead of personal attacks. This has possibilities.

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, I am certain Flynt will want to take the high road and discuss issues, and not just sling mud.

:rolleyes:

[sm]

From a source whom also was around LF.
He hates Klinton, deep pockets, has resources ( not just money-wise), people kinda afraid to find out what he does know about them so they avoid the matter.

Heard it said, you might not like him, agree with him, or how he made his money. Got to respect the man for being up front about it.

Try that with Uncle Teddy, where did some of that family money come from...the lake incident...what he is really up to now.

Heck maybe Flint can find out what happened to Vince Foster...

dunno, might be interesting to see what gets 'uncovered' on political climate ...

[Justin]

So let me get this right. He supports a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, sort of a "living Constitution" approach to something that the Founding Fathers almost certainly did not intend free speech to protect,Pornography has been around since about 20 minutes after the development of written alphabets. If the second amendment covers Mak 90's and Thompson subguns, then the first covers the talkies and porno, regardless of how distasteful one finds it.

but at the same time rejects the Second Amendment interpretation that the FF expressly did support. Typical Hollyweird hypocrite. Agreed.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by re1973:
From a source whom also was around LF.
He hates Klinton, ....

Not sure where you heard that, but Flint publically stated that he loves Bill Clintom. He publically offered anyone $1,000,000 for information to use against the Republican leaders of the effort to impeach Clinton. Hate Clinton? Hardly!

Larry Flint in California and Jerry Springer in Ohio! The true face of the modern Democrat Party.:barf:

[Jeff]

I find it ridiculous that anyone who cherishes the 2nd amendment would support this pig.

His website has links to The Nation (Socialist rag), the ACLU (anti-2nd amendment), and Michael Moore. The Yale Bulletin excerpt cited by Brian Maffei is the smoking gun, so to speak.

This guy is a total sleazebag and the fact that he doesn't hide it doesn't mean he should be considered for public office.

[Azrael256]

I find it ridiculous that anyone who cherishes the 2nd amendment would support this pig. In any other state, I would agree, but I consider the PRK to be a total loss in that area, so the faster it goes down the proverbial toilet, the faster things change. That, and I think it would be absolutely hillarious if he were elected governor.

[sm]

Cactus
I never said I trusted that source or found it to reliable, just repeated what said. I never said I supported Larry either.

I do have some experience with Klinton having been AG then Gov here. I do know my feelings about 2A, and I really don't like and trust politicians. My rule of thumb, too much gov't in everything, too much meddlin. I always knew when Klinton was lying...when he opened his mouth and a sound came out.

Its a real mess all over, my state has problems, Kali has problems--heck some just as soon see ocean view property be available in Nevada...Didn't say I agree with that either...it has been said tho'.

Its a real pisser when no true representative of our Republic exist to perpetuate freedoms , and the lesser of evils still suck.

[brownie0486]

Larry has investigative reporters digging into quite a few sticky areas.

People running against him had better be squeeky clean, or they'll be exposed and the mud flung far and wide.

He's an open book, the candidates he faces never are. If they aren't careful, they'll end up having no political carreers if he starts on them.

Mucho resources.

Whats this? People don't like what he peddles here? All over this forum people scream for their rights and how their rights are violated at every turn by big brother.

Larry takes big brother on daily, face to face sorta speak. How many of us can say the same thing. He has sat in prisons for years over the last three decades to make a stand on his views and constitutional rights. He has furthered our rights [ the first anyway ] immensely at his own peril and personal freedoms.

Not many of us can say we have that same conviction now can we? Whens the last time anyone here did a day, let alone years in jail based on their beliefs and then taking it to the limit with the feds?

Thats what I thought, not one of us probably has ever come close to acting on our convictions like this guy.

Don't like smut? Don't have to buy the mags right? He's full speed ahead on the issues and extremely intelligent. It will be hard for the candidates to get by him and skirt the issues.

Very interesting

Brownie

[Stinger]

Nice try Brownie,

But nobody here said he didn't have the right to free speech. He has a right to his self proclaimed "smut," but others have the right to call it immoral, wrong, etc. We all have 1st Amendment rights, not just Flynt.

Stinger :scrutiny:

[brownie0486]

One of the reasons you have the 1st rights you have is because of Flynt and his stand on the 1st which were tested in courts at his expense and freedom.

