Action Hero Liam Neeson on Paris Attack: US Gun Ownership ‘A [Bleeping] Disgrace’

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I listed my meaning of Gun users quite clearly...


Shooting Deer, as much as I think it's deplorable, is not an Armed Robbery.

Every gun owner I know is also a gun user.
Either they hunt, practice or both.
Anyone who doesn't practice with their firearm is actually being unsafe.
Familiarity and repetition make for safe handling, especially in emergency situations.
Gun owner = gun user in my experience anyway though there are a few collectors who let theirs gather dust.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Gun owners don't "protect the crazies in their own ranks." We are not a single organization like a religion or political movement.

..

It's just as silly demanding why we don't "police the crazies" as it would be to demand that Honda owners "police the crazies" that own Hondas.

OK...Then can every law abiding and licensed driver agree that drunks and blind people shouldn't be given a drivers license and car?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes I do paint all cowards with the same brush.

Maybe you didn't notice I said Gun users rather than owners!!!


Thanks for asking.

ya know charlie, i like you, but i don't like your stance on this subject (not about liam neeson but about the idea that people having guns defines their culture). a gun or any weapon, for that matter, retained as a means of self defense (should it be necessary), doesn't suggest a culture, it's suggests people just wanting to survive whatever life may throw at them. it's a human trait, not a national trait, racial trait or religious trait. if it wasn't guns, it'd be something else.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: NavyDoc

The NRA protects plenty of crazy.

Ted Nugent comes to mind.

~Tenth

How does the NRA "protect" him?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yeah I'm aware animals honestly, that's why I defined the term user with heinous crimes otherwise it would have been a generalisation.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I listed my meaning of Gun users quite clearly...


Shooting Deer, as much as I think it's deplorable, is not an Armed Robbery.

And that's where you go wrong. Everyone who owns a gun uses it in some fashion.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96

Gun ownership is not a GD privilege.

It can be taken away, that's privilege!

Never has been.

Always has been!

It is an inalienable right.

No it is not!

That means people/ government needs to keep their hands off of it.

That means you believe they need to keep their hands off.

You have no right to enforce that ideology and if 2/3 Senate 2/3 House & 2/3 State Legislatures decide otherwise your "right" becomes a privilege that was taken away!

By that definition, voting and free speech are also privileges.

What they epically fail to grasp is the second that binds the bill of rights together.

Without the means to use the thing when words fail.

Stick a fork in us.

We're done.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Gun owners don't "protect the crazies in their own ranks." We are not a single organization like a religion or political movement.

..

It's just as silly demanding why we don't "police the crazies" as it would be to demand that Honda owners "police the crazies" that own Hondas.

OK...Then can every law abiding and licensed driver agree that drunks and blind people shouldn't be given a drivers license and car?

They don't think anyone should be given anything. They have to buy it themselves.

What does that analogy have to do with "policing the crazies?"

Just like a car, if you want to carry a gun in public, you have to have a license. Just like a gun, if you use your car only on private property, you don't need a license.

A blind person can own as many cars as he wants (and I know one who owns several, he collected them before he went blind), he just can't drive it on a public street. Why would you want to eliminate the right of a blind person to own an object?

You lose your license if you drive drunk. You lose your gun if you commit a violent felony--both things the vast majority of gun owners agree with. So again, how are we refusing to "police the crazies?"

a reply to: undo

Thanks I like you too


I see NRA gatherings and events where likewise people come together to discuss their values of ownership as a culture.

And I made it clear that a Gun Culture is nothing to be upset or offended about...
Culture to me does not hold a derogatory meaning or implication.

It implies a commonality and a shared value between likeminded people.


That's why I was clear in separating a Gun problem from Gun Culture.

I don't think there is a single problem with Gun Culture.

Neeson's also lives in Manhattan iirc, that helps explain his stance. Wasn't he the one who said all wild animals or deer should be killed because he hit one while riding his motorcycle?

