Quote of the Day: Second Thoughts Edition

article-2348048-15539345000005DC-106_634x427

“PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film ‘Taken 3.’ While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties. We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same.” – Statement from PARA USA [via dailycaller.com]

comments

  1. avatar Jolly Roger Out says:

    Would’ve meant more before you cashed the check…

    1. avatar Gene says:

      You’re presuming they were paid. Sometimes, prominent brand placement is the compensation.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Which product placement is made all the more valuable by calling attention to it after the fact with some ginned up controversy.

        So I’ll revise and extend the OP’s comment and say that it would have meant more before they turned around and drew attention to their oh so principled stand quietly, and without ulterior motive of leveraging their existing product placement’s value and allure of the movie.

        One wonders how substantial such a boycott really us, anyway. Really, without having seen the latest installment in the “Taken” franchise (don’t spoil it), how many gun-toting action flicks does old Neeson have left in him, anyway, before joining the cast of “Expendibles 4”, that is?

        1. avatar MrSatyre says:

          Are you from the same planet of make believe as Neeson?

    2. avatar Drew says:

      If there were a check why wouldn’t it be cashed well before the press junkets? They would have provided the items at the beginning of filming and actors don’t typically get into full promotional mode until filming is well under way if not during post production.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      They were paid long before, I’m sure.

  2. avatar DaveR says:

    “We will no longer provide firearms for use in films…”

    that’ll send Hollywood a strong message!

    “…starring Liam Neeson”

    oh.

    1. Nothing wrong with Bruce Willis…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      There are plenty of names which should be added to that.

      1. avatar David P. says:

        +1. The industry should check before supplying.

      2. avatar IAB2 says:

        Yup. I refuse to watch anything starring Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn.

    3. avatar Bob says:

      The irony in anti-gun Los Angeles is that the city appears infatuated with guns. Just drive around a bit and observe all of the billboards advertising the latest movies prominently displaying guns.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        Probably because it gives an even more exotic and forbidden appeal.

  3. avatar BLAMMO says:

    I’m sure there is no shortage of firms and individuals who provide firearm props and consultation services to the film industry. Much of which is simply ignored as evidenced by universally bad trigger discipline. And WTF were they doing with M16A2s in Platoon?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I would be hugely surprised if that isn’t the only anacronistic weapon in a Hollywood film, and that leaves out science fiction where they will often use actual present day guns for things in the distant future or in places that have had no contact whatsoever with Earth.

      Well, at least BARs never showed up in The Patriot, there were no howitzers in Braveheart. Oh, yeah, no AKs in 300 and no SAM missile batteries in Gladiator.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Wasn’t there a SAW in ‘Finding Nemo’?

        the devil made me do it…

      2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Do not get me started on historical inaccuracy in movies/TV! Pirates of the Caribbean is a perfect example. 30 minutes into the first one I had to walk away from it. The ships and rigging? Wrong for the period. Weapons, uniforms and equipment? All f**ked up. If you are gonna blow that kind of money on making a movie then at least get the simple sh*t RIGHT.

        Thus endeth the rant.

        1. avatar Phil COV says:

          Plus there were walking, talking sea-monsters.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Fiction/fantasy I got no problem with. That said, you make a movie depicting a particular era in time, say 1710-1720, then you should try to get the details right, especially on things that are thoroughly documented and easy to verify. Hell, use all that CGI software for something other than scary monsters and fake cleavage! 😉

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, Phil, but at least they were authentic!

        4. avatar Stevie says:

          LMAO Phil..

        5. avatar Scott P says:

          I know how you feel and I have one that tops that.

          There is a B-rated movie on Netflix staring Tom Sizemore, I forgot the name of it because it is that terrible, that was about the Battle of the Bulge.

          I couldn’t even last 5 minutes in to it because the Americans were using, you guessed it, LEE ENFIELD No. 4’s!!!! I mean really? Bolt guns? You could not even find another semi-auto? How hard is it to find M1 Garand’s and a lot of them considering they were made in the millions.

    2. avatar Joe in CT says:

      Didn’t see any A2’s in Platoon. You might be thinking of the CAR-15 that some NCO’s carried back then.

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Might be but I don’t think that stock and fore-end were around in 1967. I could be wrong.
        http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sgt.-Barnes-Platoon.jpg

    3. avatar Jon says:

      @BLAMMO

      That’s true, but someone has to take the first stand. Hopefully others will follow.

