Bruce Willis says he's against new gun controls

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 30

    Geoff Gillespie

    What a disappointment it is to hear Bruce speak this way. Of course he is entitled to his opinion but still, I would prefer not to hear him talk like such a pillock...

  • -29

    Matthew Simon

    I agree with Bruce Willis. I also joined the NRA recently. I may not agree with everything they say but they do defend my 2nd amendment rights better than any other organization. That being said I DO agree with universal background checks on gun purchases. But until they enforce existing laws throwing more laws on the books won't help save any lives. Beyond the background checks I don't think they will get any laws passed.

  • 24

    sfjp330

    Matthew Simon Feb. 14, 2013 - 07:34AM JST I agree with Bruce Willis. I also joined the NRA recently. I may not agree with everything they say but they do defend my 2nd amendment rights better than any other organization.

    Well Bruce Willis lives on Mansion that is protected by 10 foot wall, and has no concept with reality of the problem in the inner city society. Willis is a worthless low life actor, so his opinion don't matter at all. In a U.S. general election, the NRA had exactly zero effect on the outcome. Turns out that the officers and lobbyists of the NRA actually represent weapons manufacturers, not rank and file gun owners. That's why they refuse to support common sense restrictions on military style assault weapons, magazines that hold a hundred bullets, or background checks for anyone who buys a gun, even though most Americans and many gun owners support these measures.

  • 11

    globalwatcher

    No surprise.

    He has been known as a hard core right winger in Hollywood and has a strong association with Donald Trump.

  • -21

    Matthew Simon

    even though most Americans and many gun owners support these measures.

    Proof? I am an American and a gun owner and I DO NOT support those measures.

  • 26

    lucabrasi

    I am an American and a gun owner and I DO NOT support those measures.

    Oh, well, that's it then. End of argument.

  • 10

    sfjp330

    Matthew Simon Feb. 14, 2013 - 07:59AM JST Proof? I am an American and a gun owner and I DO NOT support those measures.

    Tell me I am wrong. Can you provide me with your argument.

    Some findings from the poll results:
    -- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. -- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns. -- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database. -- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from. -- 89 percent of Americans and 85 percent of gun owners support a law to require background checks for all guns sold at gun shows.

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-lawsn810069.html

  • 5

    shinhiyata

    SFJP, I agree with everything you say about the NRA. Guns suck. I wish more gun advocates would research the origins of this group and discover when, why, and who founded this organization. The NRA wasn't even a lobby group until 1977. But I disagree with your comment about Willis as an actor. He was awesome in Sin City.

  • 1

    Jason Ring

    If I may ask a question regarding the proposed reforms. I read through the 23 executive action items and I don't see one proposal that would A) prevent anyone from attempting to legally purchase ANY firearm (hand gun, rifle, shot gun, sniper rifle, assault gun, automatic or semiautomatic), B) limit the quantity of guns owned, C) take guns from owners, D) overturn or limit the second amendment rights or E) prevent another Newton event from happening (although items 12, 18 and 19 are a start at addressing that vulnerability). With that, can someone please explain what the NRA is opposed to? My source is below: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/

  • -17

    bass4funk

    @global

    He has been known as a hard core right winger in Hollywood and has a strong association with Donald Trump.

    What are you talking about??? Trump is NO conservative by any stretch of the word. His voting record has always been Democratic, but since Obama took office and started to spread his poisonous radical agenda, he finally woke up. He's gotten a bit more conservative, but a true conservative, he is not.

    Good on Bruce. I do think we should limit the sales on most Assault rifles, but outright banning guns, NO way! Bruce has always been a conservative and like most of his action star buddies, they are all conservative and most share his views. Nothing wrong with what he said. His right, his choice.

  • 3

    Carcharodon

    Bruce Willis has cred or does John McClane have cred? either way what Willis thinks is irrelevant.

  • 5

    paulinusa

    The mental giant has spoken.

  • 4

    Heda_Madness

    On December 15 I said:

    Anyone who continues to support America's gun policy is an idiot.

    Therefore, I can only conclude that Bruce Willis is an idiot.

  • 12

    Saulo Akazawa

    Yes, it is the law. But the law should evolve like everything else. It is not written in stone, even though that law is from that age. They are called amendments for a reason, it is time to be amended again. There are no brits coming after you. This right to bear arms doesn't mean bayonets anymore. They mean one may own a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in minutes sold to anyone for cash. Use your brain for once and look at yourself from the outside. You wanna know who love that you love your guns so much probably most countries in the middle east, it is proven more efficient killing Americans than all of their efforts put together.

  • 13

    Kabukilover

    Who cares what Bruce Willis thinks.

  • -10

    Matthew Simon

    sfjp330

    If you read my statement I said I do agree with universal background checks on gun purchases..... I am opposed to the government telling anyone what kind of guns and magazines I can own. As long as I am law abiding its none of their business. Nor should I be put on a list because I am a gun owner. I noticed the president has been careful in his words lately but underlining his rhetoric are bans on types of weapons and magazines also if you look at what New York laws were passed and what Diane Feinstein is trying to do, its all a slippery slope that has the potential to infringe on all Americans freedoms granted under the second amendment.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    shinhiyata Feb. 14, 2013 - 08:08AM JST But I disagree with your comment about Willis as an actor. He was awesome in Sin City.

    He's more like Arnold Schwarzenegger, the action guy that faded quickly. Willis will never get Oscar for comedy, and you don't get it for shooting people. You get it for novelty, for being fascinating to watch in some character role. However, Willis hasn’t taken many character roles over the years, so only few takes him seriously as actor.

  • 8

    ambrosia

    The NRA isn't just about protecting your rights. Historically, the NRA has been very much about protecting you, assuming you're white, from blacks, who they greatly feared. When they were worried about African-Americans getting their hands on guns, the NRA was also very much in favor of gun control.

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racism-and-nra-history# http://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner

    The thing that people who seem to fetishize the 2nd Amendment always forget is that the Constitution is not a perfect document. It is similar to a language in that it has changed and been adapted to the times, hence the word "amendment". Do 2nd Amendment lovers think that blacks should still be slaves or counted as 3/5 of a person for the sake of representation, or that women shouldn't be able to vote, or that people shouldn't be able to buy alcohol? The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments abolished slavery, made blacks citizens, and gave black men the right to vote. The 18th Amendment created Prohibition and the 21st repealed it. The 19th gave women the right to vote. All of these amendments were changes made to suit the times because the Constitution was not perfect. Remember the words are "to create a more perfect union". It does not say "to create a perfect union".

