Unsurprisingly this looks like Taken 2, which unsurprisingly was like Taken 1:
“I am totally for gun control in the U.S. The population of America is roughly 300 million and there are 300 million guns in this country, which is terrifying. Every day we’re seeing some kid running rampant in a school. And do you know what the gun lobby’s response to Newtown was? The National Rifle Association’s official response was, ‘If that teacher had been armed…’ It’s crazy.
“I’ll give Britain its dues, when they had the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, within 24 hours the gun laws were changed so you could not have a handgun… It is the right to bear arms which is the problem. I think if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening they would be turning in their graves with embarrassment at how that law has been interpreted.” -Liam Neeson
Quite hilarious that a man with a ~$75 Million net worth, he made mainly from movies where people are getting shot, is so outspoken in favor of gun control. Cool starry bra. There is no doubt in my mind this guy has armed bodyguards too.
You can read the rest of his Anti 2nd Amendment comments on The Independent.
Check out the Liam Neeson Kill Map, for how he’s killed people in movies. It’s notable to mention his kills appear to mostly be from guns:
Thoughts?
Comments
45 responses to “Liam “Gun Control” Neeson’s Trailer For Taken 3”
Don’t like his views….love his movies though. That’s American contradiction for ya. Someone should send him that map though…..that’s fucking awesome.
My kill count is slightly lower… as in zero. Although in computer games I’m a mass murderer.
Eh, I like his movies. On a side note, he only kills bad guys in his movies.
How quick you are to forget his mass murders in Batman Begins as Raz al ghul.
Ahhh, indeed I did!
The contradiction is he wants the good guys to be totally dependent on the bad guys not being armed with guns. Good will from cut throat murderer types,, really? Come on Liam, take your head out of your ass for some much needed oxygen.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon, and now I’ll add Liam Neeson to the list… the list of those who I will not support by paying to see their movies in the future. These’s guys have made their their entire carriers and Millions in the process by glamorizing violence with the use of firearms. It’s time we start putting these hypocrites out of business.
He’s capable of distinguishing between fiction (his job as an actor) and fact (the United States has by far the highest number of gun related deaths in the world).
This makes him hilarious how?
Are you trolling? He flat out glorifies violence as a career, and then talks shit about guns, gun owners, and the 2nd Amendment. If you don’t see the hypocrisy and irony in that then I can’t help you.
Let’s for a moment, presume that he 100% supports the things that his characters do in movies.
For instance Taken, his character goes to London to track down the kidnappers of his daughter.
While there his character kills, tortures and grievously injures multiple people.
Now you’re saying that because he is willing to portray a fictional character that does terrible things, yes using firearms, he should be alright with the owning of
military grade weapons by citizens and that since his is not okay with citizens owning these firearms that he should turn down any role that glorifies violence.
I think where we disagree is that I don’t think an actor has to agree with a characters motivations or actions in order to portray them in a work of fiction.
Anthony Hopkins portrayed a serial killer in The Silence of the Lambs, is he a hypocrite for believing that committing murder is bad?
Should he have turned down the role because the characters actions differ from ones that he would say are acceptable?
Are all actors who play bad characters hypocrites because they personally do not support the actions taken by their characters?
If you play a bad character, then go out of your way to demonize the things that character does in an attempt to get rights taken away from people yes you are a hippocrite. As far as I know Anthony Hopkins wasn’t in the media calling for knife bans because of serial killers cutting people up and eating their livers. He played the part and kept his mouth shut, like most actors do. If you want another example of a Liam Neeson style hypocrite, look no further than Jim Carrey who played a gun toting villian in KickAss.
I’ll admit, I do see what you mean with Anthony Hopkins calling for knives to be banned, largely I imagine, because I dont see knives as being as helpful in killing large numbers of people as firearms.
I think where we disagree, largely, and with no real surprise, is that for as much as I love firearms, I dont think its a good idea for citizens to own firearms beyond a certain level
of… lethality? Because I generally agree with what Liam Neeson is saying its hard for me to see it as hypocritical with his characters in fictional movies. I can absolutely see where you’re coming from, man that dislikes guns makes living shooting people for movies, I just take the correlation between his stance on gun ownership and the actions / violence of his characters as being less hypocritical.
My apologies if my arguments stopped making sense somewhere in there.
Ok gotcha. No worries, good discussion.
A criminal/psychopath will use what they can get their hands on like we’ve seen in China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)
I’m afraid I don’t see your point.
Should the teachers have had guns to defend their classes?
Should the psychopaths have had automatic weapons to allow them to kill more people?
