Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I watched part of Tombstone last night, the one with Kurt Russel and Val Kilmer.
Virgil is nailing up the proclamation stating that guns are not allowed in town.
He says something like - We don't want to take you guns, You can have your guns and even carry them but just not in town.

Sounds familiar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,002 Posts
Yeah. It does sound somewhat familiar. But, that was long ago; & that was a movie.
And the way the script for the movie was written, they had to deal only with Curly Bill & The Cowboys!

Right now, this is very real. And we have to deal with many more dangers, like gangs & foolish democrats!
In Tombstone, Virgil(Sam Elliot) was doing something that he thought was good for the town. The whole thing
does indeed sound like something we are going through right now.

But, in this time, the powers that be, are really attempting to disarm the law abiding citizen, for their own agenda. :icon_rolleyes:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
Yeah, it may have been a movie, but the events leading up to the gunfight at OK were accurate - it was precipitated by an attempt to disarm the Cowboys - in particular, the McLaurens and the Clantons.
And, no, it is not lost on me that the decision to "prohibit carrying of arms in town" was in response to all the hell the Cowboys were stirring up when they came into town - got drunk - then shot up a room, etc.

It is also not lost on me that I would almost think most here would have agreed that the ordinance prohibiting firearms should have gone through some type of vote - town council? County commissioners (if they had them back then)? But, certainly, not a rule or ordinance enacted unilaterally by just the town Marshall! The law is there to enforce the laws on the books - not to make the laws. So, I actually believe Virgil was wrong in what he did.

And, I believe most of us would agree with the temp storage of arms while engaged in drinking (like they showed in the casino/bar) and I probably would not even have agreed with handing them back over when the person left the bar - perhaps to the "designated (horse) rider" - that person who didn't drink and who could transport the arms back . . . . home or wherever they went.

And, the finale - the gunfight at the corral; the marshals going to disarm perfectly sober gun totin' cowboys. Or, the marshals going to enforce an Unconstitutional unilaterally appointed ordinance against guns upon sober men. Yeah, they had a history of disorderly conduct when drunk but they were sober now.

Good question for this board: do you think the Earps acted correctly in their unilateral enacting of the gun free zone ordinance? It seemed from the movie that Wyatt was actually against the gun ordinance in the first place and was against approaching the cowboys in the corral later. This would be equivalent to what goes on in Chicago almost daily now: LEO chief does just about everything except enacting an anti-gun ordinance but then the cops pretty much leave the gun toting gangs, known to be the troublemakers and most violent, alone . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergners

·
Administrator
Joined
·
40,369 Posts
Kind of goes back to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Not just any and everybody. Similar to the issues of today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
So much has been romanticized about the Old West and the Earps in particular, it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I enjoyed Tombstone, and I also enjoyed Costner's Wyatt Earp. In fact, one needs to combine both to get a better, although probably still not completely accurate, bio of his and his brothers' lives.

Costner's version spent more time developing Earp's early life, as one time horse thief, buffalo hunter, and early police career, before ending up in Arizona. Tombstone was just about that - the events leading up to the OK Corral, and the aftermath, which admittedly is a more exciting movie, running in the time allotted. The "disarming in town" ordinances were quite common back then, mostly for the reasons shown in both movies. In fact, in his latter years, Wyatt was asked to referee a prize fight (probably in CA), and got into the ring, took off his coat, and realized he was still armed. He immediately delayed the fight, went back to the venue's office, and turned his gun over to whomever was in charge.

The interaction between Doc and Johnny Ringo, where they dueled each other with Latin, probably was a true event as well. For all the rough-and-tumble coarseness of the players of the old West, many were college educated Easterners who came there to either live the adventure, or to get away from trouble back home.

The story (and stories) are fascinating, especially for those of us who grew up watching the Westerns, and reading about these exploits, and the fact that the Earps were a real, and relatively recent (Wyatt died in 1929, and did consulting work on many of the early Westerns of Hollywood) example of that time.