  4. avatar SteveInCO says:

    This is actually surprising to me. It’s not the film that they are complaining about, but rather, comments made by the star outside of the film. Does this mean they already refuse to supply weapons for films that send an anti-gun message? If not, their priorities are greadly inverted; I am sure millions of people more see the movies than ever hear about what the asshat star says off-silver-screen.

    I would like to see this become the start of a trend; gun makers refusing to do business with the more noisesome parts of Hollywood.

    But even if they do, there will always be some jackass own-goaler of a gun shop owner who will supply weapons. In fact there are people whose sole customer is Hollywood, and perforce they won’t participate in such a project. I would be surprised if they even consider what an actor says off screen to be worth cussing about.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      They’ll think twice about it if the manufacturers cut them off.

  5. avatar the ruester says:

    I think we’re looking at this from the wrong side of the mirror. Some people say “how could a pro gun company support a public and vocal anti gun celebrity,” but many hipsters would wonder “how could a public and vocal anti gun celebrity support a pro gun company?” I say let all these aging action stars blabber all they want, if they want another paycheck they will inevitably be forced to star in the 2 hour GLOCK commercial that is the modern action film.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I just had to laugh. I haven’t seen too many recent action films but the relatively recent Ahnuld film The Last Stand shows him demanding to see a permit for one of those gigantic-caliber revolvers…in Arizona. And more to the Glock point, someone squeezing the trigger repeatedly on a locked-back-on-empty Glock, with sounds of a hammer going “click…click…click” as if it were a revolver.

      You can’t even get a Glock to repeatedly go “spung” with the slide in battery because it’s not a normal double action, at least, it doesn’t give you “second strike.” Someone had to go out of their way to make this “mistake;” it couldn’t have been ignorance.

      And on that note, I can’t picture GLOCK ever saying something like this. Hollywood is in large part why they are where they are now beginning with John McClane’s fact-free rant about the Glock 7 in Die Hard II

      1. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

        It’s called “artistic license”. Hollywood doesn’t give two hoots about accuracy or reality. They are telling a story. It’s all fiction.

        One of my “favorites” is an early scene in The Matrix, where a large police squad storms in on Trinity while she is watching over the nascent Neo. All of their GLOCKs and Shotguns are presented with loud and audible clicks of manually cocking hammers, which is impossible for every weapon on screen. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t jive with reality; that’s the sound guns make when you point them at someone, in every movie ever.

        See also: Wilhelm scream. There is a good youtube compilation video. If you really want a trip down the rabbit hole, see the “Guns do not work that way” on tvtropes.org.

        1. Once semi automatic handguns first showed up in a movie, for years there was not a sound effect of the expelled case hitting the floor. Then one day someone put it in the soundtrack. Ever since then Hollywood has fallen in love with that sound. Gives them an excuse to exploit Dolby Digital. It is so bad now that the plinking of the shell is louder than the gunshot and even when the shooter is standing in the grass.

  6. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    I’ll go with Para on this. Have not seen any of these Taken movies because I have had my fill of Liam and his crap, along with several others. If all you can do is pretend to be someone or something for a living you need to just STFU, you got nothing to say that matters. Period. Full stop.

    1. Where’s that put the late Charlton Heston?

      1. avatar Craig says:

        … or Tom Selleck or John Wayne or Clint Eastwood? All four are pro 2A or at least show up at the RNC, not the DNC.

        1. avatar Scott P says:

          Clint Eastwood is not pro-2a. He has gone on record stating he doesn’t like guns and especially hates those nasty “assault weapons”.

          This myth that Clint Eastwood is pro-2a needs to be put to rest.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          Scott P, in 2012 Eastwood said the following in an interview:

          “I am a grand believer in the safety of firearms, and I’ll leave you with this story,” the actor and director said. Eastwood told the tale of a middle aged woman being stopped in her car by a police officer. The cop notices that she has a concealed weapons permit and asks her if she has a gun. She does–locked in the glove compartment there’s a 59 automatic Smith & Wesson gun. “‘oh, great, anything else?'” Eastwood says the officer asked. The answer? Yes — in the console a .357 revolver and two boxes of ammunition. Anything else? Again, yes, in the woman’s purse there was a 40 caliber Glock automatic and two extra clips.

          “And he says, ‘my God woman, what are you afraid of?’ and she says, ‘freakin’ nothing,'” Eastwood smirked. “That sort of sums up my gun control.”

