Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's in chemo right now. I don't think he's going to be buying and selling firearms as a hobby anymore.
As for the registry, I agree that's a pipe dream. But the NICS firearm background check could be improved to the point where it's effective. This would have to include a 1-800 number or website for private sales (with penalties for selling an AK to the guy with the teardrop tattoo in the Taco Bell parking lot). But it's better than what we're currently doing to keep guns out of the hands of felons and maniacs -- bupkis.
I like him and his movies, but doesn't he sound a bit hypocritical considering the amount of gun usage and carnage in his movies? And what's that got to do with what happened in Paris, certainly a case could be made that lack of guns made things worse. Liam Neeson on Charlie Hebdo, gun control in US | GulfNews.com
His movies are fiction. Why does that make him a hypocrite? If actors had to agree with the belief system of every character they play in films, it wouldn't be 'acting.'
You think actors who play villains or heroes are villains or heroes in reality? I think Liam Neeson trusts that his audience understands it's all made up and will not be 'trying that at home.'
Once they get rich and infamous they feel their opinions supersede everyone else's. Funny he thinks it's OK to have a lot of guns in his movies but not in real life. It's OK when he is making money off it but when he isn't making big money then it's all wrong to have real guns about. Violent movies aren't like an old John Wayne movie, they have become much more detailed, real and intense, lots of blood. But that's somehow OK because it's suppose to just be a film, yet children see these movies and it does leave an impression. I could care less what he says about anything. What good is this bloated gas bag doing with all his loot? Ask him that one, that will shut him up fast.
ME: The premise is very valid because the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to own guns. Furthermore the Supreme Court, across several recent decisions, has clearly made the point that laws can't abridge these rights.
I said nothing about regulation or deregulation. That is your nonsense. Hence the rest or your counterpoint is a fallacy. In your zeal to prove me wrong, you completely missed that in the context of what I said, and you even affirmed it, you can't restrict guns simply because someone doesn't like them. Hence the questions about harm, violence, etc.
You're making no sense here.
When you say "Furthermore the Supreme Court, across several recent decisions,[b] has clearly made the point that laws can't abridge these rights.", just what does that imply as it pertains to regulating firearms insofar as regulating their sale?
This is some severe double-talk here, but please, for clarity, just answer that simple question.
Are you of the opinion that the Supreme Court decisions extinguished any existing firearms regulations whatsoever outside of the blanket bans in Chicago, DC, etc? You are strongly implying that someone illegally dealing in firearms without a license is now 'protected' per the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment on the basis of some bizarre abstraction about 'harm'.
His movies are fiction. Why does that make him a hypocrite? If actors had to agree with the belief system of every character they play in films, it wouldn't be 'acting.'
You think actors who play villains or heroes are villains or heroes in reality? I think Liam Neeson trusts that his audience understands it's all made up and will not be 'trying that at home.'
Actors are very picky about what roles they accept, especially those of some status. What Neeson doesn't understand is that to be an effective actor he needs to be able to transcend his personal image and get an audience to believe the character. All he is now is another talking head with an agenda.
I will respond in red within your post so as to not miss anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba
1) I've lived in Switzerland. I doubt you even own a passport, so please, spare me the "Switzerland" platitude. We are so incomparable to Switzerland in so many ways, its utterly pointless to even raise that point in this context since it is not an apples to apples comparison. .
I have two people I know pretty well in Switzerland, one a relative. I have also studied their history, primarily from a WWII standpoint, but firearms are a significant related subject.
I suspect your snide comment speculating I do not own a passport was to try and diminish my viewpoint, but you would be wrong.
2) The basis if your position is that our society would be better off with more religious superstition? THAT is the problem here? Good luck.
Here is your dilemma if you are a non believer(as your words seem to imply). Even if you are correct that no deity exists, rest assured most people do believe in God, myself included.
If there was not God's law to follow, society would devolve much more so than it does now. A simple reason is that we believe that breaking mans law is bad, but a higher law is even worse. Lets say I hated you because you molested a relative of mine. The only thing that might keep you from dying at my hands would be not wanting to have my soul suffering an eternity. You can scoff and say I am superstitious, but you should be thankful so many people are then.