What try?, Trying what? I wasn't trying anything in the last post other than to state facts, which are indisputable as to the mans means and convictions documentable in district court records across the US and SCOTUS decisions.

He's probably done more to further others rights for others than we have for ourselves.

How he makes his living is irrelevant relative his character where rights are concerned or how he would perform as the gov there. Having worked for him, I can tell you he has other issues which should be questioned by the general public but as to his character, thats pretty much public record.

Brownie

[grassy knoll]

flynt is interesting to me

as much as i don't like the things he does, i fight for his right to do it

[rock jock]

Pornography has been around since about 20 minutes after the development of written alphabets.
Laughable. I guess technically you could include the written word as pornographic, but the common use refers to pictures and movies, both of which did not exist during the 18th century. Additionally, if you look at the writings of the FF concerning the 1st Amendment, you will not find anything that indicates they meant to cover material that was specifically intended to cause sexual titillation. The fact is that the 1st was intended to protect speech that was critical of the govt. One would be hard pressed to show how hard core porn is a political commentary. This is an outgrowth of the "living Constitution" philosophy which basically means you can change the original intent of the Constitution to say anything you want it to, which, is exactly why our 2A rights are continuously under attack.

[DigitalWarrior]

pornographic, but the common use refers to pictures and movies, both of which did not exist during the 18th century.

You are kidding, right? I am sure that the illustrated Kama Sutras were "art"!

One would be hard pressed to show how hard core porn is a political commentary.

One would be hard pressed to show how Assault Weapons , which did not exist during the 18th century are protected by the Bill of rights

My freedom ends where yours begins.

[rock jock]

One would be hard pressed to show how Assault Weapons , which did not exist during the 18th century are protected by the Bill of rights
For a member of a gun board, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the 2A. Look at the wording of the 2A, and the writings of the FF. Militia weapons of the individual soldier are specifically intended to be covered. Today, this would include AK's. If the intent is not clear, as you suggest, then we too are committing to a "living Constitution" and have no reasonable basis for expecting to keep anything other than smoothbore blackpowder rifles.

You are kidding, right? I am sure that the illustrated Kama Sutras were "art"!
Art, maybe. Porno, probably. Political commentary, no.

[Duncan Idaho]

One of the reasons you have the 1st rights you have is because of Flynt and his stand on the 1st which were tested in courts at his expense and freedom. I don't know about where you think your rights come from, but mine exist irrespective of Mr.Flynt et al..

My rights are endowed to me by virtue of being a sentient, and separate, entity from all of the other sentient beings of which I am aware.

The idea that Larry Flynt did anything, anytime, anywhere, that did not involve merely the furtherance of his agenda, is so far beyond laughable as to be absurd.

[Zedicus]

Yep, that clenches it, Callifornia Is DEFINITLY the Funny Farm of the USA....

[Stinger]

Yep, that clenches it, Callifornia Is DEFINITLY the Funny Farm of the USA....

Zedicus,

That is something that we can ALL agree on.

Stinger :D

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho:

There are times in every mans life when he may inadvertantly do something for himself that benefits us all.

Whether the furtherance of his agenda helped all Americans is indisputable, as much as you would like to think not perhaps. Read the court docs someday, very few of us get the chance or have the resources to test the constitutionality of our beliefs, he did, he won, and the rest is history.

His agenda has no bearing on the SCOTUS decisions made and precedence set by his actions which we all live with.

Ya, he helped set the standard in a landmark case which had profound implications for all of us.

Brownie

[fallingblock]

and it is not in the interest of freedom-loving Americans to have a self-proclaimed anti-gun bigot as governor of California (see recent history).

That said, I think he would be a nightmare for the typical poiltician to run against.:)

Imagine the entertainment potential of a debate between Arnie and Larry :D :D

[AZTOY]

Imagine the entertainment potential of a debate between Arnie and Larry

I would love to see that:evil:

[Jeff]

I still fail to see where Larry Flynt has done anything to improve or "further" any rights that I might possess at the moment.

Exactly what would I have been unable to do had Larry Flynt not so "courageously" stood up against the Supreme Court?

