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

originally posted by: undo
i sat there for quite some time staring at the screen in disbelief.

Yeah, you sat there staring at an idiot box because the idiot box told you that you were an idiot.

Even when the idiot box flat out tells you that you are an idiot, you still wont turn it off.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Breitbart directly quotes Neeson's contention that us has 320 million people and 300 million guns. Breitbart didn't misrepresent anything in the actual article and you know as well as I do that article titles are usually worded to get the most clicks possible from ALL websites which make their revenue via the almightly click.

How does one reduce the quantity with also reducing gun ownership, by the way? That seems like either an amazing magic trick or a game of semantics.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: undo
i sat there for quite some time staring at the screen in disbelief.

Yeah, you sat there staring at an idiot box because the idiot box told you that you were an idiot.

Even when the idiot box flat out tells you that you are an idiot, you still wont turn it off.

yes, i admit, i was interested in the election results at the time, and turned to news channels to find out. cnn was my preferred source. emphasis on "was".

i suppose by your tone, you are insinuating that i'm an idiot. care to prove that with anything other than innuendo?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So what does Charlie Hebdo have to do with American gun ownership?

From your article:

There’s too many [expletive] guns out there,” he continued. “Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a [expletive] disgrace.

There is only 1 way to take that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

There's no semantics at all. It's distortion.

His comments were clearly (in both sources you cited) specific to the amount of guns. To a UK citizen, that's a lot. It's a fair comment given his outlook.

originally posted by: neo96
So what does Charlie Hebdo have to do with American gun ownership?

Nothing.




Are you projecting potential intelligence on a movie actor?

He was probably confused.

originally posted by: undo
yes, i admit, i was interested in the election results at the time, and turned to news channels to find out. cnn was my preferred source. emphasis on "was".

i suppose by your tone, you are insinuating that i'm an idiot. care to prove that with anything other than innuendo?

I make no insinuation. Complaining about television is idiotic.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: undo
yes, i admit, i was interested in the election results at the time, and turned to news channels to find out. cnn was my preferred source. emphasis on "was".

i suppose by your tone, you are insinuating that i'm an idiot. care to prove that with anything other than innuendo?

I make no insinuation. Complaining about television is idiotic.

i'm going to verify that that is indeed your world view on the subject of television being misused to abuse populations of people, and should i find evidence that it's actually not true, that you actually do care when the television is used to abuse populations of people, would you prefer i point it out, you know, to refresh your memory?

Sylvester Stallone, Ahnold, Liam Neeson, Sean Connery, Mark Wahlberg, etc...

Hypocrites who have made millions appearing on-screen as good guys with guns conquering evil and then claiming guns are the root of all evil in their private lives while employing men with guns to protect them.

It's like a porn star advocating abstinence.

Since Leeson is (obviously) not a politician, and this is not about political policy.

I'm moving this thread from US Political Madness to the Rant forum, which seems more appropriate.

a reply to: Answer

Again, don't project intelligence on these people. You'll only be disappointed.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Answer

Again, don't project intelligence on these people. You'll only be disappointed.

I blame it more on their environment. A life spent surrounded by liberal-arts types in Hollywood can definitely warp a person's mind.

There's also the fact that, despite their own personal beliefs, they have to toe the liberal line to keep working in the movie industry.

a reply to: neo96

No distortion there, his words exactly.

Politics and entertainment are so close together. When a celebrity speaks, a politician is listening. I also know in America many people won't care about an issue unless they see a celebrity talking about it. They're absolute morons no doubt, but when they follow orders they can be very influential, and that's when people perk up and pay attention, which is the problem.

Answer: Hollywood is most certainly a conform or drop dead industry. Look at how many celebrities go out of their way to make sure their names are associated with certain topics. "Don't laugh at the punchline? Good luck, you're blacklisted, won't ever work here again. Your editing style isn't comparable to Iron Man 14 or Birdman? Go back to reality, jerk!!"