Oh, and don't forget...

Doc Holiday.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: whichfinger

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
I agree with the premise that Virgil should not have enacted a law especially as common as the gun was then. I do think the Earps and co. had every right to disarm the cowboys. They were known criminals. I believe criminals have forfeighted their right to carry a gun (depending on the charge, I feel some shouild still be able to defend their home with them... different debate). As far as the movie goes... one of my all time favorites.

Kurt Russell's degredation of Billy Bob Thornton is perhaps the greatest pimping of anyone, anywhere anytime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,958 Posts
Lots of great "one liners" in that movie...like...

"You're so drunk you're probably seeing double".
Billy Clanton (Thomas Haden Church)

"I have two guns, one for each of you."
Doc Holiday (Val Kilmer) :icon_ rasta:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,167 Posts
Yeah. It does sound somewhat familiar. But, that was long ago; & that was a movie.
And the way the script for the movie was written, they had to deal only with Curly Bill & The Cowboys!

Right now, this is very real. And we have to deal with many more dangers, like gangs & foolish democrats!
In Tombstone, Virgil(Sam Elliot) was doing something that he thought was good for the town. The whole thing
does indeed sound like something we are going through right now.

But, in this time, the powers that be, are really attempting to disarm the law abiding citizen, for their own agenda. :icon_rolleyes:
This time we are being taken over by moonbats..
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
Kind of goes back to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Not just any and everybody. Similar to the issues of today.
Why, yes, yes it does. But, were there laws on the books back then that excluded criminals from owning or possessing firearms? The US Constitution certainly does not distinguish between who may and who may not keep and bear arms . . . Of course, later enumerated rights and legalities brought this in but only after lawful arrest and conviction. Had the Clantons or Mclaaurens ever been convicted? Not sure; doubt it. They were merely rowdies. . . . We do know Wyatt was arrested as a horse thief in his youth (?conviction?) but he later wielded a gun and became famous for it. I doubt carry permits were issued back then, though, so not sure anyone was "illegal" if they owned or carried - except in those towns which had enacted gun restrictions - then it was global - with the likely exception of LEO. Of course, NY's ridiculous gun legislation recently accidentally included the LEOs in their restrictions - a pure example of what can happen if legislation is hurried through with passion instead of logic.

Not disagreeing with ya Smoke - agreeing with ya based on today's environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
Why, yes, yes it does. But, were there laws on the books back then that excluded criminals from owning or possessing firearms? The US Constitution certainly does not distinguish between who may and who may not keep and bear arms . . . Of course, later enumerated rights and legalities brought this in but only after lawful arrest and conviction. Had the Clantons or Mclaaurens ever been convicted? Not sure; doubt it. They were merely rowdies. . . . We do know Wyatt was arrested as a horse thief in his youth (?conviction?) but he later wielded a gun and became famous for it.

Not disagreeing with ya Smoke - agreeing with ya based on today's environment.
Not sure about the "truth", but in Costner's movie, Wyatt escaped with the help of his father and then high-tailed it out of the area for good.
 

·
Moderator in Memorium 1940-2014
Joined
·
13,540 Posts
As I recall, the "no-guns-in-town" rule was not exclusive to Tombstone. Wild Bill Hickok enforced such a law in Abilene (except when ignored by Wes Hardin) and it probably was the norm in other cattle towns.
Whether the rules were enacted by a town council, the mayor or the lawman is irrelevant. Yes, we have protocols today for enacting laws but remember that the frontier times were different: law often lagged behind settlement - thus the term "lawless West".
The one certainty is this: you cannot measure the actions and attitudes of 150 years ago with a yardstick crafted only yesterday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Arizona was not a state until February 14, 1912, it was a territory. I wonder what federel laws apply in a territory as opposed to a state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokewagon

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,844 Posts
Yeah, it may have been a movie, but the events leading up to the gunfight at OK were accurate - it was precipitated by an attempt to disarm the Cowboys - in particular, the McLaurens and the Clantons.
And, no, it is not lost on me that the decision to "prohibit carrying of arms in town" was in response to all the hell the Cowboys were stirring up when they came into town - got drunk - then shot up a room, etc.