3) The denigration of cultural values is indeed a problem. Multiculturalism is indeed a problem, too, however it isn't going away any time soon and you will sooner see a complete ban on all gun ownership than any sort of 'ethnic cleansing' in the United States, so you may as well acquaint yourself with the painful reality you live in as a "freedom-bound American patriot" in a country teeming with non white people, rather that the vastly superior reality of the magical wonderland of ski slopes, five figure wristwatches, fully automatic weapons and damn near no crime that is Suisse (an absolutely unobtainable standard of living where you are there in the gem that is The Republic of Texas!!!)
You are agreeing with me on the one hand, then implying nothing can be done on the other. I am not suggesting we round up all the minorities and deport them. However I am suggesting that as a society we can stop trying to appease other cultures, and instead need to demand assimilation into our culture. We did it successfully in the past, so there is no reason to believe we cannot again in the future. For those who are criminal illegal aliens, they do need to be deported and/or imprisoned. For American criminals, lock them up for violent crimes.
Why do you think crime rates have fallen so much over the years?
It is because despite liberals best attempts to empathize with prisoners, we take the repeat violent offenders off the streets. That is until liberal judges let them loose due to so called over crowding. How about lets find ways to house them even if it costs more money. That would be something worth it to spend our taxes on. Keep violent predators off our streets, and make them serve all the time they are sentenced to.
4) The founders were pretty clear that they wanted government to be secular and separate from church. Their position was not "We don't want an official state religion, but lets have a religion dictate everything the government does". You can read their actual writings for further detail. Some were religions in their private lives, others were not but they recognized the hazard of commingling religion and government.
You have tangled with the wrong poster to make these assertions, as if I don't know what I am talking about. I have read the Federalist papers many times to glean what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution.
While I am not going to get into a religious debate with you as I am not overly religious myself, it is clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " does not mean a society devoid of the very things the FF derived their own moral values from.
Instead it just means that government cannot establish a national religion or church such as what they fled in Britain (i.e. Church of England). The second part of that phrase is commonly overlooked by the secular regarding no prohibition. It is just like how the liberals (many of whom are secular compared with conservatives) ignore what the true meaning of what a militia means based on the meaning in the FF's time.
It did not mean a state national guard, rather it meant every able bodied man. It is further driven home by the latter part which again is conveniently ignore, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" . You cannot get any clearer than that , even in todays vernacular.
The bottom line is that we have problems that do not have easy fixes. Trying to disarm the law abiding because of the lawless makes no sense, and is unconstitutional.
Instead we need to get at the root of why life has become so meaningless in parts of our society. I see one way of dealing with that is to bring back more religion into our society, as it was a key component in helping to keep all us "superstitious people" in line.
God's law will always trump mans law and comes with greater consequences. You should be happy we are so deluded that way, as it benefits you non believers as well. Heck you ought to start teaching it yourself if you want to play a part in helping heal our cultures wounds.
Liam Neeson in real life is not his character from Taken. His fight scenes with guns are choreographed as much as any dance sequence. More than that actually.
He probably knows little in real life about using guns and is free to say whatever he wants. It's pretty mainstream opinion throughout the non-U.S. English speaking world that Americans are insane about guns and go around shooting first and asking questions later.
I had to convince some people in Britain that if they visited the U.S., they would not be shot by some gun-toting lunatic. They seriously did not want to visit the U.S. for fear that it was a place where people brandish guns openly all the time and will shoot you over a disagreement.
That said, I own an AR-15 but I think a lot of the pro-gun crowd, particularly the open carry people, are complete idiots. I hope they know that if you actually use your weapon against someone, you enter a legal nightmare if it is in any way up for debate that you were justified in using it. Even if you are within your rights things can get hairy ie: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin. Please, PLEASE read your state's self defense statutes and be responsible with your weapon.
Last edited by redguard57; 01-14-2015 at 10:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