I never listen to celebrities when they speak about these issues. They're just scoring points and doing what they're told.

Like Emma Watson and women, she's paid for wearing makeup and helps perpetuate the stereotype that beautiful is better.

Or Jim Carey flipping out about guns, then still accepting payment for his movie which featured guns.

Imo I just don't care because they're disconnected from society, they hate interacting with the little people. Yet they love influencing them.

After reading this post (and many others like it that revolve around guns...) I'm totally convinced that some Americans would vote for a gun if it were to run for president. But I'm on the outside looking in though. Guns hardly exist in my country and crimes involving guns are almost non-existant. (almost..)
I think we as humans would be better off without guns. Like if they never existed. However I do understand that banning them would never work since people would never turn them all in so getting rid would be an impossible task.
I know this though.......whoever invented the gun has got some explaining to do!

a reply to: NavyDoc

I would have been wrong if I didnt define it when I said "meaning people who have shot people, commited armed robbery or other heinous crimes at gun point"...


Nowhere in that sentence did it allude to people who hunt or hit the range.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

That's why politicians, and actors have so much in common.

They get paid millions to get people to think they're something they're not.

a reply to: neo96

And they're intertwined. Celebs who turn into politicians. Celebs and politicians, really no difference.

a reply to: Verse

I know this though.......whoever invented the gun has got some explaining to do!

I believe that would be the Chinese.

Who consequently has the toughest gun laws in the world.

That has mass stabbings.

a reply to: neo96

Hell 17 in Paris is good example, not to mention those here.

Yes, some or all of those 17 may not have died in Paris if France had gun control laws akin to the USA.....but how many hundreds or thousands would have died in other gun related events throughout France?

I guess its something we'll never know.

I really don't know why Second Amendment supporters feel the need to jump all over any gun related issue regardless of location.
The Rest of the World is not the USA.
Guns and gun ownership have become a part of the American psyche - guns have played such an integral part in the forging of the nation.
And its impossible to prohibit something that is so entrenched in the American lifestyle as gun ownership is.

The same can't be said for most other nations - and the citizens of most other nations don't want American style gun laws.
That's not because we are weak or submissive or anything stupid like that, its because after weighing the pro's and con's up we feel our society / country's would be worse for it.

Like most non-Americans I have no desire or wish to deny Americans their 'rights' - its an argument for Americans and Americans only - but please stop jumping over events in other countries as a justification for your stance etc.

The Rest of the World is not the USA - and it has absolutely no desire to be.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

the nra is like a special interest group. many people own guns that don't belong to any special interest groups. they just own them for whatever reason - gifts, hunting, self defense, heirlooms. like the kid who inherited his dad's smith and wesson or the wife who's husband buys her a revolver for self defense. don't fall into the "let's stereotype americans" thing. that's just the globalist's american version of "here is why you should not like these people and want them all to die" scenario.

Hmm ban guns?

Maybe when all the actors & politicians are dead.

a reply to: Freeborn

I really don't know why Second Amendment supporters feel the need to jump all over any gun related issue regardless of location.

Apparently missed the op, about an antigunner using the events in Paris.

a reply to: neo96

Apparently missed the op, about an antigunner using the events in Paris.

Not at all.

And you used what he said to pursue your own agenda.
Its not the first time its happened, far from it.
How many threads have been authored by pro-gun members after things like this?
Hell, half the time it doesn't even have to be a gun related event, still get the 'well it wouldn't happen if you had guns like us'.

As I said in my post, I understand America's obsession with guns and certainly have no desire to stop you playing with them.
If I lived in America I'd probably have one myself - but I don't want them over here, neither do most of my countrymen or the peoples of most other nations outside the US.

That is by no means a criticism of the US, just a recognition that it is different.

As for the OP - I think that as a naturalised US citizen Liam Neeson is perfectly entitles to his opinion on gun control laws in the US.
I do however think he is wrong to use the killings in Paris to justify his position - Apples and pears.