It is also not lost on me that I would almost think most here would have agreed that the ordinance prohibiting firearms should have gone through some type of vote - town council? County commissioners (if they had them back then)? But, certainly, not a rule or ordinance enacted unilaterally by just the town Marshall! The law is there to enforce the laws on the books - not to make the laws. So, I actually believe Virgil was wrong in what he did.

And, I believe most of us would agree with the temp storage of arms while engaged in drinking (like they showed in the casino/bar) and I probably would not even have agreed with handing them back over when the person left the bar - perhaps to the "designated (horse) rider" - that person who didn't drink and who could transport the arms back . . . . home or wherever they went.

And, the finale - the gunfight at the corral; the marshals going to disarm perfectly sober gun totin' cowboys. Or, the marshals going to enforce an Unconstitutional unilaterally appointed ordinance against guns upon sober men. Yeah, they had a history of disorderly conduct when drunk but they were sober now.

Good question for this board: do you think the Earps acted correctly in their unilateral enacting of the gun free zone ordinance? It seemed from the movie that Wyatt was actually against the gun ordinance in the first place and was against approaching the cowboys in the corral later. This would be equivalent to what goes on in Chicago almost daily now: LEO chief does just about everything except enacting an anti-gun ordinance but then the cops pretty much leave the gun toting gangs, known to be the troublemakers and most violent, alone . . .
Yeah free fire zones are nothing new.

In direct answer to your question. No they did not act correctly in my opinion.

If someone does something with the tool (gun in this case) like shoot someone or someones property. Then it is the proper time for law enforcement to step in, but only after an act which infringes on another's rights. When talking rights they can only be forcibly taken away after infringing on another's rights.

Now if a private saloon required you to hand them over while drinking, thats fine, you have a choice not to go there, it is private property. When it comes to government the the town is (public property).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,909 Posts
I think Tombstone with Curt Russell and Val Kilmer was the best Portrayal of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday of any other movie to date;
 
  • Like
Reactions: 45 Forever

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
I wonder how many here are aware of these comments made by Val Kilmer in an interview with Esquire magazine a few years ago. Here are just two sources for the information. Needless to say since then I have not watched any movies this twit is in.

Val Kilmer Insults Vets
Esquire confirms quotes from Val Kilmer


Here is an excerpt from the interview:


[Klosterman]: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?

Kilmer: Oh, sure. It's not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone's life.

[Klosterman:] You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?

[Kilmer] I understand it more. It's an actor's job. A guy who's lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He's some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that's why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn't get on the football team, couldn't finagle a scholarship. They didn't have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,059 Posts
Well, those quotes won't win him any brownie points!!

Hope he doesn't get too out of breath backpeddaling from those remarks (anyone noticed his bloom in body habitus lately)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
Well, those quotes won't win him any brownie points!!

Hope he doesn't get too out of breath backpeddaling from those remarks (anyone noticed his bloom in body habitus lately)?
But what do I know? I'm just some poor, wretched, criminal punk who couldn't make the football team.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
10,379 Posts
40-some years later and the chicken chit hippies are still baggin' on the Vietnam Vets. I sure hope to hell my step-dad never heard those quotes, I'm sure as a farm kid from a family of 7 kids who went to Viet Nam with one of his brothers (one Navy, one Marine) would just love to hear he'd been a worthless punk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
I believe that his comments as a whole are way off base but there is some truth to what he says. If you were married, in college, wealthy enough to pull some strings, etc you would not be drafted. Who does that leave? Again, I think part of his comment was just plain stupid and the other was insulting to vets.
The people that volunteered were a totally different issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whichfinger

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Dennis Quaid's protrayal of Doc Holiday seemed like a bad imitation of how Kilmer played the role.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top