• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Liam Neeson shoots down U.S gun policy, gun manufacturer fires back

Status
Not open for further replies.
If differentiating between responsible gun owners and non-responsible/criminals isn't rational to you then...ok?
Implied succinctly by saying "too many" instead of "all" in the first place. Not anyone's fault but your own that you keep trying to jump the gun on that one and inflate it to something worse than it is.

Despite your concerns, Liam Neeson continues to have done absolutely nothing to deliberately try and curb your gun ownership rights in any way.
 
The only problem with this is that it counts on the military to overthrow the government in the case it becomes tyrannical. This presents a conflict of interest. The military is loyal to and controlled by the government. The government, in theory at least, is controlled by the people. If the government isn't controlled by the people, yet still retains military power, there is nothing anyone can do.

No, it counts on the state's militaries to overthrow the federal government in case it becomes tyrannical... Or I suppose the thought was more that the federal government couldn't become tyrannical because they wouldn't have a centralized army. They just mobilize the state's militias. Power resides in the states. That was the theory.

It's fucking stupid nowadays, and doesn't make any sense, and that's why we need to mostly disregard it... like we have been doing (as evidenced by the fact that we have a centralized military)

I would argue that the burden of the Second Amendment now rests on the populace, whether they know it or not (probably not).

You could argue that, but then we're at the point that I mentioned last time... if you really truly believe the right is there for the people to overthrow the government, then I would argue that we have far less leeway in regulating that right. I should have a right to a fucking canon or a military helicopter or whatever other crazy weird stuff. That's what happens when you throw the "military" context of that amendment onto the individual, in my opinion, rather than throwing the philosophy of the amendment onto the collective military (militias at the time).

And, again, I think most agree with me that we at least need a line. I don't think that's a really crazy notion. Even Scalia's nutso interpretation bends itself around that notion.

I also think if you're arguing it's a full on right, then I don't think we can then take away that right from people that might have some mental issues. I also don't know that we can necessarily take that right away from people who have committed crimes. I mean can we take away the right of free speech from someone who's committed a crime? I don't think so, or at least if we did, it'd be subject to a metric ton of scrutiny.

In the end, I think people nowadays don't believe it's a right, and factually don't even believe in the original purpose of the amendment. And people back then didn't believe it's a right. That amendment as it exists is a shitty relic.
 
Movies are entertainment, an escape.

I can tell you that as an outsider looking at American culture, it's not entirely clear to me that most Americans can make that distinction when things like gun control laws show such poor judgment.

I don't say that to insult anybody, I'm just saying there are some things that to other cultures look really backwards and inconsistent about American values.
 
In Europe we have no guns, also we have very low crime rate and maximum jail is 15 year and you have very good life in jail.
Yeah, guns ruined america
 
Cry more fucking tears, gun company.

Exactly. What a bunch of fucking cry babies over something like this. And if you think about it, they probably just lost a bunch of money, especially since Liam Neesan is basically the action star of today... weirdly enough at 62, but still haha. Another gun company will step in a supply the goods.
 
Owning an AK-47 hasn't made me feel the urge to murder people. Is something wrong with me? I thought owning a gun automatically turns you into a murderous psychopath, but the only things I've felt the urge to murder are soda cans and paper targets. Maybe I should try an AR-15... Can any AR owners chime in?

This.

Second amendment lol......I will never understand why a civilian would need an object that is designed to kill.

Quick! Take away everyone's swords, knives, and bows! Fuck their hobby!
 
Owning an AK-47 hasn't made me feel the urge to murder people. Is something wrong with me? I thought owning a gun automatically turns you into a murderous psychopath, but the only things I've felt the urge to murder are soda cans and paper targets. Maybe I should try an AR-15... Can any AR owners chime in?

I think it's more the problem that there so many guns in American homes and being sold on the streets and in shops, and then along with that comes with guns being sold at conventions. Guns being sold to felons, guns being sold to people who are clinically unstable or who need help. I like guns more as the fact they are incredibly interesting machines and how they work, but in general, there does need to be way harder background checks and controls of firearms.
 
I think it's more the problem that there so many guns in American homes and being sold on the streets and in shops, and then along with that comes with guns being sold at conventions. Guns being sold to felons, guns being sold to people who are clinically unstable or who need help. I like guns more as the fact they are incredibly interesting machines and how they work, but in general, there does need to be way harder background checks and controls of firearms.

