Hollywood. It's in California, which should be enough to account for the weird, unusual, and outrageous behavior of some of the actors and actresses that occupy it. However, with all the liberal, progressive, socialist attitudes of those film professionals who started life elsewhere, something is either in the water or they disengage part of their brain as a condition of employment.
Hollywood actor and "Taken" star Liam Neeson has gone public, again, with a rant on guns after the Paris attack committed by Muslims against Charlie Hebdo. In Neeson's opinion, "America has too many f*****g guns."
According to The Blaze, as reported by Gulf News:
"First off, my thoughts and prayers and my heart are with the deceased, and certainly with all of France, yesterday. I've got dear friends in France," the 62-year-old said.
"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. Every week now we're picking up a newspaper and seeing, 'Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.'"
Asked whether or not he thinks this issue extends to police responsibility, he said: "Let's not get into it. Let's put it this way: I think a light has been shone on the justice system in America, and it's a justifiable light."
Way to go, Liam, and spout the bile that flows out of Obama's mouth about "weekly" school shootings. A good exaggeration for the newspapers, to be sure; but it's still an exaggeration if referring to America. If the truth were to actually be told, those "weekly shootings" are probably staged by the American government, which uses you as a stooge to actively elicit emotions to push the gun control agenda.
The concepts Liam fails to grasp are multiple. The terrorist attack that happened in Paris was committed by Muslims. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim and supported by those Muslims who are not terrorists but practice taqiyyah. France has strict gun laws, but these Muslim terrorists used guns, meaning they acquired them probably through criminal means. Hence, criminals do not follow the law. With the initial understanding that criminals do not follow the law, period, it is safe to say criminals would not abide by any law controlling firearms. Throughout history, it has been shown that gun control leads to gun confiscation. Had Mr. Neeson paid attention to the historical content as well as starring in the movie "Schindler's List," he would know that.
Neeson, who plays big gun-toting, trigger-happy Bryan Mills in "Taken 3," sees no conflict between his views on guns, more specifically gun control, and his movie role.
Neeson stated to Gulf News, "I grew up watching cowboy movies, love doing that with my fingers, 'Bang, bang, you're dead!' I didn't end up a killer. I think that's something the power of the cinema can be."
So, Neeson admits that watching "cowboy" movies and making a gun gesture with a finger doesn't turn people into killers; yet, he promotes gun control and denying law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms.
Continuing on, Neeson said, "A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it's fantasy. It's in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn't mean they're all going to go out and go, 'Yeah, let's get a gun!'"
Neeson does recognize there are law abiding citizens who don't commit crimes. And yes, Mr. Neeson, no law abiding gun owner saw a cowboy movie and decided they needed a gun. Someone should tell Neeson a few things.
Mr. Neeson – I understand it is difficult for you to understand the Constitution of the United States of America—specifically its Second Amendment—as you are from Ireland; however, the phrase "shall not be infringed" is self-explanatory. Before the colony in America formed as a nation, countries were ruled by monarchs, aristocrats, lords, and nobles, who ruled based on whims instead of a solid foundation of law. Whatever the elite claimed as law was law, even if it violated the rights of the individual. Before the United States Constitution instituted impeachment as a means to unseat the leader of a nation for crimes and misdemeanors, the historical precedent was to assassinate the leader and insert a new one. My, my, how "civilized" and "lawful" were the nations across the pond.
The intent, Mr. Neeson, of the Second Amendment is to protect the citizens of the United States against a tyrannical and despotic government, should the created federal government morph into the type the colonists lived under prior to their independence. And, the Second Amendment insures that each individual has the means with which to combat such government, protect themselves and their families from others who may do them harm and to protect their property. Not everyone in America lives on the upward social fringes of society protected by private security guards, lush gated estates and bodyguards, which I am sure are armed. In case you were not aware, those security guards and bodyguards would not be allowed to have those firearms to protect you, Mr. Neeson, under the gun control you so passionately embrace. Maybe you support inequity of law where "regular" citizens would not be afforded the same consideration as the "elite," the "famous," those in certain professions or those associated with government.