    I come from a family of hunters and have no opposition to reasonable gun ownership. What I don't understand though is why so many of the more vocal gun owners are so in love with the 2nd Amendment but rarely seem to care or know much about the other 26 or to even grasp what the word "amendment" means. It's a bit like people who site the Bible as the reason they oppose homosexuality but then conveniently forget that it also forbids eating pork, shellfish and rabbit, that you can't wear cloth which is a mix of linen and wool or that a woman who has "grabs" a man who is attacking her husband should have her hand cut off. Selective reasoning is weird.

  • -7

    Kimokekahuna Hawaii

    Its the wild west baby.. defend yourself or you will be a victim.. people need to learn self defense.. what happened to Japanese being martial artists.. could have saved lives in Guam is there was one karate kid... someone brave enough to take that monkey man off his feet.. In America.. people shoot at each other now if you change lanes and cut someone off on the Fwy... also someone can take your gun and shoot you with it also.. and if you are afraid of losing your cellphone.. imagine having to worry about your Magnum ..

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    @sfpj,

    " Willis is a worthless low life actor, so his opinion don't matter at all."

    Well that's a very sound premise on which to base your so-called "progressive" opinion. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

  • -6

    Matthew Simon

    ambrosia that is an interesting statement considering there are black people on the NRA board of directors. I was not making a racial statement but clearly you are.

  • 0

    Jimizo

    @Bass 'We should limit the sales on most assault rifles'. Which ones? Why some and not others?

  • -1

    sangetsu03

    One fact that is consistently overlooked is that violent crime has been decreasing steadily in America for 4 decades now. The rate of murder has decreased by a third since 1960. On the other hand, news stories reporting murders have increased by more than 100% over tge same period. Do you know why deranged individuals commit mass murder in public places? Because they know it will put their name and picture on front pages around the world. The news media indirectly glorifies such atrocities, and I, for one, refuse to read or watch any reports when these atrocities occur.

    Despite there being two guns for every three people in America, America is a predominantly safe place to live. If you look at the UK and Australia, you will see that their per-capita rate of violent crime is greater than that of America. The "gun violence" issue is a distraction, and is a great political exercice which will take the voter's minds off the more serious problems America faces, such as collosal spending, the national debt, and the immiment bankruptcy of the Social Security system.

    And Willis is right about his concerns abut removing the second amendment. It is written with ths same ink upon the same paper as the other amendments. If it can be restricted or abolished, so can any other right. Maintaining a free society is not an easy to do, it requires that individuals in that society carry a great deal of personal responsibility. Owning a gun, like driving a car, requires good judgment and care. Mistakes, accidents, and abuses can and will occur, but all freedoms and privileges come at a cost. There is no such thing as a safe society. Even here in Japan where guns are illegal, murders occur on a daily basis, and suicide is the leading cause of death among young men.

    Willis said "I don't know how you can regulate insanity".

  • 1

    herefornow

    Bruce Willis says he’s against new gun control laws that could infringe on rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    Thank you. You have now given me another reason not to see this movie. Since he undoubtably is getting a percentage of the profit, I have no desire to support his thinking with my money.

  • 2

    herefornow

    “I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone,”

    And Willis is right about his concerns abut removing the second amendment

    sangetsu03 -- first off, no one is proposing "removing the second amendment". That's just nonsense. Second, can I respectfully remind you and Bruce that the U.S. had an assault weapons ban in place for ten years, from 1994 to 2004. I don't recall either the country or the constitution falling apart as a result. How come its different now? Your and his arguments are just simplistic nonsense.

    .

  • 3

    cubic

    Well, if Bruce Willis says so then I suppose that's case closed.

  • 4

    ambrosia

    Yes, I was making a racial statement and what I wrote was absolutely the truth so I have no problem having done so. I was citing a couple of articles which have cited the NRA's very racist origins and how it relates to their current hypocritical stance on gun control. Their having blacks on the current board of directors does nothing to change their past nor their reasons for having supported gun control in the past. And for the record, there are 4 African-Americans on the 80-count NRA board of directors. African-Americans account for 13.1% of the U.S. population. 4 out of 80 is 5%. Even the NRA would likely admit that it has a problem with African-Americans.

    Here's an NRA member very honestly speaking about that problem: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/robert-farago/rick-ector-why-the-nra-doesnt-inc

  • 7

    smithinjapan

    Geez... it's almost as if they are trying to be vague about the link between his newest Die Hard movie and the sudden statement about gun control. I'm willing to bet he's a little more for it than he's letting on -- but imagine if he said as much at the premiere of an ultra-violent film where probably hundreds of shots are fired and umpteen people killed. I agree there's no link between Hollywood violence and video games to real life violence, but there would be a link to the damage to his career if he advocated gun control at the release of his movie.

    Now he just loses respect.

  • 4

    Letsbengoshi

    Because he's an "action hero" tool who's played with pretend guns for 30 years and has never had a child or other loved one massacred by a real live gun-wielding maniac -- and, importantly, because he doesn't care one whit about those who have had such tragedies plow into their lives.

  • 6

    davejenks

    That Dufus! I hope he accidentally blasts a hole in his viagra vault.

  • 3

    ambrosia

    Sangetsu03: Willis said "I don't know how you can regulate insanity".

    Nor do I but maybe keeping people like Ted Nugent and former senator Larry Craig off the NRA Board of Directors would be a start.

  • -4

    DaveAllTogether

    It is more difficult now than it has ever been to purchase a gun in America. The availability of guns is not why mass killings take place. Further restricting gun ownership will do nothing towards reducing situations like Sandy Hook.

  • -7

    bass4funk

    'We should limit the sales on most assault rifles'. Which ones? Why some and not others?

    Let me rephrase that, I meant, they "assault rifles" should be available only to the military, law enforcement and to only people with certain licenses that might have a need for them. The rest IMO should be outlawed. But firearms in general, never!

  • 12

    tkoind2

    This is sad. But what did we expect? I mean after Jacky Chan came out in favor of China's irrational behavior I have been off the whole star thing anyway.

    But now some reality. Yes right wing Americans guns don't kill people, people do. But people with guns kill people far more effectively and therefore warrants consideration and action.

    Yes the constitution gives you the right to bear arms. IN A MILITIA, not otherwise. Read the whole paragraph you ADD sufferers. The idea was that a community could raise a militia to defend itself. Now when muskets were the norm, this idea made sense. But in an age of smart bombs, jet aircraft, drones etc... this notion is suicidal. Just ask your average Taliban leader how the whole rifle vs. US military works out on most days. The fact that their leaders are dying off in legions should tell you something.