I agree completely. The fact that the background check law failed was pretty disgraceful.

The people who say they should be banned outright can go cry about it in their pillow though because a ban won't happen in our lifetimes. So I will continue to murder cans and paper targets and anyone who doesn't like it can discard their wet, salt-soaked pillow, grab a new one, and continue to cry some more.

"waaaaa you shouldn't own that. It was designed to kill."

Fucking lol.
 
I agree completely.

The people who say they should be banned outright can go cry about it in their pillow though because a ban won't happen in our lifetimes. So I will continue to murder cans and paper targets and anyone who doesn't like it can discard their wet, salt-soaked pillow, grab a new one, and continue to cry bitter about it.

"waaaaa you shouldn't own that. It was designed to kill."

Fucking lol.

Simmer down now haha. C'mon.
 
I totally agree with Liam (being a european, I cant understand the gun craze in the US), and that answer from PARA USA was very childish and imature, cutting down a full business deal, and bitching about a particular member of the crew, because he expressed his own opinion on a specific subject is very very imature. Im pretty sure it will be very easy to replace weaponry on feature films, there must be thousands of companies who provide such a service.
 
Owning an AK-47 hasn't made me feel the urge to murder people. Is something wrong with me? I thought owning a gun automatically turns you into a murderous psychopath, but the only things I've felt the urge to murder are soda cans and paper targets. Maybe I should try an AR-15... Can any AR owners chime in?

Quick! Take away everyone's swords, knives, and bows! Fuck their hobby!

It may not make you into a murderer, but apparently owning an AK-47 will make you shit-post stupid strawmen.

No one says an AK-47 will turn you into a murderer. What we do say is that an AK-47 is a tool. It's a tool with one purpose: to damage other people.... badly, usually. We also say that, in general, people can be shitty. We also say that adding a tool with no other purpose but to damage other people with as much people as you possibly can, you're increasing the number of damaging instances that can come up when people are shitty. Perhaps we should control things a bit more. Doesn't have to be banning things. How about we check out who gets guns? How about we make absolutely sure they get many classes and training on safety with their new tool? How about we make absolutely sure they actually have things like locked boxes for their gun? Guess what, you may be perfectly responsible all the time, but some kid could get a hold of your gun. Someone could break into your house and then use your gun.
 
I agree completely. The fact that the background check law failed was pretty disgraceful.

The people who say they should be banned outright can go cry about it in their pillow though because a ban won't happen in our lifetimes. So I will continue to murder cans and paper targets and anyone who doesn't like it can discard their wet, salt-soaked pillow, grab a new one, and continue to cry some more.

"waaaaa you shouldn't own that. It was designed to kill."

Fucking lol.
What are you, 5 years-old? Or do you work in PR at a gun manufacturer?
 
Simmer down now haha. C'mon.

I'm simmered! Some anti-gun people are just really funny in a lot of their arguments and their inability come up with realistic, achievable solutions to gun violence problems. It's almost always "take away everybody's pointing stick because .002 percent of pointy stick owners are not responsible."
 
Owning an AK-47 hasn't made me feel the urge to murder people. Is something wrong with me? I thought owning a gun automatically turns you into a murderous psychopath, but the only things I've felt the urge to murder are soda cans and paper targets. Maybe I should try an AR-15... Can any AR owners chime in?



Quick! Take away everyone's swords, knives, and bows! Fuck their hobby!

Why would any civillian need a functional AK47 or AR-15 is beyond me. If you want to shoot down cans, you go to a shooting range, rent the weapon you want to have fun with, and thats it.
 
No, it counts on the state's militaries to overthrow the federal government in case it becomes tyrannical... Or I suppose the thought was more that the federal government couldn't become tyrannical because they wouldn't have a centralized army. They just mobilize the state's militias. Power resides in the states. That was the theory.

It's fucking stupid nowadays, and doesn't make any sense, and that's why we need to mostly disregard it... like we have been doing (as evidenced by the fact that we have a centralized military)

Oh no I understand that. The idea of mobilizing a military broken into 50 parts (far less back then) is indeed a stupid idea. I was primarily responding to Gaime's assertion that we have no need for the Amendment because we now have a centralized defense force, which I was disagreeing with in the post you quoted.

