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

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Asktheanimals

What exactly is "gun culture" and how is it a disgrace? I know literally hundreds of people who shoot for sport and hunting who have never shot another person and they represent the average gun owner in the US. Are they all part of this disgrace somehow?

No not at all, like I said in another post, I am 100% fine with gun ownership.

I'm not OK with gun owners protecting their own crazies in their ranks. Like any other group of people, you've allowed yourselves to be taken over, on the national stage by people who don't represent your interests.

It's the violent and un-yielding gun culture I have a problem with. Unwilling to compromise on common sense approaches to gun legislation, which I will even admit, has been piss poor.

~Tenth

Gun owners don't "protect the crazies in their own ranks." We are not a single organization like a religion or political movement. Gun owners are of all races. Some are straight some are gay. Some are republicans and some are democrats. Some are religious and some are atheists. The only thing that we all have in common is the ownership of an inanimate object. 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.

a reply to: neo96

And that has to do with you playing the victim card how?

Disgraceful that you would try and act as though what happened in paris is anything close to what you are trying to get across.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If you think that gun owners are unaware of that ... you're crazy. But you have to also understand that right now, it is politically impossible for such an Amendment to come to the floor. The ramifications of such a thing would make it impossible in the states. Even die hard liberal Democrats play pro-gun rights because they have to. It would, and has, spawned successful recalls where no other issue does. See Colorado's state senate. Two of three were recalled successfully after a gun bill was passed.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Guns give power to cowards...

A majority of Gun users wouldn't have the wherewithal or guts to strangle, stab, bludgeon or batter someone to death...

Give a coward a Gun and they'll use it, usually in a no threatening situation based on their perceptions of a threat...



And for the second time today, I'm pro Gun...


But to deny a Gun culture is laughable.

Paint with a broad brush much?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
When common sense has already been used what's left to try?

Prohibition.

It works all over the globe. It could work here.

LOL. Prohibition does not work anywhere. Mexico has the strongest gun control laws in the Western Hemisphere. See how that is working out for them?

a reply to: Sremmos80

And just how many people DIE as the result of dialing 911 to have the police come save them?

'Playing the victim' eh?

There have been thousands of those from gun control laws.

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

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
When common sense has already been used what's left to try?

Prohibition.

It works all over the globe. It could work here.

LOL. Prohibition does not work anywhere. Mexico has the strongest gun control laws in the Western Hemisphere. See how that is working out for them?

I wish they would police their border instead.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The NRA protects plenty of crazy.

Ted Nugent comes to mind.

~Tenth

a reply to: ketsuko

I can defend myself with martial arts or a blade or a chainsaw.

Fair enough a blade and a chainsaw can be taken away like a Gun...

Martial arts cannot.
Therefore it cannot be oppressed!

Therefore self defence cannot be oppressed.


Limited maybe, but oppressed is loaded...

& only one of the two seperate definitions of "right" apply to gun ownership...
One of those definitions is subjective...



This is an example, but I understand we do not live in fantasy land where all guns will dissapear...
Given that...
There is no need for a response claiming if a criminal has a gun it's being oppressed...


Ive no doubt if it was amended you'd all break that Law anyways... Such is Life when living by the Gun!

That's a different topic altogether.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
When common sense has already been used what's left to try?

Prohibition.

It works all over the globe. It could work here.

LOL. Prohibition does not work anywhere. Mexico has the strongest gun control laws in the Western Hemisphere. See how that is working out for them?

You're simply wrong.

a reply to: neo96



Well said Mr Neeson, well said.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks for teaching me that ketsuko.

Hopefully you understand my sentiment comes from a good place, a protective place!

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.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: NavyDoc

The NRA protects plenty of crazy.

Ted Nugent comes to mind.

~Tenth

The anti gun crowd CREATED the NRA, and in my book anyone that supports the state limiting, and taking guns away from 'we the people' are crazy.

Because it shows they were not paying attention to just how, and why this country was created in the first place.

Harsh words didn't win American Independence.

That was won through the end of the barrel of a GUN.

American foreign policy is dictated at the end of the barrel of a GUN.

The 'safety' on American streets is dictated at the end of the barrel of a GUN.

Seems to me anytime there come a problem with 'bad guys' with guns.

The go to solution is to call the 'good' guys with GUNS.

Hell even them 'terrorists' get American 'justice' dished out at the end of a gun.

Amazing the cognitive dissonance.

But hey 'guns are bad'.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I said "Gun users"... Meaning people who have shot other people or committed armed robbery or anything else heinous & cowardly at Gun point...

Not "Gun owners"... Meaning people who own guns...

I don't doubt the majority of Gun owners intentions to only use in defence...

Gun users I'd put in the cowardly majority... Used usually against unarmed people.

That's a Gun problem...anywhere in the World including the States.



Do the NRA not have big arse gatherings & events for all Gun owners to meet up and discuss their values and beliefs and rights together...

That is a Gun culture, not a Gun problem...
It's not a bad thing...

I would change that to "gun misusers." I use my guns quite frequently, usually to put holes in paper. When you say "gun users" the implication is everyone who uses a gun for any reason.

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.

i say we import buddhist monks, and lots of them, then have them train anyone who wants to replace their gun, in other forms of self defense. and start, in the major cities, where the actual constituents of the people who want to disarm everybody, reside. cause if you don't teach people how to think differently about violence where the guns being used, are already illegal, it won't matter if you disarm every farmer, woman, granny or grandpa, in the nation. the gun problem will not go away. it's foolish to think it will. in fact, it's suspicious to say it will.

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.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Voting is...Absolutely...

Many would disagree, but that can change overnight with a civil war or revolution.



Free speech can be punished...
But unless you're bound and gagged...
No one can prevent speech, even disgusting speech sadly!

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.

Bit of a simplification those are actions that a person performs the other is ownership of an inanimate object. Would you say that ownership of a rocket launcher is a right? Or that North Korea's ownership of nukes is a right?