          Complete Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forget-movies-clint-eastwood-wants-to-talk-about-guns/article/217846

          In fairness, Eastwood is quoted in a Wikipedia article as this passage reports:

          “Eastwood has long been an avowed supporter of gun control, stating, “I’ve always supported a certain amount of gun control. I think it’s very important that guns don’t get in the wrong hands; It’s very important to keep them out of the hands of felons or anyone who might be crazy with it.”[13] In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the famous television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that “My interview with Eastwood will air on ‘Larry King Weekend’ … I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. ‘Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?’ he said.”[14]

          Article here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_life_of_Clint_Eastwood

          Apparently Eastwood likes to target shoot, owns some types of guns, and believes in regulatory gun control.
          So, I’ll concede to your point. Thanks for making me enlighten myself!

        3. avatar IAB2 says:

          I don’t find any quote like that, googling a bit, including Calguns.net, attributed to Clint Eastwood.

          I did find this, though:
          “I have strong feelings about gun control. If there’s a gun around, I want to be controlling it.”

          http://www.searchquotes.com/quotes/author/Clint_Eastwood/5/popular/

      2. avatar DerryM says:

        That puts Heston, Sellick, Wayne and Eastwood in the “not hyocrite” class. Nesson is saying , “I am totally for gun control in the U.S.”, the others you all mentions are 2A supporters. Heston was Top Dog in the NRA for some years.

        1. avatar Scott P says:

          Except Clintwood is and stated he doesn’t like guns especially “assault weapons”.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          @ Scott P, So it seems, as I noted above.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        http://youtu.be/btvSE6tVHzQ

        From the description:
        “I’m quite sure that the concept of a Government-run reservation… seems to be what the socialists are working for now — to have everyone cared for from cradle to grave…. But you can’t whine and bellyache ’cause somebody else got a break and you didn’t, like those Indians are. We’ll all be on a reservation soon if the socialists keep subsidizing groups like them with our tax money.”- John Wayne

        “Hell yes, I’m a liberal. I listen to both sides before I make up my mind. Doesn’t that make you a liberal? Not in today’s terms, it doesn’t. These days, you have to be a fucking left-wing radical to be a liberal. Politically, though … I’ve mellowed.” – John Wayne, 1973

      4. avatar neiowa says:

        In the ground?

      5. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        You mean the Charlton Heston who owned his own production company and employed thousands of Americans for forty years. Who stood up publicly in defense of Americans and our Constitution. Who stood up against discrimination before it was “cool” to do so. That Charlton Heston? Got no problem with him. He also spoke out against American involvement in Vietnam and criticized our inept foreign policy. Still got no problem with him.

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          Yep, THIS Charlton Heston.

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          “Political Correctness is merely a polite form of tyranny” (paraprhase) -Charlton Heston

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Yep, thats the man! He got sucked into the PC thing for a period of time, and then walked away from it rather vocally.

      6. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        @pistolero In the final measure Liam Neeson is a jackwad. A tiny minded little socialist puke. Heston was a great man who actually stood for what he believed even when it made him unpopular among his fellow actors and the movie industry elites. Liam just goes along to get along, and he will flop in another direction as soon as the wind changes, again.

  7. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The people of the gun need to do to Liam Neeson what the Christian community did to Christian Bale after he trashed Moses. Make the film a flop. Not that Hollywood actors are apt to learn a lesson, even when there’s money at stake.

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      I agree. Meanwhile, American Sniper is on track to break box office records for the MLK Day weekend.

      1. avatar SpecialK says:

        Somewhat off-topic, I saw American Sniper last night. It was the best movie I have seen in several years. I highly recommend it.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Being that I’m a cheap bastard I waited for a late Sunday afternoon matinee. Can’t say I disagree. Packed theater and it was on two screens.

        2. avatar IAB2 says:

          Me too. Completely sold out in the fancy new theater, but was able to get son and I seats in the Sunday matinee. A very powerful film, spot on, faithful to the book, and everything I have read about his wife’s comments about being true to the film. Notice Bradley Coopers comments deferring on the politics- rather, its about the effect of war on the man, and his dedication to country.

          The contrast between Bradley Cooper teaming with Clint Eastwood, on American Sniper, and
          Liam Neeson, teaming with Spielberg, who turned down American Sniper, and left out the part about Jews arming themselves in WW2, in Schindlers List, could not be move obvious.

          Don’t worry. We get it, Hollywood. The box office says it all.