You could argue that, but then we're at the point that I mentioned last time... if you really truly believe the right is there for the people to overthrow the government, then I would argue that we have far less leeway in regulating that right. I should have a right to a fucking canon or a military helicopter or whatever other crazy weird stuff. That's what happens when you throw the "military" context of that amendment onto the individual, in my opinion, rather than throwing the philosophy of the amendment onto the collective military (militias at the time).

And, again, I think most agree with me that we at least need a line. I don't think that's a really crazy notion. Even Scalia's nutso interpretation bends itself around that notion.

I also think if you're arguing it's a full on right, then I don't think we can then take away that right from people that might have some mental issues. I also don't know that we can necessarily take that right away from people who have committed crimes. I mean can we take away the right of free speech from someone who's committed a crime? I don't think so, or at least if we did, it'd be subject to a metric ton of scrutiny.

In the end, I think people nowadays don't believe it's a right, and factually don't even believe in the original purpose of the amendment. And people back then didn't believe it's a right. That amendment as it exists is a shitty relic.

I think we already have a line, if a terribly regulated one. I agree that we need a clearer one.

It looks like your getting hung up on what is "arms." I feel like this is a non-issue when talking about the Second Amendment because, as I mentioned before, the overwhelming force of tens of millions against a government... well, as long as they have some form of firearm, they will get somewhere easily. You don't need tanks and choppers to pose a challenge to a tyrannical government when you have pure numbers.

All rights have limits. I would never endorse the idea of convicts retaining the right to own firearms. I just believe that the general idea of the amendment is inseparable from our governmental structure. I might be right. I might be wrong. History will decide that.

You know what I would be in favor of? A careful revision of the Second Amendment to bring it up to date because, as you say, it is a relic.
 
Owning an AK-47 hasn't made me feel the urge to murder people. Is something wrong with me? I thought owning a gun automatically turns you into a murderous psychopath, but the only things I've felt the urge to murder are soda cans and paper targets. Maybe I should try an AR-15... Can any AR owners chime in?
My ar whispers evil thoughts to me at night
 
It may not make you into a murderer, but apparently owning an AK-47 will make you shit-post stupid strawmen.

No one says an AK-47 will turn you into a murderer. What we do say is that an AK-47 is a tool. It's a tool with one purpose: to damage other people.... badly, usually. We also say that, in general, people can be shitty. We also say that adding a tool with no other purpose but to damage other people with as much people as you possibly can, you're increasing the number of damaging instances that can come up when people are shitty. Perhaps we should control things a bit more. Doesn't have to be banning things. How about we check out who gets guns? How about we make absolutely sure they get many classes and training on safety with their new tool? How about we make absolutely sure they actually have things like locked boxes for their gun? Guess what, you may be perfectly responsible all the time, but some kid could get a hold of your gun. Someone could break into your house and then use your gun.

A tool's purpose is how you choose to use it. In my case, its purpose is for target shooting. Targets. Not people. You could say the EXACT same thing about bows, knives, swords, etc.

Also, considering my guns ARE locked up and secure, and that I live in one of the safest places in the country, I doubt anyone is going to break in and shoot me with it.

Why would any civillian need a functional AK47 or AR-15 is beyond me. If you want to shoot down cans, you go to a shooting range, rent the weapon you want to have fun with, and thats it.

Yeah, or I could just own the weapon myself, keep it locked up when not in use, and not let someone who doesn't know me tell me that I'm not responsible enough to follow basic gun safety rules.
 
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or you honestly think our issue with guns led to the other two issues.

USA has 2 issues.
1)Religion (93% people thinks that God is real. JESUS!!!)
2)Guns. You buy gun to protect yourself from other guy who bought also gun.


Look my country for example. Jail years low, low crime rate, no guns, peaceful life, no religion.
 
Implied succinctly by saying "too many" instead of "all" in the first place. Not anyone's fault but your own that you keep trying to jump the gun on that one and inflate it to something worse than it is.