Anyways, as far as the differences are concerned between the initial intentions of the 1st and 2nd Amendments and how they apply to modern America, the framers found it perfectly acceptable to engrave and emboss Biblical references and the Ten Commandments into Government buildings, memorials, and other landmarks because they identified and observed a higher moral code than what could be ordained by man and mere common law.

I strongly doubt the consistency of Larry Flynt's brand of pornography with the observation of these moral ideals, the ancient Kama Sutra notwithstanding.

The main philosophical problem in comparing extreme pornographic material, as it applies to the 1st, with extreme personal firepower, as it applies to the 2nd, is that all controversy assigned to pornography concerns the issues of its very existence; i.e. pornography is wrong because it degrades and exploits those who partake in it-- both participants and viewers. But the controversy with firearms deals only with their abuse and misuse. There has to be the fear, the assumption, that guns are going to be used in the hands of deviance or evil, and outside the bounds of intended use.

Pornography's intended use is its abuse, so it goes.

Pornography is a difficult moral Rubik's Cube. I'm not sure I agree with the above statements that many anti-porn people seem to profess, but it must be made aware that there is a very stark and important difference between the extremes of the 1st and 2nd amendments, and that these examples-- often cited together to bolster a particular political view-- are not on the same moral or philosophical footing.

And there is a huge difference between art and pornography. But that is another story.

[4570Rick]

Argue morality all you want.

He's anti-gun.

Heard a sound bite on the radio today. Not sure if it was intended as a joke, but it was about offering porn for guns.:fire:

[gunsmith]

Someone should tell Larry Flynt
that it wasn't the Republicans (Pro Gun Repubs at least) who had him shot.
He was hanging out with Jimmy Carters sister
Thats what got him shot,he thinks that it's
the Moral Majority(GOP).
it was the leftwing anti porn Dems,you can tell cause they
were such poor shots.
There is this nutty group called "Women against Porn"
they are real scary 5150 nazis who
love to kill men,I wouldn't be surprised if it was them

[MicroBalrog]

it degrades and exploits those who partake in it


Quite a few of them don't think so. They might be sick, but that is their POV.:)

[Duncan Idaho]

There are times in every mans life when he may inadvertantly do something for himself that benefits us all.So what? Let's say you are right, and that he did somehow "benefit us all". Which you carefully avoid elucidating on I might add.

Even if I were to stipulate that there was some benefit to what he did, again, so what?

My first duty to myself, my loved ones, and even my country, is to stand ready to save my life, and the innocent lives of those around me. To be able to do that effectively in our modern age, I must have access to, and reasonable proficiency with, firearms. Something that your friend Mr. Flynt would (if only he could) debar me the use of. Unless of course I was part of the group of individuals charged with the duty of keeping his slathering, demented, Jabba the Hutt A$$ alive. Mr. Flynt knows all too well that all of one's rights evaporate at the cessation of one's existence.

So you see, that is the source of my contempt for Mr. Flynt. Whatever you claim that he may have accomplished in the courts - vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment - he did in furtherance of his own agenda. He did it simply to eliminate some barriers in his way. Nothing more.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he is very careful to limit his position to benefit only himself. He works in direct opposition to the type of rights affirming activism that you are trying to ascribe to him.

He hired you as part of his security detail. I strongly suspect that he ensured that you were armed with something... shall we say...more effective than a duck gun, to protect him. Yes? But when it comes to me and mine, your friend Mr. Flynt would like to be assured that I most certainly do not have access to the same tools that you and he should (in his mind at least) have access to.

No. Mr. Flynt is no friend of mine. He may be a fun guy to be around in private. I don't know, nor do I care. In his public life, he has never struck me as more than a pathetic drooling wretch.

I think I will save my admiration for something other than your friend Mr. Flynt. :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho :

Can you not amire someone for their stand against the feds 24/7?

All around us on this forum we have otrhers speaking about standing up for ones rights against big brother and their injustices.

I doubt anyone here has taken on big brother and won battles agaisnt them in the courts like he has.

I never said I agreed with the mans lifestyle, just that I can respect a man so inclined to take on the powers that be and sustain his convictions to the point of doing time to make a point.

He may be anti-gun, I have no knowledge one way or the other. Of course we were armed, useless in protection details without them. He didn't further my arms carrying in Ca., I already had the tools and permits before being retained.

