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

It's especially annoying because he's not the only one who is indirectly blaming the massacre in Paris on the US's private gun ownership.

There was a columnist in the US who was spouting that nonsense, too.

Do they even have two brain cells to rub together to see how that doesn't even make any sense? I think they even traced where the arms came from and it was a dealer in Belgium, still nothing to do with the US, and the assault rifles used weren't of American make.

Soooo what does US private gun ownership have to do with ANY of this again?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96

It's not a right... It is a privilege disguised as a right...

That privilege can be taken from anyone who misbehaves!

& I support that you deserve that privilege.



The idea of an Amendment is that it can be amended again.

It'd be very difficult to do so...
But not impossible...

That makes it a privilege.

That may be so ... but at what point do we stop ... everything and every rights can be taken away then ... even the right or privilege to rule. Remember that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Government only rule because of our consent. We have the 2nd to make sure that they do not overstep their authority.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: joemoe
So do we really have a Gang Problem or a Gun Problem?

'

Considering most gang related violence involves selling drugs, I'd say we have a drug problem compounded by a gun problem.

Sounds more like a criminal culture, not a gun culture.

I wonder who disarmed Japan?

Then I guess America is a criminal culture, and as such, shouldnt be trusted with guns.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

This is why you can't compare the Netherlands or the Swiss in the whole gun debate issue. They have high gun ownership, very low gun crime.

That's because they have little multi-culturalism.

Apart from the type of guns allowed Holland's gun laws are pretty similar to the UK's.....and Holland is quite 'multi-cultural'.

In The Netherlands, gun ownership is restricted to law enforcement, hunters, and target shooters. Self-defense is not a valid reason to own guns. To obtain a hunting license one must pass a hunters safety course. To get one for target shooting, one must be a member of a shooting club for a year. People with felonies, drug addictions, and mental illnesses may not possess any firearms.Once obtained, firearms must be stored in a safe. Firearms may only be used in self-defense as "equal force". Police will come once a year to inspect your guns. Fully automatic guns are banned, but there are otherwise few restrictions on the types of guns one may own. Semi-automatics, handguns, and magazines of all sizes are legal, as are all types of ammo. A licensed gun owner may only have five firearms registered to his or her license at one time

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: TheArrow

It only works in Japan because of a homogenous population.
Japan has a long history of social conformity unmatched in world.
Individualism and anti-social behaviors are a rarity.

Ding ding ding. Very True.

This is why you can't compare the Netherlands or the Swiss in the whole gun debate issue. They have high gun ownership, very low gun crime.

That's because they have little multi-culturalism.

~Tenth

If I may make a distinction here in your use of multiculturalism - I believe what you mean by that is having various ethnic, racial and religious groups thrown together without time or opportunity to establish civil relations. Britain is a multicultural state where there is very little conflict between groups, where an equilibrium and partial assimilation has occurred.

The same is true in many parts of the US, let's take NYC for example: today people of all creeds and colors live side by side without problem though it has taken many years to achieve this state. There have been anti-Catholic riots, anti-Irish riots, anti-black riots etc in their history but each found their place and was able to find acceptance.

it's when massive immigration and displacement of people already established in one place happens that trouble begins. Competition for land, resources and power can bring out the worst in all of us. When peace is found though what you get is this wonderful smorgasbord of cultures, where art, music and cuisine can show the best of what each has to offer. It is the ideal of what the United States should be - a place where anyone can feel at home and have the opportunity to learn and appreciate others from all over the world.

Off topic I know.
But relevant.

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!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sosobad

Likewise when people talk about gun owners.

Since ALL gun control LAWS lump gun owners as 'Adam Lanza's'.

So you think owning a gun is the same as the color of ones skin or where they are born?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Really though, can't applaud..so annoying.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Really large immigration patterns, without time to create a culture that includes those, causes multicultural issues like what we see in the UK or other nations. And that's mostly related to ME immigration, in this example, people trying to get out of a bombed out husk of a country to a better one.



~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower
I knew your intent but the word Multiculturalism gets such a bad rap these days.
Like anything in life, when it's forced upon people they usually get upset.
Even when it's a good thing!

a reply to: joemoe

Not denying that...

In a sense it is a right, that is in the bracket of legal definition...

However when it comes to the definition of right which is in the bracket of morally just...

That's where people have the "right" (second definition) to disagree and fight against it...



& I know from post history that Neo isn't using "right" in the term of legal consent...
He has clearly stated its not the choice of his government but that he was practically born with the "right" & no one can take that away...


& for the third time today, I'm pro Gun!