      2. avatar OODAloop says:

        Don’t you mean the REL or EAP Day Weekend? MLK wasn’t born on the 19th, however Robert E. Lee and Edgar Allan Poe were…

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          MLK gets the nod because he was a gun toting Republican.

      3. Speaking of American Sniper, I watched it Friday night when it opened in Atlanta. My wife even went with me to see it. That is out of character for her because she can’t watch war movies without anguish. She can’t get through the first 5 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Add the fact that we know a young man in the Marines that went to high school with our son who is a spitting image of Bradly Cooper. My wife cries when the trailers come on TV.
        I tried to judge the movie as if it was fiction because I am biased towards movies based on real events. Apollo 13 was a great movie, but if that really didn’t happen, then it would have been a weak story, or unbelievable. I think American Sniper would have been just as good if Chris Kyle was a fictional character so it is a good movie. The ending was horrible. It was supposed to be horrible. The ending brings you back to reality. I don’t want to spoil it for the ones that haven’t seen it yet but I will say, when the movie ends and everyone is leaving the theater, it is like leaving a funeral.
        I only heard two people speak in the full room. One said “Why is it so quiet?”. The other one said “That SOB Ventura sued him for 1.8 million dollars”.
        Question of the day: Do you believe Kyle or Ventura? I believe Ventura even though I am not a fan of the Governor.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          I believe Kyle, Jesse has quite the history of getting smacked in the mouth for acting the ass. And he has thoroughly undermined his “brand” by pursuing this lawsuit. Any hopes of restarting the acting career are over, and being an inept and failed governor ended the political career. His whacked out tinfoil hat theories will likely get him guest spots on the wacko late night radio and podcast circuit. Maybe that was his plan, all along.

        2. avatar whatever says:

          The jury believed Ventura, and a defamation suit from a celebrity like Ventura has a very high standard of proof:

          http://www.military.com/off-duty/books/2014/07/29/ventura-wins-defamation-lawsuit-against-chris-kyle.html

          “Olsen said inconsistencies in testimony from defense witnesses about what happened the night of Oct. 12, 2006, were so serious that their stories couldn’t be trusted. He also pointed out that people who were with Ventura that night testified that the alleged confrontation never happened. And he said Ventura would never have said any of the remarks attributed to him because he remains proud of his and his parents’ military service.”

          Then there was the Katrina and the gas station tales. Just goes to show that even an a-hole can be a great warrior.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          And I still believe Kyle and other witnesses. Ventura is an ass, has publicly ridiculed other veterans, women, various and sundry “foreigners” and anyone who does not bow down and kiss his ass. And the fact remains he, himself, with no help from anyone else, has destroyed what little good will the public had for him.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Except the ‘people of the gun’ do not make up the percentage of the audience for Taken as Christians did for a movie about Moses

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        40% of the population is still a lot of people to piss off when you’re trying to sell them something.

  8. avatar DerryM says:

    To me this is more about Liam Neeson, making millions off movies where he uses firearms, particularly pistols, to make himself out to be a bad a$$ tough guy saving his daughter/wife/whoever from other bad a$$ tough guys, then goes off camera and basically says guns should be outlawed:

    “I am totally for gun control in the US. 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.”

    “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.”

    Here’s a link to SNOPES that shows everything he said.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/liamneesonguns.asp

    I agree with PARA USA calling Neeson out on this. He’s a hypocrite.

    1. avatar louringe says:

      I hope he follows the trail of jim carry. Open mouth incert foot

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        He won’t get anymore movie sales from me. But now, dang-it, I’ve got to think twice about watching STAR WARS: Episode One. I watched the first “Taken” Movie when it hit TV long ago and thought it was not that good…but, then, most of Hollywood’s “Action” movies aren’t that good, neither are TV’s offerings. My Brother calls the TV shows like CSI, NCIS, Criminal Minds, and so forth “Murder Porn”. I think of both Hollywood Movies and TV Shows where there are huge, staged, unrealistic gunfights as “Gun Porn”. You have all this anti-gun agit-prop, but every night Mr.and Mrs. America huddle in front of the TV and eat-up all the gun-involved violence they can stay awake for. Additionally, these Movies and TV Shows send the message, only Cops are good guys with guns, and, otherwise, only bad guys have guns and always use them to do bad things. And do you ever notice how many of the bad guys and bad guy chieftains are Black? Kind of disgusting, when you think about it.

        1. avatar General Zod says:

          You mean you don’t already think twice before watching Episode One?

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          Well, I haven’t watched it in about fivee years, so I guess I’ll have to think thrice before watching it again. I only like the Pod-Race.