    Heritage. Yes the US has a long and violent relationship with guns. But do you really need to keep a bad idea when you can work out something modern and new that makes more sense? Kind of like sticking to the horse in LA traffic people. Driving, train etc... makes more sense. Traditional? Maybe not. Sensible? Yes!

    Finally, spend a little time on the internet reading what some of the people with big gun stashes are writing about. Preppers, the end of the world crowd, the rapture crowd (why do you need guns if you are going to be raised to the clouds by Jesus when the end comes?), the paranoid anti-government crowd, the racist groups, the anti-tax/anti-government nuts. These are the people who benefit from these laws. Not the nice normal couple down the street. Do you really want these nuts to be armed as well as nuts?

    As for the nice couple down the street. Chances are the gun in the house will be used by someone in the house on someone else in the house. Statistics support this as the greatest probability. Accident, murder, theft of the weapon are all more probable than a Bruce Willis save the day moment.

    Time to grow up and join the 21st Century Americans. Guns need to go. And we can toss Bruce out with them.

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    @tkoind2

    Post of the month! : )

  • 11

    lucabrasi

    ‘‘If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?”

    Nice logic, Brucie. I mean, if they gave women the vote, then why wouldn't they give it to domestic pets and pineapples?

  • 2

    Xeno23

    Bruce Willis is merely a person expressing his opinion, as are all who have a public platform ready-made for them, like celebrities. Their opinion is only representative as one among many - and that's what it should be valued as; nothing more. We can agree with him, or not - that is our prerogative; also as voices among the many. Why should we be disappointed or encouraged by what he has to say, exclusive of the many voices of the people?

    His job, like many of ours', is to contribute to a product that will be popular and insure a positive return on investment; the product just happens to be movies - and action themed movies are popular. After many years, what this gives him is experience and expertise in doing that job; not much more. Now, if he also had a University degree in History or Constitutional Law, then that would be a different matter...

    In the long debates here about guns, I've noted many commentators arguing that the 2A is obsolete because "Americans" no longer have to face the British, and that's what it was designed for; that isn't a correct historical alignment. The Bill of Rights was written and ratified after 1789; the Revolutionary War was over six years by that time.

    The 2A was not directed at the British, but at the experience of Americans prior to the war, as then citizens of the legitimate government of the time - Britain. In 1789 the legitimate government of the USA was the US government, and any suggestion of popular opposition to governmental tyranny had to be directed at the possibility inherent in the US government.

    I'm not saying here that the 2A isn't obsolete, or that that it's inviolable, or can't be amended; I'm just saying correct historical context must be applied in any rational argument if we don't want to infuse anachronism and/or misapprehension into our debates.

  • 3

    ambrosia

    Having people like Ted Nugent and Larry Craig on the BoD or someone like Wayne LaPierre as their leader does nothing to promote the notion that the NRA leadership is generally sane and reasonable. Nor does it appeal to gun owners such as people who I know and who refuse to join what they view as an organization which is more intent on lobbying for the gun industry than they are in protecting reasonable rights.

    The bottom line, I have no problem with reasonable gun ownership rights. I do have a problem with the NRA. Support them if you want but don't try and use specious logic to try and convince me to.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please keep the discussion focused on Bruce Willis.

  • 4

    Bopman

    I think Bruce Willis is aware that if he were an anti gun lobbyist, his "Die Hard" movie sales would probably decline!...Sadly, I think Hollywood has had (And still does!) an influence on peoples attitude towards guns and violence!!...From John Wayne, Clint Eastwood to Bruce Willis, they have portrayed the shooting and killing of people as being the norm!!..Of course when it comes to the footage "Collateral Murder" of US troops shooting civilians in Iraq, it casts a whole new light on what weapons do to people, hence the sanitised media coverage of wars today!!

  • -6

    Kent Mcgraw

    SFJP your figures are totally wrong. Where do you come up with 90% ? The facts do not support what you say. Bruce Willis is a thinking man that loves liberty. Those who think gun control will stop those living in the ghettos from getting guns do not know anything about the ghettos. It is already illegal for most of those in the ghettos to own guns due to their criminal records but they get them easily through the black market and by theft. Gun control does nothing but disarm honest law abiding citizens and makes them vulnerable to attack.

  • 1

    Jason Ring

    @Xeno23 and @tkoind2.. Amazing posts and you hit at the core of the issue as well as addressing Bruce Willis's comments.

  • 1

    Mirai Hayashi

    Who cares what Bruce Willis..totally irrelevant and classic false authority.

  • 2

    BurakuminDes

    Bruce Willis: new hero of the gun crazies in America! The rest of us see him as a bloke who makes rotten movies - and he can't even grow hair!

  • 2

    KnowBetter

    Bruce, Bruce, Bruce... well I guess that Mr. Willis must still live back in the 1700 or 1800's if he thinks he needs a gun. We all need air to live and food, a roof over our heads and clean running water. Some may argue we also need a car to survive and well I might agree that has its points, however I can not understand why someone in the U.S. of A seems to think they NEED the RIGHT to have a gun in order to survive. Mr. Willis maybe be a pawn paid to say something but really needs to understand how silly his statement is and how it reflects on the sad state of affairs in the U.S.

  • 2

    megosaa

    BRUCE WILLIS, like some of the posters here wants their cake and eat it too. bruised willy had only been shot by blanks, not the same. once they have the experience of having one of their loved ones got mangled by bullet will they understand. am i right mattew simones?

  • 1

    megosaa

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

    **Abraham Lincoln **

  • -14

    realdoll

    I totally agree with Bruce Willis. I'm tired of all the morons who think of gangs when they think of guns. Why should our rights be deminished because of the slime in the ghetto's who make up a small percentage of the gun owners in America. Lock them up and leave them there rather than treat all gun owners like criminals.

  • -10

    realdoll

    I sent another $100 to the NRA the other day... and am a proud member.

  • 2

    Athletes

    Bruce may want to make other movies such as "KIll and Kill again", "Blow them away", "Make my day" and "See u in Heaven".

  • 8

    skroknog

    The man has been brainwashed by his own movies.

  • -10

    TanakaTaro

    I agree with Bruce. If the second amendment is taken away, what next? Are they going to take away the third amendment too?! Then there would be British troops quartering in people's homes all over the US!!! Anyone who says these rights are outdated is deluded!