Millions of Americans live in the real world where people are expected to protect themselves, their families, and their property from those who seek to violate the law. One doesn't necessarily need to live in an area where there is a high rate of crime to exercise God-given individual unalienable rights as they are inherent. Self-defense is inherent and an unalienable God-given right, just like the right to bear arms. So yes, Mr. Neeson, there should be plenty of, as you put it, [expletive] guns in America, lawfully so and privately owned.
Looking in the news of late, Mr. Neeson, you would see that, in some countries where there are "gun control" laws, individuals, including school children, are being harmed, killed, or kidnapped by Muslim terrorists and criminals with, of all things, guns. Yet, it is America and the law abiding gun owner who is smeared and castigated. Newsflash – every country has criminals and criminals do not abide by the law. Had any one of those countries not trampled the right of the individual to protect themselves, one can be sure there would be fewer Muslim terrorists and criminals alive to inflict more harm. And, Mr. Neeson, one does not challenge someone holding a gun with a knife, a candlestick holder, or a bat.
Another thing that you have failed to notice is the designation of schools being "gun free zones." There's nothing like a sign that, to criminals, reads "come on in and do what you want" than a "gun free zone" sign. Don't you find it very interesting that most of these types of crimes occur in "gun free zones" or in cities/countries with strict gun control? Does that not trigger one active brain synapse that you have left to question if a pattern exists? For your information, it has been proven that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime.
It is beyond interesting that you would not discuss "police responsibility" or law enforcement regarding firearms, etc. Did you not want to convey that you think only the police or government should have guns? Or, did you want to convey that American law enforcement should be disarmed as well, like the police in Great Britain? If you're going to take a stand, make it a firm one or else you appear as just another "useful idiot" in the gun control agenda. But, since you brought it up, let's talk about it.
In case you haven't heard, there are a lot of good law enforcement officers serving their communities just as there are bad ones. It's a concept you should be familiar with as you associate with some of the worst actors in the business as well as some of the best. Recently, Sheriff Joe Arpaio invited a staunch liberal to take the "active shooter" test that is mandatory for all his deputies. Needless to say, this liberal had a totally different take on shots fired by officers in the line of duty than his previously conceived ideas. Officers get only a few seconds to make a decision in some cases where "armchair" cops have unlimited time to dissect it. Do police always get it right? No, they are human; but, they don't always get it wrong either. Just like citizens, it is important for law enforcement to be armed to protect not only themselves but those whom they serve.
Since you work in the realm of fantasy where everything follows an intricately written script instead of the reality, try looking at this from reality for a change. The police cannot be everywhere and when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Here's a good example for you. In the suburbs of Atlanta, a man broke into a home, in broad daylight, where a woman and her child were the only ones there. Upon hearing the unlawful entry, the woman grabbed her child and a handgun then went upstairs into the attic space to hide. The criminal, not being satisfied with having the run of the house and all its valuables to steal, made the decision to check the attic space where the woman and child were hiding. Needless to say, the man was shot and subsequently died.
This woman did everything in her power to stay out of this filthy criminal's way; but, he, being a greedy piece of trash, found them in their hiding place. Without having the protection of a firearm, this woman and her child would have become a statistic instead of survivors. Where were the police during all of this? En route to the scene as she had emergency services on the phone. So, you go ahead and tell this woman and her child that you would have rather they were assaulted, molested, or worse killed instead of exercising the right of self-defense since you think, "it's a [expletive] disgrace – there's too many [expletive] guns out there."
Somewhere down the line, you Hollywood type people have developed the thinking that, because of your status, your opinions hold more sway than others. Whether it is because of being highly recognizable, famous, or suffering from an inflated ego is debatable. It really doesn't matter. Whether you realize it or not, you put your pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, making your opinion hold no more weight than anyone else's. Your opinion just happens to get reported either because of the stupidity of your remarks or because you have a movie set for release and you use the opportunity to spread your opinion to the masses.
So, Mr. Neeson, here's a challenge for you. Why don't you contact me and let's sit down and discuss firearms, the law, history regarding gun control leading to confiscation, and what law abiding citizens do with firearms and why these citizens have firearms. It's time to put up or shut up, Mr. Neeson. Do you play on yellow snow or red? Of course, you won't accept the challenge because I'm just a nobody and there will be no script for you to follow. Stay in your fantasy world and keep your mouth shut, Mr. Neeson. Leave reality to those of us who deal with it daily.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.