Liam Neeson: US arms manufacture severs ties with Taken actor after Charlie Hebdo gun control comments

[Sousuke 1,214]

That's an ad hominem remark. Let's not ignore that you haven't offered anything to refute what I said other than that you don't agree with it.

I think you are being unfair to him. He stated above that no one in the 2A camp is against freedom of speech. To equate pulling a business deal to being against the 1st amendment is illogical.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a general observation that a lot of people in the USA put the second amendment before the first.

For example, there was one story recently about a group of pro gun control mothers (believe it was posted here) who were meeting at a diner who had a group of gun rights people turn up to protest the meeting guns in hand. Most people would class that as a form of intimidation.

Still, don't you find it interesting that the gun manufacturer objects to the words of an actor in a film rather than the fact that their products are being used in a film that features gun violence? What kind of standards are these?

[Sousuke 1,214]

It's a general observation that a lot of people in the USA put the second amendment before the first.

For example, there was one story recently about a group of pro gun control mothers (believe it was posted here) who were meeting at a diner who had a group of gun rights people turn up to protest the meeting guns in hand. Most people would class that as a form of intimidation.

Still, don't you find it interesting that the gun manufacturer objects to the words of an actor in a film rather than the fact that their products are being used in a film that features gun violence? What kind of standards are these?

I remember that thread. I think the protestors stayed in the public domain didn't they?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think where they did it is the point. Its a technicality more than anything.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I don't think where they did it is the point. Its a technicality more than anything.

Well now wait a sec. It sounds like your against people's right to protest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Against it? No. I do however object to the idea that a technicality changes the context of what you are doing.

If you are standing outside with a group of armed men while people inside are having a meeting about a subject you don't like, that is intimidation in my book.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Against it? No. I do however object to the idea that a technicality changes the context of what you are doing.

If you are standing outside with a group of armed men while people inside are having a meeting about a subject you don't like, that is intimidation in my book.

What technicality? People cannot legally protest on private property unless the owner consents. Given it was a 2A protest, it makes sense that the subject of the protest is present where legal to do so. Clearly threatening people with firearms is illegal. If they had threatened anyone they probably would have been arrested.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's arguable. Is it a reasonable response to turn up visibly armed to a local meeting of a gun control group? I don't think it is.

[Rattlehead 69]

Well now wait a sec. It sounds like your against people's right to protest.

Don't worry about the ** double standard. All that matters is that it makes sense to someone, even if they have Velcro shoes and ride the short bus.

Either way, how much advertising did para lose? Virtually nil... I've never known anyone to decide which 1911 based on what appeared in a movie.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Don't worry about the ** double standard. All that matters is that it makes sense to someone, even if they have Velcro shoes and ride the short bus.

Either way, how much advertising did para lose? Virtually nil... I've never known anyone to decide which 1911 based on what appeared in a movie.

They gained a lot of potential customers.

[VJ_Messiah 22]

Do they not? Not what I've read

Link?