  • -1

    ambrosia

    Why should our rights be deminished because of the slime in the ghetto's who make up a small percentage of the gun owners in America. Lock them up and leave them there rather than treat all gun owners like criminals.

    "The slime in ghettos". Wow. Don't hold back. Feel free to express yourself. What is this about locking them up though? I didn't realize the ghettos were walled communities with locks on them.

  • 4

    AKBfan

    Actors having opinions about political and social issues is ok, but broader society taking them so seriously and them getting so much publicity is ridiculous. Who cares what this knucklehead thinks about gun control? Or Bono about the environment? Or Geldof on Africa? etcetc

  • 1

    Wakarimasen

    What does the Gubernator say? Have we heard Sylvester Stallone's views yet?

  • 1

    nandakandamanda

    If smoking is banned from movies because watchers might be tempted to emulate, then why does he state categorically that there is no link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence?

    See footage of any war breaking out around the world and you'll see local kids making guns out of sticks and running around play-shooting each other. It's a cool and fun thing to do, play with guns, especially for kids and susceptible, easily-led, immature adults.

    Every move of the recent Dorner saga (including the kidnapping and escape of one hostage) seemed to play out Hollywood movie scenes. How many people noticed the similarities to Rambo? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    No Bruce, regardless of your other views, that one is simply a personal opinion, which has not yet been satisfactorily proven either way.

  • 10

    Disillusioned

    I love the fuzzy logic of the second amendment! "You have the right to bear arms" - so you can protect yourself against other people with guns. But, what if there were no guns? Would you still need that right?

    When Australia banned social ownership of guns there was a slogan that was created by the pro-gun lobby, "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns", which is still pretty much true in Australia. However, there has not been a mass shooting in Australia since the laws were invoked 20 odd years ago. Yeah, the criminals still have access to guns, which will never change in any country, but just because the crims have guns does that really mean you have to have one too? Really? Normal people can still get guns in Australia, but you have to show a reason to have one and self-protection is not a reason to own a gun.

  • -8

    Matthew Simon

    megosaa first if you are going to address me use the proper spelling of my name, second you know nothing of me or my background and experiences so leave that alone. For you information I have plenty of experience with friends mangled or killed by gunfire, how much do you have? The response on this site is typical of what anyone who is a gun owner or enthusiast is used to. Crazy left wing redirect purporting that all gun owners are crazies and hicks and even worse if you are in the NRA or like organizations. The point of Willis speaking out is the same as the counter to that argument. He is widely know and puts a face on the cause the same as if he was speaking out against guns. My point and the point of millions of other responsible firearms users in America is that there is no reason that we should be limited or have our weapons taken away because of the actions of criminals. Keep the hands out of the criminals yes of course, but through rational means like backgrounds checks and enforcement of existing laws, not snap decisions that are emotionally charged and have a political agenda.

  • 3

    2020hindsights

    Bruce Willis says hefs against new gun control laws that could infringe on rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    I think that you can't start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it's all going to become undone

    Despite the loud misinformation from the NRA, nobody is touching the constitution or the 2nd ammendment. That's off the table. But the NRA would like you to think it is to scare off law abiding gun owners.

    What Obama is doing is adding sensible measures to make guns safer for everone. If anybody thinks that closing the background check loophole for private sales and gun shows will slowly lead to banning guns altogether then they are drinking cool aid and the NRA have won.

    What you have to remember is that the NRA executive is populated with gun and gun related companies. They stand to lose money if they are restricted to doing background checks at Gun Shows. There goes your impulse buyers for a start and mentally unstable buyers for a second.

  • -1

    Thunderbird2

    Poor Bruce, all those years running about in a grubby vest and getting blown up must have taken their toll. I wonder if he's sponsored by Colt or Browning.

  • 1

    Madverts

    People shouldn't listen to what stars have to say about issues beyond their mental abilities. Besides, the Die Hard franchise should really become the Die Off Franchise. Number 2 was poop and I only watched No.3 because it had the great Samuel L Jackson in it. I can't believe they are still churning that crap out.

    Please Bruce, you're starting to look as geriatric as Roger Moore in his last outing as James Bond....

  • -10

    bass4funk

    You liberals are a crack up, when Jamie Foxx says, things like Obama is the greatest president ever or Eva Longoria says her opinions on women's rights or abortion or Sean Penn and on and on, it's Ok and acceptable, if a conservative actor like Willis gives his personal opinion on an issue then he's out of his mind. ROFL you guys give me always so much to look for coming on here everyday. :-)

  • -3

    danako

    Seems like many here who don't like the 2nd amendment don't like the 1st either. And that is his right to voice his opinion.

  • -1

    Andreas Zachcial

    Since the Newtown shooting, more than 1500 US citizens were killed by guns in the US. It is maybe the most dangerous place on earth and the governments should give travel warnings.

  • 0

    JonathanJo

    Oh dear. He should have kept his mouth shut. Fan-base just shrank 50%. Actors shouldn't do politics, except (perhaps) Arnold Schwarzenegger.

  • 1

    Yubaru

    Unless he is running for political office I really dont see what difference his opinion matters in the first place.

  • 6

    Tamarama

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion....even if it's a dumb one.

  • -3

    Serrano

    "Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's a dumb one."

    If an opinion is different from yours, it must be dumb, lol.

  • 4

    danako

    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

  • 0

    eatthis

    All i will say is.......yepy Kia yea m

  • 3

    CGB Spender

    Wondering how many more innocent people (Children or not) need to be killed by gun-swinging psychopaths before the NRA-freaks in the US notice that something is fundamentally flawed with their current law and doesn't suit the current era? 500? 5000? 100000? They never seem to run out of dumb arguments!

  • 4

    Tamarama

    If an opinion is different from yours, it must be dumb, lol.

    In this case, yep. I assume that includes yours as well.

  • 3

    Cos

    But Willis believes “the real topic is diminished” when observers link Hollywood entertainment with high-profile mass shootings.

    The link is Hollywood carpet sellers like him are exploiting the tragedies and gun craziness to sell their movies. And I observe that it is exactly what Willis is doing here.

  • -7

    ValentinesDay

    I think someone forgot to inform Willis that this was a real life discussion, and he was not playing a character role from one his movies (facepalm).

  • 2

    602miko

    he was not the victim, he never felt how sad losing a kids, he do movies, he enjoyed what he doing on the guns, now i lost my respect with him, no more die hard for me .

  • 0

    Open Minded

    Why do people care about an actor opinion? Should it be about NRA, abortion or whatsoever? Is he wiser than any lambda people????

    R I D I C U L O U S !

