So, according to the latest issue of "Americas 1st Freedom" (p 16)... Mr. Spielberg will be releasing the 2002 special edition rework of his movie [i]E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial[/i] and will be "making several tweaks to his classis, including removing all traces of firearms from the film." The article stated anyone seen carrying a gun in the movie will brandisk "nothing more deadly than walkie-talkies" in the new version.

So, here is my response to Mr. Spielberg...

Mr. Spielberg, in light of your recent announcement to remove firearms from one of your previously made movies, I wonder if you would be so inclined as to continue the misguided idea in the rest of your movies.
I think that "Close Encouters of The Third Kind" could also benefit from your twisted view of anti-gun hypocrisy. After all, they were friendly aliens there, and the military represented in the movie never did shoot anyone...so why should anyone carry a gun?  While we are at it, let's not forget that horrible gun-filled movie "Schindler's List", if we remove the guns, maybe we can show how the Nazi's would have still dominated the Jewish people, who according to your revisionsit version of history were too good to defend themselves, since they followed Hitler's laws disarming everyone who could have opposed him.


No_Expert

And while he's at it, he can remake Saving Private Ryan" and substitute lovely, frilly parasols for all those guns.

What a f*ckin' dumb ass. It's been YEARS...but for some reason I don't remember a whole lot of guns in E.T. Sounds like Stephen just wants to make his agenda known through the only means has has at his disposal.[puke]

From what I understand, the firearms are being removed from the chase scene (where the Feds are trying to recapture ET after his resurrection); Spielberg thinks it would be inappropriate for anyone to raise a firearm against a child.

So perhaps he feels that Feds shouldn't be shooting at (or even pointing guns at) kids? Yes, I'm sure it was seeing those movie-Feds in ET that inspired the killing of Sammy Weaver. Or in more recent history, the seizure of Elian Gonzalez. Yeah. That must of been it.

[img]http://www.ruby-ridge.com/miami.jpg[/img]

So doesn't that mean that the movie was responsible for their deaths. Destroying the evidence before the inevitable lawsuit, perhaps?

Or maybe, just maybe, he thinks we should be disarming Feds? Hmmm.

Spielberg is a typical liberal: he has guns, but doesn't think [b]YOU[/b] can be trusted with them.

Isn't it wonderful the type of people we allow to brainwash us and our kids in this country?

Several years ago a shotgun related magazine featured a Jurassic Park logo engraved Beretta O/U that belonged to Spielberg.  Of course, that's DIFFERENT from the likes of us unwashed mass.  HE has a COLLECTION, WE have an ARSENAL.  HIS guns have SPORTING PURPOSE, OUR guns are MILITARY STYLE ASSULT WEAPONS.  He's probably the one at shooting range bitching about "those assult weapons", demanding everyone to single load.

actually he did edit out a piece of historical significance from schindlers list- schindler actually trained and supplied his workers with firearms to fight off the nazis..

No, it's not being to hard. "kid's movie" or not. There were no shoot outs, no kids killed, no nothing bad about guns in the movie...OTHER THAN THEY WERE THERE. They were carried by Police and other agents in the line of their job...as it is in real life....now they want to take that element away and say the guns are not needed, therefore they are not need to be seen... what's next logical step? They are not needed. (by anyone) and thats you and me.

No_Expert

Too reminiscent of Winston Smith's job in "1984" for me.  The way digital history can be altered is amazing and scary.

Speilberg appears to understand certain realities, but then turns right around like a good little coolie and denies them to himself.

If Speilberg were at all consisent, he'd be giving all of his money to JPFO.

Then he would be a consistent liberal.
Is that possible?