We should not be shocked when we hear liberals contradict themselves. It has literally become a common occurrence. Al Gore engaging in global warming efforts while having a bigger carbon footprint than Cleveland, Ohio. Obama standing against tobacco while enjoying a smoke on the White House balcony. Insert any liberal politician or actor and their hatred of the wealthy while they are millionaires. However, it seems excessively hypocritical for a man who has made his living, "Killin' because it feels good" movies to now come out in support of gun control.
"First off, my thoughts and prayers and my heart are with the deceased, and certainly with all of France, yesterday. I've got a lot of dear friends in Paris," Neeson said during an interview in Dubai this week. "There's too many f**king guns out there. 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 f**king disgrace. Every week now we're picking up a newspaper and seeing, 'Yet another few kids have been killed in school."
I first want to point out that it is not every week that we see a shooting in a school. This is just a stupid exaggeration. Second, we should ask Liam why he thinks it is okay for him to play a man who owns a gun, but there should be no real men who owns a gun? His answer?
"I grew up watching cowboy movies, loved doing that [gun gesture] with my fingers, 'Bang, bang, you're dead!' I didn't end up a killer. I think that's something the power of cinema can be."
That is all well and good, but cannot the same logic be applied to the gun owner. If a gun-toting vigilante in a movie does not make people want to go and exact revenge, how does simple gun ownership? The short answer is that it does not make this happen, and we can use Neeson's numbers to prove this.
Neeson claims that there are approximately 300 million guns in the U.S. with a population of 320 million. According to Neeson's logic, at least half of those people should be dead. Does it not follow that since gun-ownership leads to murder, then there should be out of control murder? At least half the population should be dead every month. But this is not the case.
You might say that this was a silly way to come at this issue. It is not what Liam was saying. Well no, but it was the emotional message he hoped you would infer from his words. "We are in danger because of so many people have guns" is what Liam wants you to understand from his rant. But it is actually just the opposite case. We are safer with guns than without guns. And that is why we have a 2nd amendment, because the founders knew that without a means to defend themselves the people were like sheep.
Historically this is true. We see that is always the population that is unarmed by their government that face atrocity. The Christians in Turkey, the Jews in Germany, the people of the Ukraine in the USSR. All were disarmed before their government summarily and systematically murdered them.
Neeson, probably should look to the place of his birth if he wants to see what his ideas bring. Over one million Irish were allowed to starve by the British in the 1840's. They were, like the Ukrainians, unarmed and helpless. This is the situation that Neeson would place the people he panders to at the theater. He has no problem playing to these gun-owners to make a buck and then turn around and demonize them in the media. That is what I think is a disgrace.Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.