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    YubaruFeb. 14, 2013 - 07:32PM JST

    Unless he is running for political office I really dont see what difference his opinion matters in the first place.

    It sure does matter. Charlton Heston was seen as "Moses" in the movie "The Tenth Commandments" and we thought he was a perfect God in our eyes. Do you still remember how shocked we were when he came up as a spoke person for the NRA? After many days with God, Moses came down with the stone with the Amendment 2? LOL

  • 3

    DoubleHelix74

    “No one commits a crime because they saw a film. There’s nothing to support that,” Willis said. “We’re not making movies about people that have gone berserk, or gone nuts. Those kind of movies wouldn’t last very long at all.”

    Really Bruce? Either you are senile or are in denial... Either way you career is winding down and nobody really wants to see ANOTHER Die hard movie! Talking about flogging a dead horse!

  • -1

    Mirai Hayashi

    First of all, all this is is Bruce Willis trying to stir up controversy in order to plug his new movie. I haven't seen it (probably won't see it) but it probably has guns in it, hence attracts the NRA crowd.

    You liberals are a crack up, when Jamie Foxx says, things like Obama is the greatest president ever or Eva Longoria says her opinions on women's rights or abortion or Sean Penn and on and on, it's Ok and acceptable, if a conservative actor like Willis gives his personal opinion on an issue then he's out of his mind. ROFL you guys give me always so much to look for coming on here everyday. :-)

    @Bass

    And liberals never get criticized by right wingers? Really?

    I sent another $100 to the NRA the other day... and am a proud member.

    @realdoll

    FANTASTIC. And as a "proud member" I am sure that you are aware that the NRA SUPPORTS new gun regulations, contrary to what Bruce Willis thinks...which is again, irrelevant!

    NRA Supports the following:

    1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.

      1. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
    2. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.

    3. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.

    4. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.

  • 1

    corner-of-my-eye

    excellent post tkoind. funnily enough, it reads and flows like an eminem rap.

  • 4

    Ricky Kaminski

    What is it with Yanks and their guns? Do gunownersl stand in front of the mirror feeling surges of cowboy power? "You talkin to me? You talkin to me?"

  • -1

    praack

    if the laws being proposed were dealing with the issues at hand maybe- but in reality becoming concerned over the mentally ill costs money- money no one wishes to spend.

    so you instead add an additional gun control on someone that makes them have to jump through another check or limits them to buying 5 rounds of ammo every week because that is cheaper than providing money for the mentally ill.

    most of the mentally ill in the US are on the street, un-medicated , most health care including the government supplied care does not really cover mental illness.

    so- what do you do - make it tougher for a law abiding normal person- who won't cost the government any money- or identify mentally ill people and be forced to actually take care of them.

    guess which way the US government is going

  • 2

    Cortes Elijah

    Don't make movies about people going nuts? What ever Bruce! Your an actor and I thought you would know about that? Erhem....Batman's joker? He is loney and kills people....I used that for an example because its well known. Take away all our rights it you take away gun laws? What a stupid thing to say. There is no comparison and that quote does not make sense!

  • 4

    hidingout

    @ nandakandamanda

    If smoking is banned from movies because watchers might be tempted to emulate, then why does he state categorically that there is no link between Hollywood shootouts and real-life gun violence?

    Its a really good point and one I think isn't getting enough discussion. The anti-gun lobbyist crowd is so focused on the tool with which the crimes are perpetrated that they seem to be missing the mental illness that drives their inspiration. I find it problematic that Hollywood (and its stars, no matter which side of the aisle they pimp for) is quick to blithely dismiss any talk of their product and its probable adverse affects on society and mental health.

    To the point that Mr Willis, whose movies I ordinarily enjoy, makes a mockery of everyone hearing his interview by actually saying that Hollywood doesn't make irresponsibly violent and sadistic movies about truly sick individuals willing to hurt anyone and everyone who may so much as come within reach. That's what he said right?

    “We’re not making movies about people that have gone berserk, or gone nuts. Those kind of movies wouldn’t last very long at all.”

    Seem any movies lately Bruce .....?

  • 1

    Surf O'Holic

    @madverts, I would agree with the following :

    " People shouldn't listen to what stars have to say about issues beyond their ・professional・ abilities." A singer would best stick to singing. As ESFJs, folks in entertainment ought to keep to their professions.

  • 3

    serendipitous

    Grow up Bruce. Why are Americans so hung up on their so-called Second Amendment Rights? How about a Third Amendment that states nobody has the right to have a gun except soldiers and other law enforcement officers? Nothing wrong with amending an amendment that needs amending!

  • 3

    Tom Thompson

    who cares what this old fart has to say

  • -1

    cwhite

    you only think that way until somebody close to you is gunned down in cold blood. Big difference between a fully automatic machine gun with 500 rounds and a handgun. Third Amendment could work, but then Japan wants to change it's own law which may one day lead to legal ownership of guns for all individuals.

  • -1

    Steve Christian

    Actually there are a lot of stars and other rich people who are deserving of respect for their opinions on a range of subject because they are also intelligent and have connections and real world experience we can only dream of. Remember, just to shoot movies, they have had to do extensive traveling and interacting with the people there.

    So yes, there are stars we should respect and listen to. But not Bruce Willis!

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    We are all barking up the wrong tree. After the Newtown incident people have gone over the edge with extreme hate for "guns" and the NRA. Why aren't these people showing the same degree of anger for the psychologists and mental health care providers who are arguing against any disclosure of a patient's potential for violence because it violates the patient/doctor relationship? Sorry but guns do not kill people. In fact guns in the hands of sane non-criminal people, don't kill people either. Guns in the hands of the mentally ill and criminals do. First strip any mentally unfit person of any patient/doctor rights if the potential for violence is detected. Make psychiatrists, psychologists and others legally liable for failure to report such detection. Second make he use of any gun in any crime an mandatory 50 year term. Pretty harsh yes, but aren't the children worth it? Legislating more laws that don't affect the mentally Ill and the criminals isn't going to stop anything.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playerembedded&v=TTyoppKaDM

  • 5

    cracaphat

    But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

    Try the no guns route.Works for most civilized places.

  • -4

    OssanAmerica

    cracaphatFeb. 17, 2013 - 12:28AM JST But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop >that.” Try the no guns route.Works for most civilized places.

    If multiple stabbings is somehow much better than multiple shootings, yea it works.