I-See-What-You-Did-There-Fry1.jpg


I mean, we're just having a discussion. I'm not really sitting here outraged about it. I'm just saying that's how his statement came across and I'm not even sure how substituting all instead of "too many" results in a coherent statement. But you're right, he didn't say all guns are bad. He said there were too many. A sentiment many agree with. I just think there needs to be some type of acknowledgement of the difference between responsible gun ownership and the irresponsible/criminal type. Too many times people that are anti-gun attempt to paint both as the latter and don't want to acknowledge the former. And yes, on the other hand too many pro-gun types ONLY want to talk about the former and NEVER acknowledge the latter.

Despite your concerns, Liam Neeson continues to have done absolutely nothing to deliberately try and curb your gun ownership rights in any way.

I don't think it was deliberate. It's a subject that tends to inflame passions on both sides and we should be able to discuss it. Which he did. And so did the people reading his comments. Like I've said time and time again I will disagree with some on specifics but the greater conversation and the change that it can lead to NEEDS to happen. I feel as someone that own guns that it'd be better if we were part of the conversation rather than just say "No" to everything cause eventually that shit isn't going to work and then we'll have relegated ourselves to irrelevance.

My ar whispers evil thoughts to me at night

image.php

Sorry couldn't help it.
 
PARA USA is overreacting here by a country mile.


While they want to pull the 2nd amendment defense crap and act like Neeson just ruined the whole world, the 1st amendment of the very same document that defends those guns allows Neeson to speak those very words. You can't go all constitutional defense crazy without acknowledging that the very same constitution allows him to say it in the first place.

Fuck PARA USA for behaving like a spoiled child and not a business. Their actions here are embarrassingly stupid and they should apologize immediately for overreacting like a 5 year old girl who just had her Barbie doll knocked off of the table. In fact the 5 year old would almost certainly act more maturely.

Sadly, this is what the pro-gun crowd likes to see happening. In fact, I'd be willing to bet this only helps their sales.

Beretta is leaving my area to move operations to TN. Publicly they've said it's because of Maryland's strict gun laws. In reality it has a lot more to do with higher wages, minimum wage increases coming in the next few years, costs of operation and the big tax break they received. This is evident because the headquarters is staying in the Maryland. This crazy pro-gun spin somehow helps Beretta's image.
 
Sadly, this is what the pro-gun crowd likes to see happening. In fact, I'd be willing to bet this only helps their sales.

Beretta is leaving my area to move operations to TN. Publicly they've said it's because of Maryland's strict gun laws. In reality it has a lot more to do with higher wages, minimum wage increases coming in the next few years, costs of operation and the big tax break they received. This is evident because the headquarters is staying in the Maryland. This crazy pro-gun spin somehow helps Beretta's image.

Some try to make the 2nd amendment more important than the first, and that is beyond fucked.
 
A tool's purpose is how you choose to use it. In my case, its purpose is for target shooting. Targets. Not people. You could say the EXACT same thing about bows, knives, swords, etc.

Also, considering my guns ARE locked up and secure, and that I live in one of the safest places in the country, I doubt anyone is going to break in and shoot me with it.



Yeah, or I could just own the weapon myself, keep it locked up when not in use, and not let someone who doesn't know me tell me that I'm not responsible enough to follow basic gun safety rules.

Why does it need to be functional then !? In case "something" happens, you're gonna pull out an AR-15 and expect to "defend" yourself ?! No one needs an automatic riffle for self protection, or anything else.
 
USA has 2 issues.
1)Religion (93% people thinks that God is real. JESUS!!!)
2)Guns. You buy gun to protect yourself from other guy who bought also gun.


Look my country for example. Jail years low, low crime rate, no guns, peaceful life, no religion.

It use to be three: "God, Guns and Gays" to quote a slightly famous person. I'm glad the third part of that equation is going away, but that still leaves a lot of work to do.
 
I totally agree with Liam (being a european, I cant understand the gun craze in the US), and that answer from PARA USA was very childish and imature, cutting down a full business deal, and bitching about a particular member of the crew, because he expressed his own opinion on a specific subject is very very imature. Im pretty sure it will be very easy to replace weaponry on feature films, there must be thousands of companies who provide such a service.