Not that I would vote for him, but the fact remains he did advance others 1st right across the board. It would take too much room to expound here on his accomplishments relative the first amendment rights that were decided in his landmark case. Thats why I mentioned earlier to have a look at the court records, they stand on their own merit.

Brownie

[mjydrafter]

Wasn't the whole Larry Flynt-1st ammendment-thing beacuse of something about making fun of rev. Falwell? I was under the impression that it had nothing to do with the naked women in his magizine. I mean, obviously that's (the naked women) what got Falwell's dander up, but I thought the case was based on the satirical piece that Falwell had sex with his mother.

I wouldn't call Hustler porn, a step past Playboy maybe, but compared to some of what the internet has to offer, we are talking minor league stuff. I've always viewed Hustler as a "Mad Magazine" with naked women.

I think regardless of what you think of his personal character, he's a successfull businessman, and with a 38 million crisis, maybe that's what CA needs.

[brownie0486]

mjydrafter :

Yes, he had issues with the Falwell debacle. That was years after the landmark 1st Amendment SCOTUS ruling relative free speech.

Falwell took him to court over a parody of Falwells mother and him getting "personal" in a cartoon in the mag. Falwell lost that case as well.

Parodies of public figures are now protected due to this case as well.

If you notice lately, his cartoons in the mag have "parody" near the cartoon. That may be part of the court rulling in the Falwell case, not sure.

Brownie

[scbair]

Regardless of Flynt's "support" of the 1st Amendment, and regardless of his anti-2nd Amendment position ...
If he receives a single vote, it will serve as proof there are registered voters who should be stripped of that right! Character?? The man has NONE! So he says what he thinks, so what? His every published thought is obscene, if not (legally) pornographic, to say nothing of selfish.

"Yes, I should have the right to sell, er, that is, say, anything I want to."

"No, the Second Amendment does not really apply to the People; the framers of the U.S. Constitution should never have said THAT!"

Why would anyone want such an imbecile to lead their state (that's what led to the recall, as a matter of fact)?

[brownie0486]

For a man in a wheelchair, he has shown to have more spine against the feds/state entities than most here on the forum.

You may not agree with his philosophy but you can appreciate what he has gone through. He refuses to go away and fights them at every chance he gets for what he believes are his rights, at a great personal expense. [ apparently the SCOTUS also felt the same way whether they liked his character or not ].

How many here are willing to go to jail for what they believe? Not many when it comes right down to it right? Most of us will bend to the feds pressures when push comes to shove, he didn't, he doesn't, and can't be bought.

Thats the type of politician we need in office, one with a spine who doesn't cowtow to anyones special interests or owes favors for votes.

Not that he'll come close to a victory here, but it does beg the what if's.

imbecile? Not many of those types make 20-30 million a year do they? On the contrary, it takes an intelligent man to take on the feds and outlast them and win at the highest levels of justice. He knows how to make money, he also knows how to squander it. He is capable of ferretting out the corruption in that state, the nepotism, etc and cut the fat out of the budget.

If I lived in Ca. I'd vote for him before some democrat.


Brownie

[mjydrafter]

This election is going to be one of the most entertaining things ever to come out of the "entertainment state". $3500 and 65 signatures is all it takes. Larry Flynt will be the least of CA's worries.

I am in no way defending Larry, but the guys in a wheel chair because of a criminal with a gun. So I guess I can understand his fear of criminals with guns (irrational-maybe, understandable-yes). It's a better reason than 99.9% of the anti's reasons. Not that I agree with him on this particular issue.

[longeyes]

What's his campaign slogan?

"A chick and some pot!" Shades of the past!

As someone who still lives in CA--yeah, still, but who knows for
how long?--I despair at seeing my once great State turned into a
damn circus. I'm reminded of I, Claudius: "Let all the poisons that
lurk in the mud leech out." I guess we can expect it to get worse before it gets better. Certainly candidates like Flynt and Schwarzenegger
aren't going to restore fiscal and legislative sanity. Their candidacies,
to me, are symptomatic of what's wrong.

[MicroBalrog]

"Yes, I should have the right to sell, er, that is, say, anything I want to."

There's something WRONG with that?:D

[Duncan Idaho]

He may be anti-gun, I have no knowledge one way or the other. You can't possibly be serious.