  • -1

    Xeno23

    Many Americans are "hung up" about about their Bill of Rights, etc. because, knowingly or not, they are adherents to "The American Civil Religion" - Bruce Willis too. Many, if not all, of the belief structures surrounding American values are similar to religious creeds, tenets, and personal engagements in belief.

    This is not a new observation; it's been floating around since the 18th century. There are sacred documents: The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; there are saints and holy men: the Founding Fathers; there are credos and rituals: Pledge of Allegiance, Fourth of July; there are trials and tribulations perceived as validating righteousness: The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW2.

    To question the 2A with an American adherent to this creed is tantamount to questioning the Immaculate Conception with an orthodox Catholic. I'm not going to comment on whether this is right or wrong; valid or invalid - just noting one well recognized and long established sociological assessment.

  • 1

    Juan Rodriguez

    Is not just the gun control, all of these new laws being signed in these past 10 years are to prepare the American people to just bend over and obey everything the goverment says.

  • 3

    ambrosia

    OssanAmerica: Sorry but guns do not kill people.

    Sorry, but I've never really understood that. It's kind of like saying, knives don't cut, people do or bats don't hit balls, people do. I know you didn't come up with the saying but I just can't understand why people repeat it. Guns do kill. Other than using a gun to start a race or for target practice, the point of a gun is to injury or kill things, be they bunnies, birds or burglars. That is the point of guns. You may hang one on your wall for decoration or keep your grandpa's for sentimental reasons but neither negates the point of a gun that is not specifically to start a race or target shooting; to kill. Sure, a gun will not generally go off by itself so it needs a human (or dog http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/dog-steps-on-gun-shoots-utah-hunter-in-buttocks-1.3361828) to pull the trigger and everyone understands that. But at the end of the day, a gun is a weapon, the purpose of which is to start a race, target shoot, injure or kill someone or something. People can come up with whatever clever little phrases they think will distract people from the reality but the reality remains the same - guns kill. That's what they were originally designed for and that is their main purpose.

    Bats and knives might kill people too but I'd take my chances with a madman, angry husband or vengeful neighbor with a knife or bat over a gun any day. The purpose of a bat is to hit a ball. The purpose of a knife is to cut things. Yes, there are knives designed specifically to kill people but your average kitchen or hunting knife isn't designed to kill people. It's designed to cut, slice, chop or dice things. A gun is designed for starting a race, target shooting or to kill. That's it. If you are a gun owner and don't acknowledge this basic fact then I really don't think you can call yourself a responsible gun owner. Once we get past the honest reality of that we can have a discussion about guns, the 2nd Amendment, gun violence and reasonable gun control.

    In fact guns in the hands of sane non-criminal people, don't kill people either.

    Sure they do. Guns in the hands of children - who do get their hands on guns kept where they live - kill. Guns in the hands of suicidal people kill. Guns in the hands of hunters and people cleaning their own guns kill. By some estimates there are nearly 20,000 suicides by gun and 600 accidental gun deaths per year. Yes, people would probably find other ways to kill themselves but it's worth noting that 64% of male suicide victims use guns and:

    Although more women than men attempt suicide, men are almost four times more likely than women to die by suicide. One reason is that men are more likely to use deadlier means, such as firearms, when they set out to take their own lives.

    Addressing mental health issues is obviously something that should be done in conjunction with addressing gun issues and that means gun rights groups and mental health advocates working together and not throwing around pithy phrases. Clearly there is something wrong in America given the amount of gun violence we have and it isn't just due to the fact that we have a lot of guns. The Swiss have a lot of guns per capita too but don't seem to turn them on each other the way we do. That we turn to guns the way we do suggests, to me, that we could do with a lot fewer since we don't seem to be emotionally equipped as a nation to handle them in a reasonable manner.

    Finally, if the point of argument is self-defence, it is worth looking at these studies on the reality of guns and self-defence, another argument I've always found a bit odd. Since we do have so many guns in America and so many people claim they have them for safety, shouldn't we be one of the safest places in the world instead of one of the most violent?

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2 http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/14098/how-often-are-guns-used-by-private-citizens-in-self-defense-per-year-in-the-unit

    For the record, I am not anti-gun ownership. Most members of my family own and use hunting rifles and I respect that. I hunted when I was younger too and have done target shooting. What I don't respect is the unwillingness to have a discussion about the problem we have with guns and what can be done about it without that discussion turning into a knee-jerk "no one is going to take away my 2nd Amendment rights" reaction, which no one is advocating doing.

  • -1

    David Quintero Navarro

    Guns don't kill people, only them bad folk kill people, so even though I just said guns don't kill people, heck I am gonna have me a real good time with my new AK47s, etc..you know just any of em bad folk try to get near my new truck, bang, bang, bang, ain't NO body gonna touch my truck, my drugs, my cheap beer all warm hidden behind my driver's seat there with all that yummy bacon flavored beef jerky I have for breakfast! I down that beef jerky with about 3 gallons of Pepsi, none of that Cherry cola, heck no! Anyway, I think we can all see Mr.Willis is just in DENIAL, he makes violent movies, just like TARRATINO, blood, gore all for...$$$$$, kind of what the NRA is all about right? The 2nd Amendment etc..should really just be called, the $$$$ is all I care about, so some people get shot to death, so what, as long as I get my $$$ Amendment.

  • -1

    ambrosia

    Is not just the gun control, all of these new laws being signed in these past 10 years are to prepare the American people to just bend over and obey everything the goverment says.

    The average 1090 per year, that have left in the past ten years have done so because they've returned to home countries which don't allow duel citizenship or for tax reasons. They have nothing to do with gun control or whatever other reasons you're speculating on.

  • 1

    Aristoman

    I don't care what he believes.

  • 1

    bass4funk

    Love Bruce, but in the end, who really cares what ANY celebrity thinks? Not going to impact any of our lives. Liberal or Conservative, they are just expressing their own personal feelings. Take it as such and move on. Politicians, however are a different story.

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    ambrosiaFeb. 17, 2013 - 06:43AM JST "OssanAmerica: Sorry but guns do not kill people." Sorry, but I've never really understood that. It's kind of like saying, knives don't cut, people do or bats don't hit balls, >people do.

    Have you ever seen a knife cut something by itself? Or a bat hit a ball by itself? Probably not because those are all inanimate objects designed to function in accordance with and with the control and manipulation of a human being. This is all that the famous phrase is pointing out. Perhaps this helps you understand? Many people who are against gun laws, such as Bruce Willis, recognize their ineffectiveness in stopping incidents of mass murder and want to see more effort made to stop the kind of people who carry out such acts.