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's especially annoying because he's not the only one who is indirectly blaming the massacre in Paris on the US's private gun ownership.

There was a columnist in the US who was spouting that nonsense, too.

Do they even have two brain cells to rub together to see how that doesn't even make any sense? I think they even traced where the arms came from and it was a dealer in Belgium, still nothing to do with the US, and the assault rifles used weren't of American make.

Soooo what does US private gun ownership have to do with ANY of this again?

France has some of the toughest gun laws in EU.

France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?

Do they even have two brain cells to rub together to see how that doesn't even make any sense?

I say no.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: tothetenthpower
I knew your intent but the word Multiculturalism gets such a bad rap these days.
Like anything in life, when it's forced upon people they usually get upset.
Even when it's a good thing!

Honestly I was sort of waiting for the 'you're a race puritan' comment from somewhere lol

So thank you for expanding on my ideas. I don't know why it gets such a bad rap, considering it is a driving factor in a lot of our issues at the local level. People are having really hard time watching their communities grow and evolve.

I take Vancouver for example. 20 years ago, there wasn't as much of an Asian influence there, and today, you can't look anywhere without finding relatively large groups of Asian Canadians living their culture within that city.

And it's WONDERFUL, it's added so much to the city culturally, and don't get me wrong so have the others, that's just the one that comes to mind as being most significant. But they did it slowly, over 20 years, because they weren't really being forced to leave their homes under threat of death.

The same is not true for those who have been misplaced from our most recent imperial adventures around the globe. I think that kind of mass displacement and then subsequent immigration, plays a huge part in our now - polarized society.

~Tenth

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The thing with gun ownership is that it is part of the right to defend yourself and your property. The reason why we refer to this as gun ownership is that it is currently interpreted as that weaponry which an average infantryman around the world might reasonably carry on his person by the courts. Yes, this means someone might almost challenge to automatic weapons provisions, but no one has.

But without a firearm, a private citizen does not have the chance, however slight, of standing up to an infantryman. The average citizen cannot transform into the well-regulated militia mentioned without being armed by the state at state expense.

What the US has now is a hidden army of defenders that could theoretically take up THEIR OWN arms, purchased and maintained by them, in defense in the event of an invasion of this country or widespread civil unrest or rebellion. This could be positive or negative, but the government is as aware of this as we the people are. It helps to maintain the equilibrium between the people and the state.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Off topic question:

Mods & Supermods can't applaud each other?


Maybe Skeptic would give us non-Mods/Supermods the ability to give them to you?


May make a thread about that!



Sorry Neo, no intention to drift, I'm just curious.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

& for the third time today, I'm pro Gun!

Funny thing is charlie I am also. I go shooting with my uncle every month, love it but I am anti this....



If I ever have to give up shooting so be it but some people are totally ridiculous about the subject, giving examples of why it is a "God given right" to own one and then wants Liam Neeson to give up his "God given right" to an opinion.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96

It's not a right... It is a privilege disguised as a right...

That privilege can be taken from anyone who misbehaves!

No, it is a right...that was not the "Bill of Privileges" the founders created.

Now...to your point, each and every right that is recognized by government can and is limited or denied when appropriately warranted, even the right to life as Death Row regularly proves.

It is how, when, if and what warrants those limitations on rights that folks debate along with the Supreme Court whose job it is to decide the same.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No they can't.

No worries.

Back to Gunphobia, and Islamophia, and all parts in between,

And Oh yeah Neesons comments.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Off topic question:

Mods & Supermods can't applaud each other?

Short answer: Mods are not Mods unless they are Moderating...When Moderating a thread they can not contribute. When contributing to a thread they can not moderate it.

At least I think that's it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I understand that ketsuko and I fully agree.


I am pro Gun, it may not seem it because of my debate stance...

But I do it out of a want to breed awareness to Gun owners like Neo who get carried away thinking it cannot be taken from him...

It's mainly for non voters I say these things...

Because when the time comes to vote on it you'll need the 2/3 majority rather than the naive belief that the Constitution will stop any attempt.

Especially nowadays as anti-Gun advocates rise in numbers and with all the highly publicised events whether orchestrated or not that have that political slant immediately to bring up Gun ownership!



Hopefully I've clarified well enough rather than written an incoherent diatribe, I struggle to convey what I mean sometimes!

a reply to: neo96

This man is a sell out of a man........I will say it another way he is a paper bag floating in the wind. Pathetic morally bankrupt sell out.



The best thing to do is do not watch anything with him in it. Do not pay for the theater ticket and do not buy the DVDs. Money is something these people listen to much more than there morally bankrupt values.