Just in case you are serious, here is a helpful hint: when he talks about firearms, who should be able to own them, and what types the peasantry should be allowed to own, pay attention. That should make for a really good start.

[Duncan Idaho]

So I guess I can understand his fear of criminals with guns Larry Flynt wants to take my ability to own guns (except those he approves of for the peasants) away. I don't know about you - this is an internet forum after all - but I am not a criminal. Larry the Flynt wants to take my guns.

:cuss: him!

[brownie0486]

longeyes :

Who knows what it will be.

If he uses the slogan he always uses the downtown LA offices it will be

"Think Pink"

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho:

Doesn't every candidate want to take the residents guns in that state?

It almost sounded like he was the only candidate with that agenda by your post.

I'm of the impression your reps out there have already been busy for decades doing just what you are accusing him of doing. They got elected anyway in previous years, he has as much chance as the next anti-gun guy to run for that seat.

The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically.

Brownie

[longeyes]

Combine Hugh Hefner and Dr. Strangelove and you've got Larry Flynt.

[rock jock]

You may not agree with his philosophy but you can appreciate what he has gone through. He refuses to go away and fights them at every chance he gets for what he believes are his rights, at a great personal expense.
brownie,

You are under the mistaken belief that just because a person fights for what they believe in, their fight is somehow admirable. I don't admire people who fight to advance an agenda of sleeze and moral debauchery and more than I admire Diane Feinswine for her fight to ban firearms.

[scottgun]

The victim of a gunshot attack that has left him in a wheelchair
Let's hope for better aim next time, maybe with a larger caliber?

Flynt is a scum bag, at least real politicians try to portray the illusion that they are trying to do something positive. Flynt appeals to the lowest common denominator and doesn't have a shread of decency.

[Duncan Idaho]

The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically.Actually there is no difference. The nonsense that he, you, and they believe in, to wit: that "guns are ok for me to own - because I'm a cop, or a smut peddler, or a Demorat - but aren't ok for the peons to own" are the same argument. Firearms control only disarms those that obey the law. By definition, that is all it can ever do. Ergo they/he/you are not just speaking rhetorically, but you are also lying. You, Flynt, and Fineswine all use guns to protect yourselves. It is only other people that you want to keep guns away from.

A gun didn't cripple Larry the Flynt. A POS much like himself did.

Had that person not had a gun, they may well have used a knife. You have heard of people being killed/maimed with knives, haven't you?

Nice to see that you agree with him though. I suspected as much all along.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't admire people who fight to advance an agenda of sleeze and moral debauchery

I'd call it an agenda of freedom.:D

[Duncan Idaho]

I should also take the time to address this:I'm of the impression your reps out there have already been busy for decades doing just what you are accusing him of doing. They got elected anyway in previous years, he has as much chance as the next anti-gun guy to run for that seat. First of all, they aren't "my" reps. I would never live in that craphole of a state. Be that as it may, you are the one that wanted to tell us all why we should have a better appreciation of Larry the Flynt. I've done my level best to tell you why that is ridiculous.

It really isn't my fault that neither you, nor he, can understand that infinite 1st Amendment rights are ridiculously meaningless in comparison with a person's first and foremost right to life, its preservation, and protection. You and he certainly know it. You both either use guns, or hire people that use guns, to protect your own lives. It's just that the idea that everyone should be able to have that option, that sticks in your craw. If it didn't, you would never consider Larry's position on firearms to be anything other than rhetoric. Really bad, illogical, and false rhetoric at that.

You see, I am of the opinion that all human rights are inviolable. Not just the ones that make me money. :rolleyes:

[Bruce H]

Man o man are there some real dandys around here. Does anyone remember who stood at the fine perfect Rev. Falwell's side during the supreme court time. Another pious individual who cost several lots of money. Like him or not he never camoflaged who he is.

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho:

I'm not sure where you got I was against anyone owning a firearm as I certainly support the right to keep and bear arms. Not sure how you painted me with that brush but it is incorrect regardless.

Yes, Flynt should be appreciated for doing morr toward furtherance of the people rights than most, and at great expense to himself, not any taxpayer.

Your comment about the 1st right not being equal to the others and the 2nd in particular I find very interesting indeed. I was of the impression they were all equally important and that was one fo the reasons the founding fathers included them together. I could be wrong however.