  • -3

    ambrosia

    No, that's not the intent of the famous and famously stupid phrase but keep beating that tired drum if it makes you feel better.

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    ambrosiaFeb. 17, 2013 - 11:15AM JST No, that's not the intent of the famous and famously stupid phrase but keep beating that tired drum if it makes you feel >better.

    I really don't think denial of the laws of physics is in any way constructive to even understanding the gun issue, much less coming up with solutions. Clearly extremism and irrationality are not unique to the pro-gun crowd.

  • 0

    CrisGerSan

    I would hardly expect one of the most violence addicted actors to support reason in laws to protect us from crazies with guns. He is a joke as an actor and is certainly no expert on the issue. There is totally reason to know that the movies and TV have caused a lot of modern violence and I wish people would stop hiding behind so called rights. No one has the right to attack others ever.

  • 5

    DP812

    I may not agree with everything they say but they do defend my 2nd amendment rights better than any other organization.

    No, no they don't. They defend the gun industry so they can sell as many guns as humanly possible and turn as big a profit. The NRA was once for sensible gun control legislation. But since they turned into the public relations arm of the gun industry, that stopped.

  • 4

    DP812

    Have you ever seen a knife cut something by itself? Or a bat hit a ball by itself? Probably not because those are all inanimate objects designed to function in accordance with and with the control and manipulation of a human being.

    A knife has uses other than violence. A bat has uses other than violence. A gun's only purpose is to destroy and kill. And it doesn't justify the NRA's continued opposition to even the most sensible of legislation, like allowing the ATF to do their job.

    A gun can't kill by itself, but it's a lot harder for a person to kill someone if he has to go through background checks to get that gun. And it's a lot harder for him to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time if the power of the gun is limited or if the magazine size is limited.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    DP812Feb. 18, 2013 - 07:53AM JST "Have you ever seen a knife cut something by itself? Or a bat hit a ball by itself? Probably not because those are all inanimate objects designed to function in accordance with and with the control and manipulation of a human being."

    A knife has uses other than violence. A bat has uses other than violence. A gun's only purpose is to destroy and kill.

    You're wrong. A gun can stop violence. That's why law enforcement officers around the world carry them. It's not so they can go shoot whjoever they want to.

    And it doesn't justify the NRA's continued opposition to even the most sensible of legislation, like allowing the ATF to >do their job.

    No ones is talking about the NRA, The debate is the meaning of "Guns don't kill, people do" . And he need to do something about the "people".

    A gun can't kill by itself, but it's a lot harder for a person to kill someone if he has to go through background checks to >get that gun. And it's a lot harder for him to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time if the power of the gun is >limited or if the magazine size is limited.

    Please read my original post. I am against the psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health care providers who are against disclosing their patients' "condition" for fear of breaching their right to privacy. What good are background checks if the fact that a person may be a potential homicidal lunatic is kept hidden from public records?

  • 0

    FightingViking

    @Ricky KaminskiFeb. 15, 2013

    What is it with Yanks and their guns? Do gunownersl stand in front of the mirror feeling surges of cowboy power? "You talkin to me? You talkin to me?"

    Loved the way you put that ! But I believe "You talkin to me?" comes from a film about the mafia and was said by Roberto di Niro.

  • 1

    ambrosia

    FightingViking: It was said by Robert De Niro playing Travis Bickle, an honorably discharged Marine with mental health problems, in the movie Taxi Driver. The mafia is not involved in this movie. You may be confusing that with The Godfather, another very famous De Niro moving which was about the mafia.

  • 0

    ambrosia

    What good are background checks if the fact that a person may be a potential homicidal lunatic is kept hidden from public records?

    If a psychiatrist really believes a patient is a danger to himself or others, he or she has a legal duty to report that.

    The legal duty of a psychiatrist or psychotherapist to warn an identifiable victim of a patient's serious threat of harm has been well recognized in U.S. jurisprudence and clinical practice since the Tarasoff decision of the Supreme Court of California in 1976. Warning practices vary over a spectrum ranging from those that are essentially legally required duties of clinicians to those based on rights of actual or potential victims to be warned of a specific event. These practices can be categorized as follows: (1) warning of the risk of violence; (2) warning of the threat of violence; (3) requested warning; and (4) criminal victims' warning mandated by statute. As legal requirements and clinical standards for Tarasoff‐type warnings continue to evolve, it behooves mental health professionals to recognize these four different types of warnings. Although not all are equally supported in law, all four practices can appear to carry some measure of legal obligation.

    http://www.jaapl.org/content/34/3/338.full >

  • -1

    Mirai Hayashi

    NRA = a shield that the gun manufacturers hide behind

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    ambrosiaFeb. 19, 2013 - 04:28AM JST "What good are background checks if the fact that a person may be a potential homicidal lunatic is kept hidden from public records?" If a psychiatrist really believes a patient is a danger to himself or others, he or she has a legal duty to report that.

    Gun control activists: 1000s of mental health records going unreported to FBI http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/westword_082012.shtml

  • 0

    ambrosia

    What good are background checks if the fact that a person may be a potential homicidal lunatic is kept hidden from public records?

    Clearly and legally they are not meant to be "hidden" if the person poses a threat to himself or others. If one is going to argue that current gun laws are good enough and should just be better enforced then isn't that the same argument in regards to a psychiatrist revealing whether a patient is potentially dangerous or are you just going to waste both of our time by disagreeing with everything I post even when what I posted previously is apparently in agreement with your thinking on this aspect of the issue?

    Addressing mental health issues is obviously something that should be done in conjunction with addressing gun issues and that means gun rights groups and mental health advocates working together and not throwing around pithy phrases.

  • -2

    edbardoe

    Obama parades the parents of a teenager killed only a couple of kilometers from his home in Chicago as a reason for gun control. Killed by random shooting by black gang warriors, but no proposal to stem the gangs that kill hundreds per year in Chicago alone. The answer is to disarm non-criminal gun owners in the suburbs, not attack the murders warring for control of the drug trade in the inner city. And no one in the obedient media points out the idiocy, or the irony that this reformed drug user, now President, uses drug gang victims as poster children yet has no plan to disarm the gangs that kill them.

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Obama parades the parents of a teenager killed only a couple of kilometers from his home in Chicago as a reason for gun control.

    Obama was talking about gun control before the murder which you're talking about. Didn't you read all of those articles after the Sandy Hook shooting on December 14th? And so what if he wants to highlight the murder of a young black woman as a reason to try to deal with gun violence? Would it be more acceptable to highlight her death if she had been white? If your opposition is to using any tragedy as a reason to make changes to laws, policies, etc. you'll have to be as harsh on pretty much every president who was in office before Obama because it's a fairly common practice.