Well not thousands, but of course there are. Even Liam Neeson's movies don't exclusively show PARA USA weapons (maybe the Taken movies do? I dunno, never seen it). Thing is, PARA USA pretty much sucks. I wouldn't buy anything they make, and their rep with gun owners isn't great. They lost a sweet deal so their marketing division has decided to turn it into an opportunity to gain a little political clout in the gun market to make the best of a bad situation. I still won't buy their junk.Same goes for pretty much all gun companies under the umbrella of the "Freedom Group,", i.e. Remington, Marlin, H&R, Para, Bushmaster. All sub-par stuff. (not generally true for products made by these brands before "Freedom Group" though ... I'd love to have an older Remington 700 or Marlin 336 or 39a, but nothing from current production.)
 
USA has 2 issues.
1)Religion (93% people thinks that God is real. JESUS!!!)
2)Guns. You buy gun to protect yourself from other guy who bought also gun.


Look my country for example. Jail years low, low crime rate, no guns, peaceful life, no religion.

Something something correlation something something causation.
 
I didn't grow up in "gun culture" as I was first exposed to a gun as an adult but I understand people that are "into" guns and shoot as a hobby and read gun magazines.

Guess it depends on how one defines "fetishism". Does someone who hits the range twice a month qualify? Or just the over-the-top type of folks?

I'd say anyone who is so attached to guns that they become part of their identity.
 
I'd say anyone who is so attached to guns that they become part of their identity.

or people who are so attached to their guns that they'd be concerned about whether or not they can keep them while getting diagnosed with mental illness, or deciding whether to seek counseling.
 
Why does it need to be functional then !? In case "something" happens, you're gonna pull out an AR-15 and expect to "defend" yourself ?! No one needs an automatic riffle for self protection, or anything else.

As I said, I use it for target shooting. I don't use guns for self-defense. And if for whatever reason I DID need to use one to defend myself, I certainly wouldn't be using an AK, which can harm or kill an innocent person by passing through walls. My guns are locked up when not in use. I'm not really sure what you think could go wrong in my situation. The kind of people you should be worried about are those who leave their guns loaded and out in the open. Targeting responsible gun owners who place an emphasis on safety isn't doing anything to address the real issues that I think gun owners and non-guns owners should agree on: the lack of gun safety education, the lack of mental health care, and the lack of a mandatory, comprehensive background check system.
 
A tool's purpose is how you choose to use it. In my case, its purpose is for target shooting. Targets. Not people. You could say the EXACT same thing about bows, knives, swords, etc.

I don't give a shit if I could say the exact same things about bows, knives, and swords. I'll admit I could. But their destructive power isn't quite as much as a gun. Thus the difference. I also admit, too, that I don't see a rights problem if we wanted to ban knives or bows or whatever the fuck, either. I don't think we would want to because in the case of a knife it has far more uses than dangerous uses, unlike a bullet.

The fact is, though, that you have no inherent right to your hobby. That doesn't exist. You can cling to thinking you have a right to a gun, but it's factual the founding fathers didn't write that amendment for your personal amusement, nor could I find anyone that would ever say that. That it's your hobby is no concern to me nor the founding fathers... nor should it be to anyone. If your hobby is deemed too dangerous, then so be it.

Also, considering my guns ARE locked up and secure, and that I live in one of the safest places in the country, I doubt anyone is going to break in and shoot me with it.

Yeah, or I could just own the weapon myself, keep it locked up when not in use, and not let someone who doesn't know me tell me that I'm not responsible enough to follow basic gun safety rules.

That's rad, but I'd like processes to prove these things. If you follow all the rules, then it shouldn't matter to you. You'll get to shoot your paper targets. I'm pretty sure there are people with gun hobbies in other countries, too. They just have to go through some processes to get a gun. Every time someone brings that up here, though, they get hit with the gun corporations clinging to this shit as though it's an inherent right.

I personally don't think we should take them all away. I think in a perfect world, yes, they probably would be mostly gone. But we've already opened that can of worms. In this world... well, in this country, I'd rather things be more heavily regulated and penalties more enforced. I want to make sure we know where these things are, and who they're given to. I want them to know their shit like you claim to, and practice good safety. And, if your gun goes missing or stolen, you had better fucking report it or else anything that happens with it is on you, too! If it goes missing and it's found out you could have prevented it with something like a safe, your ass should be grass. And if you get convicted of almost any violent crime, good bye guns!
 
This.