Sure I use a gun, he hires guns. My intention was to make people aware of WHY he might not like guns in private hands, he would if anyone, know more about the subject than most having taken a few to the body and since suffered great pain and rehab, again at his cost. That in no way vindicates his position on private ownership of firearms however, nor did I say I agreed with it. It's one thing to understand his mindset and that understanding doesn't mandatorily state I agree with him, just that I understand why he might feel strongly abouyt the subject.

So, no, I don't believe in the "nonsense" that he professes, on the other hand I'm objective enough to understand the thought process behind it. Apparently you are having a problem with that and I have no way of helping you on that issue.

People can be antigun and still not be your sworn enemy, as you suggest/inference. When one closes their mind to the whole picture and focuses only on one point in a mans life they tend to lose objectivity, not that it is necessary to have, but it helps in understanding the other sides views.

I tend to stray from a hardline attitude and attempt to stay objective most of the time. Whether I like him or not, agree with him on issues or not, does not change the fact he furthered our own rights and secured them through the highest court in the US.

I vote republican, never for the bleeding heart liberals. That sound like I'm anti-gun? I didn't think so. You are confusing objective views of ones actions [ the facts ] with the thought process that all who are anti gun are the enemy.
You certainly have the right to feel that way, but then not being objective clouds facts and the real issues.

Larry can be a pig, a a$$, or anything else for all I care. He has helped further our agenda and rights, either inadvertently or for personal gain, and is someone whose personality has been lacking in gov for too long.

Brownie

[Stinger]

Firearms control only disarms those that obey the law.

But gun control is for the children. :what: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:


Okay, we get the fact that Flynt stood up for his 1st Amendment rights, and spent mucho dinero doing so. It's quite easy for a multi-millionare to do so. He can hire lawyers, lobby, and hire more lawyers.

How many here are willing to go to jail for what they believe?
That's a joke. How many millions of more magazines would he have sold in jail. Bunches.

Just because somebody does something right once shouldn't/doesn't make them somehow nobler than I.

Stinger

[Duncan Idaho]

My intention was to make people aware of WHY he might not like guns in private hands, he would if anyone, know more about the subject than most having taken a few to the body and since suffered great pain and rehab, again at his cost. Well if that was your intention, there is a way to do that in English, and "The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically." isn't it.People can be antigun and still not be your sworn enemy, as you suggest/inference. Perhaps they can be for you. Not for me.Your comment about the 1st right not being equal to the others and the 2nd in particular I find very interesting indeed. I was of the impression they were all equally important and that was one fo the reasons the founding fathers included them together. I could be wrong however.I never said it wasn't an equal of the 2nd Amendment. I merely pointed out that a person that doesn't realize, and/or acknowledge that the rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment, are something less than meaningless drivel - without acknowledging the need for every human being to have substantive means with which to protect their life - is either a liar, an idiot, delusional, or some combination thereof.

It is my belief that Larry the Flynt most resembles the former.

[brownie0486]

Duncan:

I am capable and legal to carry a firearm in several states. I don't carry one daily even though I can.

I just don't find it necessary on a daily basis. If I'm working, thats a different story as I make my living with one.

I'm not of the impression I any less a person if I don't have one on me 24/7, nor am I so paranoid as to think it is necessary 24/7 for my survival.

If you haven't been shot, you speak rhetorically, he on the other hand speaks from experience. BTW--I have been so it's not rhetorical on this end.
Even having gone through such an event, I do not find the need to carry 24/7 to be whole, nor do I need to feel everyone who feels differently is a sworn enemy as you admit to thinking.

If I were not allowed to carry a firearm ever again, it would not be a life altering event where the trauma of losing same would cause me to lose sleep even one night.

Having been around many who have carried and do carry, I can tell you that too many people rely on a firearm like a crutch for actually being able to defend oneself.

If you don't feel whole as you are not allowed to pack heat to the point everyone becomes your enemy who feels differently than yourself for whatever reason, then there are apparently more underlying issues at work here.

It may be a right to carry, and everyone should be able to do so for self protection. That doesn't mean I'm less of a man or somehow diminished if I don't have heat concealed.

Too much emphasis on the carrying of a firearm to the point it is all consuming and denies you an objective viewpoint towards others views on the issue seems to me to be self defeating.

YMMV

Brownie