    The answer is to disarm non-criminal gun owners in the suburbs,

    Who's trying to disarm people in the suburbs? The fact is no one is talking about or trying to disarm legal gun owners so stop buying into and spreading conspiracy theory propaganda. It's just silly and insult to the rest of us who can read.

    And no one in the obedient media points out the idiocy, or the irony that this reformed drug user, now President, uses drug gang victims as poster children yet has no plan to disarm the gangs that kill them.

    Because there is no irony there. He is hardly a "reformed drug user". He used drugs, stopped using them and admitted it without it having been made public by anyone but himself. Is that any different than Bush who also admitted to cocaine use and to being a heavy drinker who had to quit cold turkey?

    I wholeheartedly agree that more needs to be done to disarm criminals, be they black, white, asian or latino gang members, people who are attempting to overthrow the government, white supremest groups that violate hate laws, etc. but let's try and keep the conversation logical, focused and sane.

  • -1

    gelendestrasse

    keep the conversation logical, focused and sane...

    Why is it that any disagreement to the left wing agenda is labeled as illogical, unfocused and insane? There are disagreements in opinion, different perspectives, different cultures, different constitutions, and different rights. The "reasonable control" touted by Obama and people like governor Cuomo leaves the door open for further restrictions later. That's where the "ban" discussion starts to come in. Like Cuomo decreeing that all AR style rifles (which are functionally the same as other semi-automatics, they just look like military weapons) have to have 7 round magazines, when 10 round are all that is readily available? That's a backdoor ban. Personally, I'm not ready to take it up the back door from the government. So we disagree.

    Now I suppose you'll label me as somehow irrational because I disagree with you, eh?

  • 1

    ambrosia

    Why is it that any disagreement to the left wing agenda is labeled as illogical, unfocused and insane?

    That isn't limited to the left wingers by any means. Watch FOX news sometime and you'll see that the accusations fly from the right just as quickly and just as hard.

    There are disagreements in opinion, different perspectives, different cultures, different constitutions, and different rights.

    I agree and have never said otherwise.

    That's where the "ban" discussion starts to come in.

    We'll disagree here because I think the reality is that guns will never, ever be banned, neither through the front, back or side door.

    >

    Now I suppose you'll label me as somehow irrational because I disagree with you, eh?

    Perhaps you're projecting? I live with two other adults and we all often disagree about various issues but somehow manage to get through the day without assuming the others are irrational, so no, I won't label you irrational simply because we disagree. Would anyone stay married or have lasting friendships if they thought anyone who disagreed with them was somehow irrational? If you read the post above mine and my response, what I think was irrational was the poster's references to Obama being a "reformed" drug user and how that was somehow ironic in the talk about gun control, as well as the unanswered question regarding exactly what his or her objection was to Obama highlighting the Chicago girl's death to talk about the issue. As I said before, that is done by all presidents.

    If you want to assume that someone thinks one way or the other about you because you may disagree on a certain topic, that is your right but by the same token, understand that you're assumptions may well be wrong and your defensiveness may well prevent you from having in depth, honest conversations with others on the topic in question or any topic where you have differences. And, as you don't want to be labeled one way or the other, maybe don't be so quick to do the same to others.

  • -1

    Himajin

    The parallel for smoking not being allowed doesn't exactly wash. Neither does the 'see the violence onscreen and go out and emulate it' argument. We KNOW it's pretend violence on the screen. Or most sane people do...you know you're going to a movie to see a bunch of bad guys vanquished by a bunch of good guys with pretend guns. You know it isn't real. When is the last time you saw a movie lauding some crazy person who takes hostages and kills them all, as the hero? Never? Exactly! The theme is 'good triumphs over evil' not 'shoot some random people up and become a hero'. Mass murder is not glorified in this type of movie. Or do you all think that the American people really are that stupid? "Ooh, look at Bruce Willis kill those bad Russians! I want to be like him! Think I'll go shoot up an elementary school, or maybe the local mall".

    Really!?

    Remember all the cracks today about celebrity opinion not counting for anything. I'll remind the short-sighted among you who praise celebrities who come out in favor of further gun controls that their opinions don't matter ;-P

    "Is that any different than Bush who also admitted to cocaine use and to being a heavy drinker who had to quit cold turkey? " Was your attitude towards Bush at that time as forgiving as it obviously is in the case of Obama?

    "I would hardly expect one of the most violence addicted actors to support reason in laws to protect us from crazies with guns."

    Addicted to actual violence?

    And all the while, the issue of WHY some people are so miserable that they need to die and take others with them is not addressed, America's drug problem is not addressed, the wholesale drugging of boys is not addressed...it's just so much easier to yell "Ban guns!", but the societal rot of America will not be cured simply by banning guns.

  • 0

    Himajin

    Here, off CNN-

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/justice/connecticut-newtown-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    Newtown school shooter emulating the Norway shooting killer....not John McClane.

  • 0

    ambrosia

    "Is that any different than Bush who also admitted to cocaine use and to being a heavy drinker who had to quit cold turkey? " Was your attitude towards Bush at that time as forgiving as it obviously is in the case of Obama?

    1) I wasn't the one who introduced drugs or actors into this discussion so I'm not sure what you're on about.

    2) Yes, my feeling towards Bush was equally, if not more forgiving, particularly since he was often the butt of jokes because of it. Regardless of whether or not I agree with someone's politics or even like them as a person, I would never wish any kind of addiction on anyone, nor for alcohol or drug, prescription or otherwise, to have any kind of a negative impact on them or the people they love. I can disagree with someone and not demonize them. I would like to think the same is true for other posters. You know nothing about me or my history so any assumptions on your part as to how I formulate my feelings about others will likely come up incorrect.

  • -2

    Himajin

    Is that your post I quoted? I was addressing liberals being very forgiving of other libs, but scathing towards democrats or conservatives for the same things....

    That's what I'm 'on about'.

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Yes, you quoted part of my post and you got it wrong.

  • 0

    Himajin

    I'm sorry about that, then, ambrosia....

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Very good and good day.

  • -1

    T-Mack

    Bruce is an actor, and what he think and say's will not effect anybody. However, Obama spoke out againt's assault rifles, now AR-15 sales are thru the roof, even gun part's like lower receiver's are sold out, on back order, and hard to find. I am more concerned about what Obama say's than Bruce Willis...

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in Entertainment

View all

View all