        3. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

          Episode one is the Jar Jar Binks if the series anyway. Uh. Wait.

        4. avatar DerryM says:

          You have to wonder what George Lucas was thinking when he created the whole concept of the Gungans as the most irritating race in the Galaxy, then picked the most irritating of the Gungans to be a feature character. I’ll bet Lucas has had more than one bad dream about this decision in the intervening years. I kind of hope so anyway….

        5. avatar Taylor TX says:

          Meesa do tooey! Seriously, at least he was pretending to be wise as Qui Gonn. At least they already got my money for EP I, dont really find these Taken movies even remotely entertaining, didnt care much after watching the first one.

        6. avatar Martin B says:

          Not only murder porn. The overwhelming majority of victims are female. And yet the constant themes of misogyny and violence against women are never examined. It’s like “we wonder why this keeps happening” but they never consider male attitudes at all. I get sick of the repetition of the plot (all solved within 40 minutes of TV time) and the plain unreality of the scenarios. It must be the money. Why else would they do it? They have underestimated the public and made a bundle, yet again.

        7. avatar DerryM says:

          Yep, that is a great point. which I totally forgot about! Thanks for bringing it to the discussion! When you examine the whole picture, Hollywood and TV Show Producers, who are predominately Progressives, make boatloads of money producing Films and TV Shows built on a whole list of things they claim to oppose socially and politically. Hard to tell which is more objectionable, the fact the Progressives produce this hypocritical junk, or the fact so many people eagerly watch it. Somewhere in all this is a sad comment on the crappy quality of a lot of people’s lives.

        8. avatar Slicer87 says:

          I like Episode 1 and never thought twice about watching it, Jar Jar is supposed to be annoying, he is the last guy you expect that convinces the queen to go back and fight to free her people. Can’t believe that flys over so many people’s heads. Out in the real word I have seen little PT hate, I really only see it on the internet where the manchildren scream about raped childhoods and other BS. I take the Gungans over the Ewokes or Jabba’s gang of lame muppets.

        9. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

          Disclaimer: Knowingly off topic.

          Star Was Saga: The Machete Order.

          http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/

          Haven’t tried it, but apparently this viewing order preserves the great moments of the original trilogy, enhances the important parts of the prequel trilogy, all while dropping Episode 1 entirely, along with all its associated problems.

        10. avatar doesky2 says:

          Absolutely guaranteed funniest and most insightful review of episode 1.

          A 1 hour and 10 minute masterpiece review….no shitttin…. and you won’t be able to hit stop.

          http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

          IIRC, there are university level film coarses based on the review.

        11. avatar Slicer87 says:

          @ doesky2,

          No it is the most ignorent ands poorest review of any movie ever. RLM uses strawmen, cherry picking, mixed with “look at the monkey” tactics of game-playing and distraction, not to mention factual inaccuracies, and most of his complaints are either really poor of bizarre. Most, if not all of his arguments are fallacious. Not only he presents them as facts (which they aren’t), but he judges the movie based on imaginary criteria thus showing his double standards. People are free to dislike the movie, but their opinion shouldn’t be passed out as a fact. Nor should he offend the people who like the movie. RLM have this really weird dogma of film making. The prequel hate bandwagon is based on emotion, not facts like the gun grabbers. Any class based on that review must be a poor one that should give refunds.

          Now here is a good review video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHZJS0at9c

          BTW, Carrie Fisher is also really anti-gun and supports gun control, so that leaves the whole OT out for you guys, LOL.

        12. avatar DerryM says:

          Okay, I’ll watch your review, too.

      2. avatar DerryM says:

        @Skeptical_Realist Okay, I like the Machete Order idea a lot! Thanks!

        1. avatar Slicer87 says:

          The machete order is the stupidest thing I ever heard of, man you internet hateboys are lame.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          Oh, now don’t get your feelings hurt and turn nasty on us. If you like Episode I, you don’t need my/our permission/approval to feel that way, and I, for one, would never criticize you for it nor expect you to agree with me or anyone else. Just kindly return the favor. That’s part of what Liberty is all about.

      3. avatar DerryM says:

        @doesky2 I will watch the Review later today when I get time. Thanks for the link!!

  9. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    So, can we have a Blu-Ray release of Taken 3 with all the guns replaced by walkie talkies?

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Cell phones. Liam will just call 911 and wait 20 minutes for the police to arrive.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Everyone should approve of that… there would have only been one person killed in each movie (mother, daughter, mother again) instead of the however many got killed by his rampage.