I’ll try and help Patrick out here. What most anyone willing to do the mental footwork concludes from the “gun debate” is that bad people do bad things. Always have, always will. Limiting the “type” of firearms or the amount of ammunition magazines hold for law-abiding citizens is not only counter-productive, it also happens to be illegal in this country. See “More Guns Less Crime” and The United States Constitution for further details on that point. See, that dumbass over in California killed people with knives, a car, and a gun. A gun with a bunch of California compliant magazines. And lets not forget that police and military personnel are just as susceptible to public violence. Look at the two Fort Hood terrorist attacks and Christopher Dorner’s rampage for examples there. Don’t forget that words and ideology are even more dangerous than any one firearm. Communism alone has killed hundreds of millions of people (probably with knives, guns, chemicals, bombs, starvation, etc.).
To answer your question as to whether or not teachers in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting should have had firearms or not, it’s an emphatic “yes!” Regardless of whether or not armed teachers would or could have successfully fended off this heinous assault (which I believe with proper training and mindset they easily could have) one teacher armed with a gun is better than zero. Pacifism aside, I’m sure, Patrick, than we can agree that the lives of 26 innocent people were most certainly of greater value than that of one criminal.
Your second question is a reflection of your ignorance on the subject matter. This is not a personal attack. Ignorance is easily remedied and overcome.
He could easily turn down anything with glorified violence in it, but chooses not to because it’s making him a shit load of money.
Fiction would be the fantasy world you and people like him live where the threat of evil and tyranny do not exist. So there’s the punchline you were asking about.
If Canada is every invaded I will be first in line to be handed a weapon to defend my country. I do not however believe that I should be keeping that weapon under my bed.
So in your view, preservation of the right of life in ordered to be justified takes an invasion from a foreign aggressor. Are you saying domestic criminal invaders get a free pass?
To believe in the individual right of life, you must believe in the individual right to bear arms to defend it. There is nothing else guaranteeing your right of speech, religion, and the right to resist. History cannot be ignored.
I was responding with my comment to the use of “tyranny” which to myself at least implies foreign aggression.
I don’t disagree with you that people have a right to defend themselves. I think where our opinions branch is that I don’t feel the need to have a gun in order to feel secure in my rights as a citizen. I wouldn’t disagree with someone that wants to have a shotgun in their bedroom for use in defending their home from invaders, but I draw the line when that shotgun becomes a fully automatic rifle. Home defense shouldn’t be an excuse to maintain an arsenal.
So Patrick, could you please point to anyone that’s ever used a legally acquired select-fire item to either defend themselves or commit a crime? If I remember correctly I think that number stands at two in this country. Versus the dozens (possibly hundreds?) of times police and military personnel have used their issued “fully autos” to break the law? Once again your opinions are based on feelings and emotion rather than facts and laws. As far as I’m concerned all NFA (which differs from the legislation of the same name in Canada) items should be as freely available as the “regular” stuff. Also it’s interesting to note that you haven’t replied to any of my comments thus far. Not that I’m an attention whore or anything, I just don’t think you like participating in logical discourse. The US and it’s laws were established to protect people like me from people like you. Tyranny isn’t some distant boogeyman, it’s right there in your comments and it’s in every level of every branch of our government. And with that I leave you with one of my favorite Samuel Adams quotes.
“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Hi hyde, I was writing a response to another one of your comments when I get the email reminded for this one, Id tried to turn off email notifications for the article as a whole while leaving notifications for replies to my comments on. When I checked the comments this morning I noticed your replies and have been thinking about responses since. I wanted to write this quickly so you didnt think I was avoiding your points.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I much preferred your previous comment where you assured me that yours were not meant to be a personal attack than this one where you think of me as a tyrant attempting to remove your guns. I originally commented on this article because I disagreed with the authors opinion on Liam Neeson. I had not planned on such an in depth debate on the ethics of gun ownership, tyranny and freedom so I apologize if my arguments are not particularly well laid out.
It makes me somewhat sad that you think of me as subservient to wealth because of my opinions regarding the right of a citizen to own firearms. However I am glad that we both get to live in countries where we can both feel comfortable with the levels of freedom afforded to us. I was hoping to discuss with you without having my feelings dismissed as the ravings of a subservient Canadian. If you need to own automatic weapons to feel comfortable than I’m very happy that a place exists where you can do that. While I have to leave my computer to go attend class I will absolutely continue to think on this and may respond further if you would be interested in continuing to discuss. If not than once again I thank you for sharing your opinions and wish you a good day.
