Talk:Liberty Stands Still

• Very anti-gun movie --AdAstra2009 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't make it past the first 30min. It pissed me off too much to continue. -Anonymous

P.S. For those unfamiliar with this film, its main premise is that gun makers are responsible for all the violence in the world, guns are inherently evil, and that the second amendment should be abolished (seriously). That last one was the most egregious of them all. -Anonymous

I saw this movie years ago when it debuted on TV (about eight years ago now). It infuriated me, too, but I took comfort in the fact that it completely failed to get a theatrical release (despite starring Wesley Snipes, who was still a box office draw back in those days). :) -MT2008 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Snipes is a hypocrite. He's made himself a fairly wealthy person making movies involving lots of firearms. Then he makes this dreck. Must have been partially financed by the Brady Campaign.--Jcordell 02:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Stallone, Costner, Connery, Ford, and even Eastwood, Harmon, Walken, and Schwarzenegger to an extent, have all made carriers playing badass tough guys who use guns to solve all their problems, yet then turn around to bash guns and gun owners as evil. At least Bruce Willis and James Earl Jones are on our side. -Anonymous

(just to interject, Costner is a member of the NRA and fakes recoil with guns in his movies, although Sean Penn could take his place in this spot - Gunmaster45)

Costner does support the right to bear arms for hunting, but has said that those who claim it is important to guarantee freedom and personal safety take things too far. Also, Penn may be an anti-gun asshole, but he didn't make his carrier playing gunmen like the others on the list did. -Anonymous

There's a very fine line between saying that private gun ownership is wrong and saying that guns period are wrong. Many of the gunslinging roles these guys played are cops, soldiers, or secret agents. I don't think it'd be hypocritical to play someone who uses a gun in the line of duty and not support the right of private citizens to bear arms. (Which means that Costner and Eastwood, and other who do a lot of westerns do not get to hide behind this.) --funkychinaman 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What you say may be true, that playing cops while denouncing the civilian right to bear arms does not make one a hypocrite, it does however still make them a colossal douche. Rather that a hypocrite, they are instead a Statist idiot who demeaningly looks at civilians as a bunch of irresponsible, demented, monkey-children who need the paternalistic oversight of our government to keep from destroying one another. I apologize for being so confrontational about this issue, as I am usually much more agreeable, however, having my rights attacked by a bunch of ignorant jackasses is something that really rubs me the wrong way. -Anonymous

Don't forget Kurt Russell he's an NRA member. --Predator20 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also interestingly Wesley Snipes was charged in 1993 for carrying a loaded handgun, you won't that bit of info on wikipedia --AdAstra2009 03:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: The director of this movie, Kari Skogland, also directed a 2005 made-for-TV movie called Rapid Fire starring Jason Gedrick (not to be confused with the Brandon Lee movie of the same name), which was about the 1980 Norco, CA bank robbery. I remember that movie depicted the perps buying full-auto HK33s and ARs at a gun store, although the anti-gun politics were otherwise minimal compared to this movie. -MT2008 03:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, these people are professionals, and will do what the role requires of them. I doubt the people who play serial killers and racists in hollywood are actually okay with murder and racism. If you take issue with a film's politics, blame the writer. (Who, in this case, is also the director. What did you expect, she's Canadian.) --funkychinaman 04:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We realize this. The issue is more that these actors feel that their (severely limited) experience with firearms entitles them to pass judgment on gun owners who know far more about firearms than them. In retaliation, we point out that firearms, even though only in the form of props, helped them to gain the fame and fortune they now utilize to attack gun rights. They call us evil, stupid, rednecks, so we call them ungrateful hypocrites. -Anonymous

Movie stars spewing forth rhetoric while pretending to know what they're talking about? Shocking. If it's any comfort, Wesley Snipes probably didn't pay any taxes on whatever he made on this movie, and in a few years, he'll actually be an expert on prison conditions in America. --funkychinaman 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with movies like this is that it is dangerous propaganda. They are spewing, what are essentially, LIES and smearing an entire subsection of the American population (i.e. gun owners and dealers as well as the 'evil' gun manufacturers) by implying that human free will is subject to the influence of an inanimate object. It's not quite the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda put out by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, since it is not an equivalent evil to that, but it is the 'same animal', i.e. false propaganda at all levels is itself something to be avoided and shunned by any free thinking person. MoviePropMaster2008

This is a very horrible movie, like "Runaway Jury", 2003. Another film that says that all the bad things that happen in the world are fault of the weapons factories. But how well funkychinaman says, the actors are only professionals, the problem is the message. I think that a gun is the same exact thing as a sword, just a more advanced weapon. And the weapons are part of world history. It 's too easy and presumptuous to say that the evil of the world can be destroyed by closing the Colt, the Winchester or Springfield Armory.--Charly Driver 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the same logic this film uses, if my family dies in a car accident I would be morally justified in running over the executives of GM and forcing the government to make cars illegal. -Anonymous

Revolver

The revolver does not have a fully shrouded ejector and so is probably a 642 not a 640. -Anonymous

Good day from Augustin

Wish to learn a good deal and also have a good experience here! my best regards fellas!