        1. avatar Summer says:

          This is a good point. You have to marvel at the moral compass of people who are against people defending themselves with weapons but ALSO make a movie in which some dude kills a TON of people to rescue ONE person. Not that the one person isn’t important to him, but the whole thing is pretty damn narcissistic.

          And as to the original topic, I think it’s a good thing. I know people don’t think it’s enough or it’s some token effort or whatever, but I’ve never heard ANYONE call these anti-gun actors who star in gun-heavy movies out and say they won’t deal with them anymore.

          I would love for the day to come where if you want to star in an action movie with guns you have to keep your trap shut about gun rights unless you are for them. On penalty of your contract or your paycheck.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      All of the guns have been replaced with politically correct walkie-talkies.

  10. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    In his next film “Postage Due”, Neeson
    saves his family using only a strongly worded letter.

    1. avatar DerryM says:

      THAT’S CLASSIC!! You’re a strong Candidate to win the Internet today with that remark! Good job!

    2. Ned, that was fun. Made me smile and I needed it, being aggravated by Neeson’s utter crap.

  11. avatar STan says:

    Waiting for you people to blame the Jooooooz cuz they coNTroll Hollywood, right?

    1. avatar beefeater says:

      10/10
      Would troll again

  12. avatar Jon says:

    Oh hohohohohoho! XD
    That’s one of the most amusing things I’ve read all week! 🙂 I look forward to other companies following similar suit.

  13. avatar Boris says:

    Production of a movie takes in many cases months and sometimes years. Is quite possible that filming of Taken 3 started even before the launch of Taken 2, Just editing and voice over, sound production etc takes many months for many of big budget films, so is safe too say that the PARA USA brand (if payed) received payment long before Mr Neeson’s unfortunate comments. I think PARA USA statements are appropriate and well intended.

  14. avatar David says:

    Seriously, an Irishman who portrayed Michael Collins and who is old enough to remember The Troubles of the 70’s & 80’s (even if he was not there). Gun control worked so well when you had the crown giving guns to protestant militias. So Liam justifies his film use of guns by calling it: ” . . . cartoon violence. That’s what I see it as: Tom and Jerry played out with human beings.”

    So Rob Roy & Schildler’s List are cartoons? New York does not have gangs and people around the world are not taken everyday? Danny Boy violence is indeed real and weapons do not make a man anymore or less moral.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Yes, well…only one half of the Charlie Hebdoe incident was “cartoon violence.” Perhaps Para should divert some of those Hollywood guns to French Jews.

  15. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Good for Para. Glock will step up. Most of the teens and 20 somethings who go to this tripe wouldn’t notice anyway…

  16. Let me take a wild guess here as to why anti gun actors continue to be unapologetic for making action movies glorifying guns.
    They don’t see this as hypocritical because they are in a fantasy world when making movies. They only see guns as another fantasy prop not unlike magic wands in a Harry Potter movie.
    The guns they “play” with and the guns we own are not the same thing…in their minds. Anyone that wants to own real guns in society are just fantasizing in the real world. Hollywood Liberal elite think that gun owners can’t differentiate between fantasy and reality.
    It is hypocritical for sure but everybody has to rationalize irrational beliefs somehow. I believe this is how they do it.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      “Hollywood Liberal elite think that gun owners can’t differentiate between fantasy and reality.”

      The bizarre aspect of this is that it is the Hollywood Liberal Elite that can’t differentiate between fantasy and reality.

      “Guns make law abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs”

      ” I feel much safer now. We have a sign with a picture of a gun with a circle and slash over it on the front door. It will keep out a homicidal maniac with a gun”

      ” We need to outlaw guns because we’re scared of a homicidal maniacs shooting up a school or work place but your a paranoid gun nut if you want to carry a gun to defend against said maniac”.

      “A guy shooting up a work place or a mall yelling “Allahu Ahkbar” is just an unhappy employee, it has nothing to do with his religious belief”

      So which group is out of touch with reality?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Projection.

        One might even call Hollywood liberals projectionists. 🙂

    2. avatar Summer says:

      This explains why they seem to think we also have some Harry Potter replica magic wands lying around because we are just “so into the movies”.

      I’m starting to think every stupid thing a Hollywood actor says comes from their own narcissism/belief that the world really DOES revolve around them and that we all want to be just like them. What sad little people with sad little lives.

  17. avatar Sgt Frank says:

    another Hollywood wannabe hero……

  18. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Smart move by PARA USA to disassociate themselves from this twit. I know I won’t be spending any money to see any more Liam Neeson films. I wonder if there is anyway a brand can prevent their products from being used in a film? If so, I’d love to see it happen. Sort of a reverse boycott.

  19. avatar SpecialK says:

    To me this is even more repugnant given his role in Michael Collins. I wonder if Sinn Fein would have supported a right to bear arms in 1916? (rhetorical)

  20. avatar Bob in Indiana says:

    Actors need to STFU. I cannot watch their movies if they are a hypocrite.

  21. avatar jwm says:

    Hollywood is not our friend. We may have a few friends there, but by and large it stands against us.

    I don’t have cable or satellite. I’ve gone to a theater maybe 4 times in 10 years. I watch Neeson movies. Cause I buy them used, like all my movies, at places like Rasputins.

    Hollywood gets little but contempt from me. If 1oo million gun owners followed suit, hollywood would have to change their ways or reduce their lifestyle.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It’s reached the point where Hollywood makes most of its money from overseas. The entire US, not just the hundred million (or more?) gun owners, could boycott absolutely everything that pile of vomitus puts out, and they’d still roll in the dough. That’s how they get away with such a high degree of anti-American-ness in their work, which irritates a lot more people than their anti-gun BS.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    There are lots of prop gun companies that happily cater to hollywood hypocrites. This won’t make a dent… but a real gun company shouldn’t have been involved to begin with.

  23. avatar Jack says:

    Another Remington Outdoor Company Marketing boner.

    Seriously- can they get anything right?

  24. avatar Martin B says:

    OK, the fact is that for most if not all in the entertainment industry (and that includes the news channels), guns play absolutely no part at all in their everyday lives. They react to the thought of guns with the same revulsion that a cockroach crossing the floor would invoke.

    Actors have a day job where they get to play with props and act tough (between takes they are all ‘lovey” and “deary” with the other actors who play the villains) for a few moments, to earn a pay cheque. They know and accept that what they do is not real.

    Script writers have a basic knowledge (a gun goes “bang!”, right?) but have no interest in firearms other than as a plot device.

    I recently read the Sig Larssen Dragon Girl series of books. In one of them, a principal weapon was the fearsome .45 Magnum. This is so feared that nobody has ever made one.

    Actors with political leanings stand up proudly to announce that they want gun control because they have not even a remote clue as to why any sane person would even want one. They have nobody in their background who has held a weapon or fought in a war. Their proudest moments in family history is when Uncle Mort went to jail as a Conscientious Objector or was on the 1950s Communist ban list.

    The very few Hollywood types who have a genuine interest in firearms, are already well known. The rest are the same as any limp wristed idiot who can’t accept that we live in a dangerous world where people want to hurt you.

    We should thank Para Arms for alerting us to another mental midget who thinks he can take the money and piss all over the audience.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Umm. .45 Winchester Magnum. Knew a guy had one. Fearsome 1911.

  25. avatar CM says:

    Liam Neeson opining about gun control is the moral equivalent of a whore complaining about promiscuity. And what do we say to actors with opinions? Shut the f*@k up and go hit your mark. Say your lines and be grateful someone wants to watch you run around on screen. There’s a $5 per autograph table at a con in your future, full of people wandering by looking blankly at your hopeful face.

  26. avatar Model 31 says:

    So when does TTAG get a “Hollywood Hypocrite” section that lists all the “stars” selling out their anti-gun principles to carry firearms as a movie star in order to pad their bank accounts? A simple page listing “stars”, their anti-gun quotes, the movie’s in which they used firearms, how much the movie made and how much they personally banked if known. A wall of their shame -if they had any.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That would be interesting. I would also be interested in the presumably shorter list of those who clearly support the actual right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The latter might be more useful.

  27. avatar Don in PA says:

    Why is it that armed criminals look, talk, posture, act, and react like big dumb violent action movie actors but they don’t seem to share any traits with IDPA or 3-gun competitors?

    He’s just got a guilty conscious. He knows he’s a bad role model for people who don’t have any other role models.

  28. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Para USA should sign a contract guaranteeing product placement with close up logo shots and the actors exclaiming what great guns these are.

  29. avatar pod says:

    I’ve got some experience in the film industry – typically the firearms provided in a film are usually supplied via companies and armorers who specialize in servicing the entertainment industry. Para (and anyone else) has to basically refuse to supply the companies that specialize in cinematic firearms.

    1. avatar IAB2 says:

      Dan Baum writes about a big gun provider to the movie business, in his book “Gun Guys”.
      Based on the huge success of movies with patriotic and moral themes, lately,

      vs the total flops of the typical progtard “art” films, my guess is PARA is seeing the shift in the wind, and willing to stand up for something, as well as distinguish themselves, from the rest.

      I applaud PARA for at least having the courage to make the statement. For too long, conservatives were blackballed in Hollywood for daring to think differently. Thats clearly changing, and I am supporting the actors, directors (like Clint), and others who have the moral courage to speak up.

  30. avatar Anonymous says:

    That’s right. Liam Neeson can use some ridiculous Jennings/Bryco crap in his next films.

  31. avatar IAB2 says:

    Hey, Liam:

    Another former fan here: I really enjoyed a couple of your movies. Big fan of your work in Schindler’s List. You probably didnt know that Steve left our the part about Jews arming themselves, instead of going to the ovens, right? Checkout this true story, Liam: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007563

    They made a real movie about that one.

    Liam, as a man, I am sympathetic of your loss, with your wife Natalie’s skiing accident, and admired your work ethic coming back from it. Tough walk the walk.

    But now you have my attention- an Irish guy, applying for citizenship in the US, and you are bad-mouthing your fellow citizens. Really? Maybe you should do your research, a little.

    Here is something you dont understand about the USA. While you have the right to free speech, we have the right to vote with wallet. And you crossed that line, with me. Sorry, Liam, with regret, but I am NOT interested in what you have to say, nor am I going to watch your movie, even though I am a long-time movie fan. So, pass this along to your agent, your producers, your co-actors, and anyone else- you are dead to me. No more tickets, popcorn, or Netflix rentals purchased for movies with you in them.

    Here’s a clue, EU style. You are now in the same league, in my mind, as Pierced Organ. You dont have a clue, and thats fine. Your problem.

    You are probably saying, “oh, another gun nut”. Fine, you have that free speech right. Better men and women than you have fought and died for that right, btw.

    Here is my response, and I give hat tip to James Lileks for this-” the only difference between a movie star and a circus dog is the dog has the common sense to get off its back feet when the show is over”.

    Anyone can send an email to your agent- I will, at IMDB, with a link back here, to let him/her know you are a shallow, spineless, ingrate, and a completely clueless nitwit*. Worse, you have no honor. You want to be a citizen? Go spend some time with vets. Do some community service. Pick up trash. Learn some humility.

    *Translation in Irish- “gammy gimp”.
    http://www.slang.ie/mostcommon.php

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      “Better men and women than you have fought and died for that right”
      I’m going to borrow that if you don’t mind.

      I was going to have to talk the wife into seeing Taken 3. I don’t think I will bother with it now.

  32. avatar IAB2 says:

    One more thing, Liam- give up the bottle, or whatever you are taking, dude. I realize you have kids to put thru college, and all that, but seriously- wake up.

    You are looking like Steven Siegal, and your good sense about sequels and cheezy drug laundered, or Dubai slush money, behind them is down the tubes, in Taken 3.

    The difference between your fake hero in Taken, vs a real hero- like Chris Kyle, in American Sniper, couldn’t be more obvious. And the box office shows we Americans in flyover country get it.

    You want to be a citizen? Earn it. And STFU, about what you know nothing about.

  33. avatar Fred says:

    Maybe there should be a master list of anti-gun production houses and stars.
    One gun maker or store denying service to one star is less of a discouragement than a few dozen vendors denying their services to a less than supportive faction in Hollywood.
    Especially if they’re going to misuse said firearms in film while they complain about “gun culture” to the press.

    Let them spend the money to cgi their props rather than use legal guns to promote gun control.

    1. avatar IAB2 says:

      here is a start on that list- h/t IowaHawk:;
      https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/556855074824007680

      Box office opening weekends:
      Valley of Elah $133k
      Rendition $4mm
      The Green Zone $14mm
      Lions for Lambs $6.7mm
      American Sniper $94mm

  34. avatar neiowa says:

    I wonder if the europansie has every been out shooting? Someone take him out, explain the Constitution and America to the twit. If that doesn’t work there is always the 3S direct approach.

  35. avatar TomCruise says:

    He’s an actor. If you go watch movies he’s in (or don’t) as a political statement instead of for entertainment you are doing it wrong. Para is just attention whoring at this point.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email