I will agree that the conversation has strayed and I think that’s ok. I will again state that these are not personal attacks. I value my Bill of Rights equally one through ten. The rest have their place as well. I didn’t think what I wrote could be misconstrued as calling you as a person a tyrant. I was merely stating that some of the things you’ve said here are the exact things real life tyrants have said in the past and are continuing to say now. You must realize that many of the people here are not merely firearms hobbyists. We believe in the natural (as in not granted or removed be any government or people) right to keep and bear arms for many, many reasons. Speaking for myself, this is not something I’m willing to see compromised. And I’m really glad youre willing to discuss these things here because when you openly seek (because that’s what I’m reading in some of your comments) to control or limit my inalienable rights, I am genuinely outraged. What if I were to say that I believe a certain list or set of ideas and beliefs of yours could not be openly discussed or published? In some ways I, and many others here, believe that my right to be as heavily armed as I choose is actually more important than my various First Amendment rights. Without the ability to defend my liberty, life, and property I would not be discernibly different from a slave given enough time or given the right tyrant (such as the one we currently have).
Home defense might involve defending yourself and your loved ones from domestic, state-sanctioned aggression.
If the Nazis were kicking down your door to take you and your loved ones off to the death camps, I bet you’d want something more than a pistol or shotgun. It’s not ancient history when living survivors still remember that shit like it was yesterday…
What’s with this full-auto demonizing? There has been no machine gun epidemic here since Prohibition, which was the catalyst of that whole thing in the first place (see war on drugs in Mexico for a modern equivalent).
Also there is nothing morally dubious about self-defense, no matter what you use. You seem like one of those types who would demand for a mother to be punished if she happened to used a chainsaw to defend her children because it’s, “overkill.” Meanwhile it’s OK to call an airstrike on a single sniper and risk blowing up everything else around him on the battlefield because, “it’s war.”
Canada was already invaded and legally to. It continues to import Muzzies at a staggering pace in the name of multiculturalism just as they do in this country. Freedom of speech is already limited with thought in due time. Patrick currently has the right to his opinions but not to impose those demented thoughts on others at least not yet.
And nobody here is trying to force you to keep a firearm under your bed. Whereas it sounds like you are in favor of forcing us to behave a certain way that’s to your liking. Your comments above make much more sense in the light of your nationality. Many Canadians have been successfully indoctrinated by their (ARMED) government to believe as you do. Please read my comment above and see what you think. In the end there are hundreds of countries one can flee to in order to evade personal liberty. There’s only one on the other end of the spectrum when it comes to firearms. It’s time the progressives and tyrants the world over abandon their attempts at civilian disarmament.
“At long last, we finally have gun control”, Adolph Hitler Result 6 million Jews murdered in Eurrope. Gun control works but always in the favor of progtard tyrants.
I’m a staunch gun rights advocate, but it doesn’t help us to parrot lines from people that never happened. The Weimer republic had already instituted strict gun control by the time Hitler came into power.
Patrick, the OP has rightfully called BS on a man who makes his living glorifying gun violence while touting gun control! Are you seriously saying you don’t understand the irony in such hypocrisy? It IS hysterical.
Inaccurate statics are not “facts”. They are make believe, like Liam’s acting…and just about as relevant. The US does NOT have the most gun deaths (per capita), unless of course you cherry pick the parameters to make it fit your objective.
The FBI says gun homicide dropped over 12% from 2003-2013, yet there are far more guns now. However many deaths, there is no connection to the amount of guns.
If gun control works, why has rifle homicide dropped 28% in that time, despite the expiration of the 10 year “assault weapons” ban in 2004? More people were clubbed to death; twice as many were beaten to death; FIVE TIMES more people were stabbed to death! Gun control is your answer??
No matter how much they tickle the ear, pithy statements by you or Neeson won’t change these facts.
Aw man, that map leaves out Next of Kin! Didn’t he whack some mobsters before they got him and the rest of the hillbillies had to go all rambo on them?
Why do we give a shit what any actor says? They get paid to dress up and play pretend.
Because, unfortunately, the most people tend to “form” their opinions based on what people they admire say.
How did that map leave out A-Team? Dude killed tons of baddies in it. Let’s also not forget Schindler’s list, fucker could have sold his cuff links, watch and suits to save jews, but did he? F no. Selfish asshole.
He got an Oscar for his leading role in a movie where only the police and military had guns.
One would think, given the tragic history of his family, that he would be more concerned with controlling skis. Or hills. Or snow. Or Canada.
Taken 3? Now he’s just a bad father.
why would you help this asshole by posting his trailer ?
I wouldn’t take the words of a guy that pees himself in public on the regular so seriously.
Taken 2 was lazy and halfassed, and Taken 3 is directed by the same guy.
And remember that case full of all that cool shit that he didnt use? Im still mad about that.
Just a paycheck to him and you know he wouldn’t turn it down even if it was way below par. If you’re dumb enough to pay this asshole your hard earned money than you can’t complain about his politics.
i vow to pirate this movie and not pay one American cent to watch it suck. i eagerly await Taken 4: Albanian Boogaloo
The “Taken” DVD actually had a kill ticker you could turn on at the top of the screen. It was hilarious. I need to buy a copy.