I'm a cultural infidel so I don't know this fellow but connecting the Paris attacks with the rate of US gun ownership is a fairly big leap isn't it? What is disgraceful about the fact that a whole bunch of us US citizens can protect ourselves from bad guys with guns or bad guys with knives, or bad guys who know martial arts?
I'm a skinny little woman who isn't too agile anymore so using my physical strength against a bad guy isn't practical. When I was seven years old my Daddy taught me to use firearms to protect myself and others. I've never shot anyone. I always have a gun handy but in 54 years of handling guns there have been only two occasions when I felt the need to even show a gun. And in those two instances, showing the gun was all that was necessary for the bad guy to beat a hasty retreat. The great equalizer for those of us who aren't ninjas is the handy firearm, which luckily for me, I have the right to own in the US.
I feel bad for those folks in Paris but I can't help but believe that if someone in that office was in possession of a gun, this mess could have been less horrifying. Those terrorists didn't come to the US to buy guns if the information being reported is true so what does the number of people in the US owning guns have to do with a bunch of radicals shooting up the staff of a magazine? I try to stretch my mind around that but ....my brain just doesn't have that much elasticity. Maybe this guy had eaten one too many GMO-adulterated meals and his brain has turned to mush? Does this guy have bodyguards? Do his bodyguards carry guns? This is just a small point, but relevant nonetheless. I've seen some of the crazy things people say about guns---people with armed guards standing beside them. Could it be the fluoride in the water? Or simply a lack of critical thinking skills?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

One of those sources cited was Breitbart... My original comment still stands. Breitbart runs a business just like all news websites. Headlines are designed to elicit as many clicks as possible (as a web businessman yourself, I know you understand this.) It is the reason why even a small fire in a building is referred to a a "blaze", it is the reason why the teaser for any news story coming up right after the break is always along the lines of "You toddler's life is at risk, from this common household item... we'll tell you about it and what you can do when we get back from these commercials", and it is the reason the weathermen stand in the middle of a hurricane to report on why nobody should be outside... it's a dramatic bullcrap, but it is seen in all media and the differences purely depend on the anticipated audience.

Bottom line, I'm arguing that Neeson is a jackass based on his verbatim comments, NOT on the Breitbart headline. If we're going to go purely off headlines, then why bother linking the articles and ex tagging quotes in OPs? Furthermore, whether he's referencing overall number of guns or individual ownership of guns, it is gun control he is advocating and it is ignorant. There is no way to reduce the number of guns without impacting American ownership... the mind boggles. I also still stand by my initial statement way back on page 2... Neeson is demonstrating that he clearly either did no research for the role of Schindler's list or he learned nothing of value from whatever research he did.

a reply to: diggindirt

They want people defenseless. So they report gun violence, wave pictures of the cute victims around and cry, hoping the public will comply.

Good luck to them, it's gonna be a mess. I doubt the ones who want guns taken away will give up their guns and their bodyguards...

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Answer

Again, don't project intelligence on these people. You'll only be disappointed.

I blame it more on their environment. A life spent surrounded by liberal-arts types in Hollywood can definitely warp a person's mind.

There's also the fact that, despite their own personal beliefs, they have to toe the liberal line to keep working in the movie industry.

Do you work in the movie industry? I do and think you don't know what you are talking about. There are plenty of conservatives in the industry, plenty of gun owners, and plenty of real thinking patriots that don't believe every word Rush Limbaugh utters.

There is no liberal qualification to work in the industry. You sound like there is some huge cabal of interconnected studios trying to institute group think. That's BS...!

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: undo
yes, i admit, i was interested in the election results at the time, and turned to news channels to find out. cnn was my preferred source. emphasis on "was".

i suppose by your tone, you are insinuating that i'm an idiot. care to prove that with anything other than innuendo?

I make no insinuation. Complaining about television is idiotic.

i'm going to verify that that is indeed your world view on the subject of television being misused to abuse populations of people, and should i find evidence that it's actually not true, that you actually do care when the television is used to abuse populations of people, would you prefer i point it out, you know, to refresh your memory?

If you feel so inclined, but I gotta say, don't waste your time trying to one up me, because I really don't care.

a reply to: olaru12

you were making a good point till you pulled out the rush limbaugh comment. had to do a double take on that.

originally posted by: TheArrow

If you feel so inclined, but I gotta say, don't waste your time trying to one up me, because I really don't care.

you really don't care about what ?
did you know the ukrainians were starved to death enmasse under stalin (men, women, children), and it was made possible by referring to them derogatorily, over and over and over. and this same thing was pulled off by hitler. and the same thing was pulled off by bush. and every time that kind of thing happened, huge amounts of people died?

hello? i know there's a real person with nerve endings in there somewhere. of course you care.