Second amendment lol......I will never understand why a civilian would need an object that is designed to kill.
I don't know if you are American or not, but this seems like a silly statement. Americans generally do not trust large institutions, and would not like a situation wherein they are completely beholden to one for any kind of serious self-defense. This is especially pertinent if you live in a rural area wherein police offices will take a significant amount of time to arrive. There are many such places here in South Carolina, and I cannot blame people who live out in the middle of nowhere for wanting a more immediate means of self-preservation than calling the police and waiting.
You need a license to drive a car, but not a license to own a gun.
...are you serious? Where do you not need a license for legal gun ownership? Because the fact is car accidents kill around the same amount of people in the United States as guns do (slightly more people, in fact), and similarly require a license. And I certainly don't see people saying there are too many cars because of it.
 
I don't know if you are American or not, but this seems like a silly statement. Americans generally do not trust large institutions, and would not like a situation wherein they are completely beholden to one for any kind of serious self-defense. This is especially pertinent if you live in a rural area wherein police offices will take a significant amount of time to arrive. There are many such places here in South Carolina, and I cannot blame people who live out in the middle of nowhere for wanting a more immediate means of self-preservation than calling the police and waiting.

...are you serious? Where do you not need a license for legal gun ownership?


Hate to break it to you, but South Carolina for starters.
 
I don't know if you are American or not, but this seems like a silly statement. Americans generally do not trust large institutions, and would not like a situation wherein they are completely beholden to one for any kind of serious self-defense. This is especially pertinent if you live in a rural area wherein police offices will take a significant amount of time to arrive. There are many such places here in South Carolina, and I cannot blame people who live out in the middle of nowhere for wanting a more immediate means of self-preservation than calling the police and waiting.

...are you serious? Where do you not need a license for legal gun ownership?

Hell, if you do want a license for something, in some states, you can get fully automatic weapons, suppressors and explosives (with a Class 3 license).
 
I don't know if you are American or not, but this seems like a silly statement. Americans generally do not trust large institutions, and would not like a situation wherein they are completely beholden to one for any kind of serious self-defense. This is especially pertinent if you live in a rural area wherein police offices will take a significant amount of time to arrive. There are many such places here in South Carolina, and I cannot blame people who live out in the middle of nowhere for wanting a more immediate means of self-preservation than calling the police and waiting.

...are you serious? Where do you not need a license for legal gun ownership?

There's very few areas in the county where you need a license just to own a gun. Conceal-carry, yes, but not ownership.

By the way, regarding conceal carry:

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming are completely unrestricted, but they have reciprocity deals with other states which do require permits. So anyone in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming can get an unrestricted permit, and states with reciprocity agreements will have to agree with it.

FYI, 35 states have a reciprocity agreement with Alaska.

In other words, anyone can, without restrictions, get a conceal carry permit from alaska, and automatically have a CCP that is valid in 35 other states. Meaning at least 36 states have unrestricted access to conceal carry permits.
 
Hate to break it to you, but South Carolina for starters.
Oh wow, you're right. Interesting. I've never actually had any desire to own a firearm, so I was unaware the laws here were so liberal. (Liberal in a literal sense, that is, not a political one.)
I was confusing it with concealed-carry permits, which apparently are required.

In any case, serious gun-control will likely never come to the United States. Gun ownership is too ingrained into our culture.
 
I own a few guns that were given to me by my dad. I started shooting guns at a very young age. It's just how I was raised, it's how my parents parents lived. They had to hunt for a good portion of their food. Some of my dad's friends grew up in places that paid you cash for killing certain animals, gathering hides, etc. The gun was never seen or thought of as self defense from other people. It was always a tool for livelihood or survival of some sort.

I have no problem keeping one nearby for self defense. Not just self defense from people mind you, but from other animals that threaten my family and pets. We have coywolves, that have been know to kill dogs and cats. We also do get burglars but the gun is more for a show of force or a deterrent than a tool to shoot someone. What I mean is that we have acres and acres of woods here and people have been known to hide out then break into homes and steal or vandalize. I've taken my shotgun outside after someone nearly broke in, fired it in the air a few times, never heard from that burglar again. Same thing with stay packs of dogs, they come up like they are going to attack my family or pets I fire up in the air to scare them off.

I do have issue with random people walking around with guns strapped to their waists though, especially in a big city setting. It makes no sense and just puts other people at risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom