Bruce Willis: First it’s gun laws, then all your rights are gone

Feb. 06, 2013 | 9:29 a.m.
Bruce Willis at the Berlin premiere of his new film, "A Good Day to Die Hard." (Andreas Rentz / Getty Images)

Bruce Willis at the Berlin premiere of his new film, “A Good Day to Die Hard.” (Andreas Rentz / Getty Images)

Bruce Willis has a new action hero role: defender of the 2nd Amendment.

Willis told the Associated Press that he opposes new gun control laws and said he fears that such tinkering will lead to an erosion of citizen rights.

“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,” Willis told the Associated Press as part of the promotional tour for his new film, “A Good Day to Die Hard.”

PHOTOS: Beyonce as Wonder Woman?

“If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?” he told the news service.

Willis’ decision to speak openly on such a controversial topic is unusual. Celebrities don’t usually wade into politically charged commentary, especially when they’re promoting a movie. But then, what else would you expect from the man who plays wisecracking New York City cop John McClane in the “Die Hard” films?

Willis’ comments come in sharp contrast to those made recently by fellow action star Sylvester Stallone. Stallone told the Associated Press that he supported new gun control legislation and would like the see the ban on assault weapons reinstated.

Willis dismissed the idea of a connection between real-life violence and the type of violence depicted in the entertainment world — including his action films.

“No one commits a crime because they saw a film,” Willis told the Associated Press. “There’s nothing to support that.”

Willis suggested that quick fixes — such a new gun control laws passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook, Conn., massacre — cannot prevent future mass shootings.

“It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families,” Willis said. “I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. 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.”

Willis’ new movie, “A Good Day to Die Hard,” opens Feb. 14. The latest installment marks the 25th anniversary of the “Die Hard” franchise. In the film, McClane travels to Moscow to bail out his wayward son, only to learn he’s actually a CIA operative trying to stop a nuclear weapons heist.

No doubt, the one-liners will be flying along with bullets.

What do you think about Willis’ comments? Do you applaud his honesty? Should he stick to talking about his movies? Sound off in the comments below.

–Rene Lynch
@renelynch

ALSO:

On Twitter? Join us at @LATHerocomplex

Does Yoda deserve his own “Star Wars” spin-off?

What would have improved Super Bowl XLVII? ‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’

Comments


208 Responses to Bruce Willis: First it’s gun laws, then all your rights are gone

  1. Yankee 1 says:

    About time someone in Hollywood spoke for support of the constitution.

  2. billybob says:

    He is just an actor, how are his comments more important than anyone else's?

  3. TOM GREENE says:

    I agree you can;t stop these people. Suppose instead of a gun at Sandy Hook the guy used gas to burn all the kids and teachers. Then What no small cans of gas allowed. We guard just about everything these days,why not schools. I think that assult weapons are needed out in the Western States where help is 30 minutes away.

    • Bebosma says:

      Great response! You cannot legislate morality. You cannot legislate the crazies. In the 1970s all the crazies were dumped on the street. What do you think they are going to do with all the new ones that pop up? NOTHING until they show the world how crazy they are.

    • Kang says:

      Reasoning skills of a 5 year-old.

      Great plan though. Turn schools into war zones just so paranoid lunatics can have easy access to any imaginable firearms he can afford.

      But what if help is 60 minutes away? Gatling guns uzis for every lunch lady? M-16s for the janitors? Flame throwers for teacher’s assistants?

      • jvp says:

        Don't be silly. Just because you have guards doesn't mean schools will became a war zones. They have guards in courthouses, baseball parks, football fields, airports, etc. Have they become war zones?

      • @bryceless says:

        Actually Kang (the Conqueror?). Over 1/3 of American schools have armed guards at this very moment. And overwhelmingly, these guards and police officers become a part of the school community. A shiny, happy, war-zone-less community.

      • Sharkster says:

        Oh, yeah… banks, government buildings, bridges, etc., they're all WAR ZONES because their protected with big bad ol' GUNS!!!
        And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of having the reasoning skills of a 5 year old?

      • Sidney Reilly says:

        Unfortunately, our public schools have turned into gladiator academies, our parks into needle shooting galleries. Our teachers have become easy targets for abusive, bullying brats,who if they are thrown out of class threaten a civil rights suit, that some shyster will pick up on.

        Common decency has left our country. The ACLU held the door open for it, and activist judges who wanted to make law instead of just interpret the law, have gained the upper hand.

        There are good people in California and in every other state of the union. Why let the minority of lunatics and postulates of the abnormal take over and away from the good and what was the best of this country…the average Joe the Plumber, Ike the Dentist, and Marissa the school teacher and put them on a constant defense against the ravaging hoards of the neo-Visigoths that are infecting the best of what America has been?

      • Digitoxin says:

        What about armed rent-a-cops or city policemen protecting schools = turning them into war zones?

        Oh, I know! When someone decides to break the law and go on a shooting rampage, what we need to do is run, hide, and grab scissors, as per Homeland Security’s infinite wisdom. With guns gone and our people armed with whatever they find laying around, would-be spree shooters with automatic weapons will think twice before they try, won’t they?

        You wanna talk about reasoning skills? You’d better find easier competition.

      • GunLovingMama says:

        I know that as a teacher I would appreciate the right to defend my students, as well as myself! I am sure that the courageous teacher who hid her students in the cubbies and the principal of Sandy Hook would have appreciated the ability to defend themselves, we should ask them….Oh wait, we can't because they were murdered by a lunatic who took that constitutional right away from them. If someone wants to hurt people, unfortunately they will find a way. I want my children to be protected, and if that means arming teachers, administration or custodians, then by all means-train them and arm them. The teachers in Utah are legally allowed to have training and carry concealed weapons–IT WORKS! By creating "GUN FREE" zones, we are doing nothing more than issuing invitations to the insane, telling them that there is no way they will be faced with any resistance and no one there can defend themselves.

        I am a law abiding citizen and have the right to be able to defend myself by whatever legal means necessary. The second amendment of our constitution guarantees me this right. There is no one who has the right to take this right, that so many have fought and died for, from me. IF you don't like living a country that guarantees its citizens the right to defend themselves, MOVE! I hear Mexico is all about gun control….adios!

        To quote the late great Charleton Heston, "When you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

    • Guest says:

      If 12.000 people in the US were murdered by small gas cans every year, i think they would probably be made really hard to get or be banned if they served no other purpose ..

    • jerry says:

      Mr. Greene I commend you. thyere is no way to stop a nut job from doing what they are going to unless he tells some one and gets turned in..I feel that the average citizen should be allowed to carry any type of weapon that they choose…there is no such animal as an assult rifle except in the military where they are fully automatic…we the people carry simi automatic rifles not assult weapons and when the nearest police or sheriff is 30 min away well then we don't need to call 911 till after it's over and the bad guys are dead…….thats just 1 americans oppinion…..

    • Anthony says:

      I live in a small town and our law never show's up until an hour or more later because they are alway's busy elsewhere!!!! We are all armed and protect our own at all time's, my kid's were raised around gun's and were alway's sitting around loaded and they never shot anyone so when someone speak's up, let them speak regardless who it is. If they come to get my gun's they will start world war three!!!!!

    • JMM says:

      I applaud Bruce and as a supporter of all of my American rights you can't stop insanity, but if insanity intrudes into my home I will have a reply with my gun in hand. America has been like little sheep for a long time first it started with a small little control like you have to wear a seat belt and then as I had always said what will they start to do next. When I'm told not to drink and drive I agree, but when I'm told to not wear a seat-belt I became alarmed. Our guns are our right and no one should be able to take that away. Remember, if the government tries to make it about crazies they will say that Americans are crazy. If you give liberals an inch they will take a mile.

  4. Gary says:

    WHAT? Someone from Hollywood actually gets it right? That is rare.

  5. billybob says:

    He is just an actor

  6. Heidi says:

    Willis was right to do so. No one is pointing out one factor that caused Stallone's and Schwarzenegger's movies to fail was the fact both men make money with guns, but are for infringing on the civil rights of others. Others that are ticket buying fans. The hypocrisy was more than their disappointed fans could endure.

    • Kang says:

      You have documentation to support this claim?

      • Heidi says:

        Do I need any? It's an opinion! But where I came up with this: twitter was alive with Stallone's and Schwarzenegger's comments as soon as they said them. People like #TGDN and #TCOT members knew of them: their fan base. Many loved "The Expendables", and were looking forward to more. Some commented that they were staying home that weekend and watch John Wayne films in protest. The same groups know Willis' statements as well. Personally, I don't care if Stallone or Schwarzenegger are anti-gun, but they would have been wise to keep their mouths shut instead of showing off their blatant hypocrisy, and forcing Willis to voice his position on the argument. When it comes to image, Stallone and Schwarzenegger shot themselves in the foot (pun intended). :)

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Interesting point, Heidi. Thanks for taking the time to comment on my story.

      • Heidi says:

        You're welcome. I believe Willis might not have to say anything at all, except Stallone's and Schwarzenegger's comments might have obligated him to do so. I liked your article and I look forward to more of them. :)

    • Tom says:

      Stallone's acting is enough to cause ANY movie to fail.

  7. bob says:

    GO GUNS!!!!!!

  8. Judge Roy Bean says:

    Willis is an actor. He's no ethicist, no expert on Constitutional law, and no historian. Just an actor. Only small-minded individuals will say, "hey, Bruce Willis is against strengthening the gun laws!" I hear that Bruce didn't want "slavery" removed from the Constitution, either.

    • Claudius Moran says:

      ovomit is only a "community organizer!" Your point? Do you actually think you have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?"

    • Doc says:

      So, tell us judge – with all of your constitutional law expertise, exactly what part of what he said about the 2nd amendment was incorrect?

    • Sharkster says:

      "no expert on Constitutional law"? I suppose the SCOTUS judges that upheld that the 2A is an individual right and that the right extends to possessing "arms in common use by the military at the time" aren't experts in Constitutional law either? Really nice, calling those that know better than you "small minded", there, Judge (I doubt it). Nice try with the "slavery" dig.

    • Flyover says:

      Yet it's perfectly fine to celebrate an actor's perspective when they promote liberal causes? You can't cherry-pick when these comments are "acceptable".

    • Bill says:

      Bull hockey. His support of the Constitution is just as valid as Stallones and Schwartzinegers support for gun control. Where did they get their degrees? Who really gives a big barf what any actor has to say about anything except acting. I may not like what they say, but I will defend what they say with my life.

    • You might want to read the Constitution: "Slavery" does not appear in the text, except once—to be outlawed in the 13th Amendment.

    • Carl says:

      There's only one mention of slavery in the Constitution. From your wording, I'm guessing you're all for the removal of that part. Before you answer that, you better do some research.

      And you're commenting on someones knowledge of the Constitution?

    • Digitoxin says:

      Heh. You have a strange definition for the word “strengthening.” You cannot possibly believe these laws will deter violent gun-related crimes, or that any registered owner with the intent to sell to felons won’t do it. Do you? Even when there are examples of these policies failing hard around the world, today and throughout history?

      Btw, nice attempt to take a whack at Willis’s credibility by playing the slavery card. Unless you can confirm that, you’re letting your anus do the talking for your empty skull. You can’t go your whole life calling everyone you disagree with racist, and expect it to magically replace truths you’d rather not acknowledge. It won’t work forever. Find a new trick.

  9. Dean says:

    "No one commits a crime because they saw a film,” Willis told the Associated Press. “There’s nothing to support that."

    Uh, Bruce, stick to movies not social science. Yer out of your depth.
    http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/03/me

    "In July, 2000, a joint statement was made to the US Congress by the AMA, the APA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. What they said was: "Well over 1,000 studies point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children."

    Yippie-kay-yay, motherf*****.

    • Jay says:

      Aggressive behavior and shooting people isn't the same thing.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Thanks for providing that link Dean, I appreciate you reading my story. Will check out that study.

    • @bryceless says:

      Congrats on citing statements by 4 independent groups that are bought and paid for to release whatever agendas their members and donors want them to put forward. That's like having Phillip Morris declaring that smoking is actually good for you.

    • anthony says:

      CASUAL connection…

      To me that sounds like what it means is violent people are more likely to be attracted to violent media. Look at the Columbine shooters, did they play doom then become violent? Or did their thirst for violence make them attracted to doom? I say it is the latter..

      Now, it may give them a outlet that makes them more likely to stew in it and contemplate it who knows. BUT Stephen kings RAGE also provides a outlet that could make people stew and contemplate it more.

      My point would be this, even if violent media makes it more likely a violent individual is more likely to commit violence.. SO WHAT? Millions of people enjoy violent media without commiting violence, why punish them? Similar with guns

    • mtopple says:

      And these are the groups that wish to have all our children on prescription mind altering drugs. So we should trust anything they say. I suspect that might be a mistake. If you look at the individuals who have committed the 'mass murders' of late there are several factors that are common. They are all on prescription drugs know to result in homicidal outbursts and they are all democrats or the children of democrats.

    • Nate says:

      Really? What media has human kind been consuming for the last 5,000 years? People will always be violent, I don't trust much of anything coming out of congress anyways, I don't know why you do, their track record isn't that great.

  10. stephan says:

    Fully agree with Mr. Willis.

  11. Maggieowl says:

    1 + 1 = 7. Oh yeah, the logic of Bruce Willis. Let me write that down. NOT.

    • Pepper says:

      2+2=fish
      7+7=triangle
      If you understand that, you have an open mind, if you do not, get frustrated, and tell me I am stupid, then you are foolish and close minded. I am just saying, your logic makes no sense, why are you against our Constitutional rights? Without our right to bear arms, we would have no rights. When Britain was governing the colonies, they treated the colonists as if they were less than people, they did not have the same rights as the people of Britain, and with that being said, they had no right to a fair and speedy trial, they didn't have to have probable cause to arrest and hold the Colonists for as long as they wanted.

      Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, stating in the First Amendment that the people will have the right to Press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble. The Second Amendment was not written to protect the right for people to hunt, it was written to protect the First Amendment from a Tyranical Government.

      “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. [Misattributed]”
      ― Thomas Jefferson

      “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
      ― Thomas Jefferson

      “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
      ― George Washington

  12. Rene Lynch says:

    I think it's interesting that Bruce Willis is speaking out — adds to the conversation. But perhaps I am biased…"-)

  13. J Todd Harris says:

    Just who I want opining on our Constitutional rights. That beacon of media violence restraint. Love ya, Bruce. Stick to acting.

  14. Lorinda Stone says:

    Finally an actor with common sense. Go Bruce!!@

  15. Benji Frank says:

    Willis is an actor, but that's just his job. He's a citizen, just like you or I, and has the right to express his opinion on political matters. And he happens to be right. If you look at crime statistics, assault rifles are used in less than .02% of murders, a percentage that is so infinitesimal as to be insignificant. Obama's administration just sent out a memo saying that it has the authority to kill US citizens with drone strikes merely on the assumption that they pose a threat. The guy who orchestrated the drone war will soon be the head of the CIA. How do you think that's going to work out for the citizens of this country? When in your lifetime has the US government ever stepped back after it has taken a right or privilege from it's citizens? Assault rifles aren't about mass murder, they are about the citizen of this country being able to defend themselves against a government when it grows oppressive and arrogant, and places the citizens below those in power. Sounding familiar?

  16. jt says:

    It’s nice to see a celebrity with common sense and one who isn’t kissing the presidents butt to get a invite to the white house or play basketball with! Thanks Brruce

  17. Aaron says:

    I enjoy watching franchises like die hard but I would not say that the proposed legislation is insane like Mr Willis is suggesting. I’m from Canada and we love our guns we have a long history of hunting that goes along with it. But as I understand it they are not talking about abolishing guns, merely placing restrictions on assault weapons and certain magazine sizes. I keep hearing the argument that a good guy with a gun could have stopped the sandy hook tradegy but I see no logic those good guys marching around town looking for the next psycho who is going to kill. The second amendment should not be taken away, merely modernized to reflect modern society

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Thanks for some insight from the North, Aaron! I appreciate you taking the time to read my story.

    • amb says:

      your from canada, guns or no guns, where do you even get off thinking you have a right to comment on american issues. the 2nd amendment and the rest of the bill of rights is what makes this country better than yours. wether there for guns or not, this is our country and my countrymen, we will argue over our rights not you. you dont have that right so keep your comments in line with canadian drama. there are lots of things i think about canada but i dont voice them to canada.

      • Jason says:

        Amb- perhaps you should spell wether as whether and there as they’re when you frame an argument with an English speaking citizen of a different country. Way to represent! Everyone has a right to an opinion on what we do since we are the most influential nation in the world. I, for one, like to hear what others are doing and what they think.

      • canadandy says:

        you don't think anything about canada, you likely couldn't find it on a map. America is NOT better than Canada by any measure that matters. You don't even understand your own constitution, the 2nd amendment does not support private citizens owning ARSENALS.

    • Bill says:

      Please stay North of the border Aaron. We don't particularly care for outside opinions when it comes to our rights, even if they come from a power hungry source like the UN. So butt out please. Thank you.

    • Or Land says:

      Aaron,

      amb and Bill are extremists.

      If you supported their opinion they would likely say well said.

      • Cal says:

        He wasn't saying the proposed gun legislation was insane, he was saying he doesn't know how to legislate "the insane" as in, people who are crazy enough to take a gun into a school and start firing, or people who are crazy enough to throw molotov cocktails into the windows of a hospital, or what have you.

  18. Johnz52 says:

    This is coming from a man who literally owns an entire town in the U.S. and wants to talk about the erosion of freedom and rights. Willis states, “It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families. I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. 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.” With that lack of insight and inability to even attempt a positive action Bruce would certainly have been at a loss for answers for MLK back in 1955. It is more than obvious that Willis has played John McClane one too many times.

    • anthony says:

      how does he own a town? What I am gathering from that statement is "Omg.. he is so rich he can OWN a town!" as if OWNERSHIP and freedom don't go hand in hand..

  19. Nela says:

    What happens if gun laws are changed to take away people's guns? The people who follow the law, most likely will surrender their guns. The people who do not follow the law, continue to break the new gun laws and keep their guns. Who will be at disadvantage?
    The better way is to change the laws for aquiring guns and for keeping them secure. 40% of gun sales are re-sales with little checking of the buyer's identity. Checking buyer's record, including mental health, should be mandatory.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Good points, Nela!

    • Or Land says:

      One of the better comments here.

      Thanks.

    • anthony says:

      I am unsure about checking mental health records. We as a society seem to care for doctor patient confidentiality but somehow the liberals seem to back peddle when it comes to mental illness.

      if someone knows that a psychologist can bar them from gun ownership, that could scare several people away, people that I would WANT to go to a psychologist!

      Statistics also show that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims then assailants, so implying we should go after the mentally ill but not everyone else is in essence saying, "Of course we should have the right to protect ourselves.. accept the most vulnerable amongst us!"

    • Brian says:

      And just who decides what that "mental health" will be?
      It will become a open ended, loosely defined label open to manipulation… much like "terrorist"
      The issue is not guns. It's about control. Arbitrary control.

  20. Mike says:

    Wow, he's actually stupid.

  21. russ says:

    I agree with Bruce 100%. Many of the home video games present violence untethered to the basic concept of right and wrong. Parents allow their children to play endless hours, many of these children are left alone and never get the proper socializing to recognize the video game world is make believe. Maybe the government should work on teaching people how to be better parents than stomping on 2nd Amendment Rights as a knee jerk reaction to a terrible tradegy.

  22. pat says:

    Yes, he is an actor BUT HE IS A CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS JUST LIKE THE REST OF US! Thank you Mr. Willis for speaking the plain truth. They did it in Germany in the 1930's and from that Hitler disarmed his population so they could not fight back. Ask a jewish survivor of a concentration camp what they would have liked to have had to fight back!

    • ex says:

      Hitler actually loosened gun control laws substantially. In 1919, guns were banned in Germany. In 1928, guns were allowed under strict licensing laws. In 1938, when Hitler was in power, rifles and shotguns became entirely unregulated and handgun permits became more widely obtainable and longer-lasting.

      After Hitler’s defeat, guns were banned once more.

      • Sharkster says:

        Yeah, you're right. He was practically handing guns out to the population at large.
        Think about the sheer stupidity of your claim…
        So you are trying to make people believe that a Jew, or any non-Aryan, could simply purchase any weapon that they wanted in WWII Germany.
        Um, I think not, sir.

      • mtopple says:

        But only if you were a party member. The 1928 regulations were implemented following riots between communists and national socialists in a power struggle and officially intended to disram both sides but were only implimented against the communists. If you were an undesirable (an opponent or Jew, Gypsy or black) you were disarmed , not just firearms but anything which could be used as a weapon.

  23. awall1 says:

    I think the key phrase he is saying is he fears taking away a person's second amendment right will result in other rights being taken away. This is a slippery slope fallacy. His argument falls apart because he has no evidence for the intermediate steps of restrictions on some guns/ammunitions/increased backgrounds checks leads to elimination of all rights. I do agree with him on the later point of violent movies/games do not result in violence. That claim is well substantiated in the literature.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Good point re slippery slopes — where does the "hard" line get drawn? Thanks for taking the time to post a comment on my story.

    • Or Land says:

      I'm not sure about your last comment.

      I do believe people that have a predisposition toward violence can be incited by watching violence as a mob can be incited into violence.

    • Karie says:

      Stalin, Hitler, Mao… Ring a bell? they also disarmed their people before killing millions.

  24. David Hardison says:

    I did not hear a peep out of him when the Patriot Act was passed, because we were told that it was going to be used to target "terrorists" instead of "citizens". The Fourth Amendment was reduced to tatters, and then completely wiped out with the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the Government to treat regular US citizens as suspected terrorist agents, while on US soil. Our rights are already going away, and the Second Amendment is the least of my worries. If I cannot exercise speech and complain, or assemble, or rely on the sanctity and privacy of my home, then what good is a gun going to be against a tank? Yippi-ki-yay.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Thanks, David. I was trying to figure out a way to work Yippi-ki-yay into my story…"-) thanks for your time.

    • Tom says:

      Were you out on a street corner holding a sign of protest, or giving a fiery protest speech when the Patriot Act was passed? Give Willis a break – he's an actor, not a politician.

    • @EbenOsgood says:

      Don't forget the 2012 and 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that allows the federal government to detain any American citizen for suspicion of terrorism or related activities for an indefinite period of time at an undisclosed location without due process, and allows the president to declare martial law and use the military as a "policing force."

    • mtopple says:

      If we loose the Second Amendment then you can forget your worries about the rest of your rights because you will then be in Obama's National Socialist Republic of North America with no rights at all.

  25. Paul says:

    Gun laws are hardly the first item in the bill of rights to be attacked or taken from us. Not that the bill of rights is impossible to improve upon. There just isn't any need for a standing militia, and guns aren't doing anything to protect us from the government. All guns are doing is making it easier for us to kill one another. This isn't our biggest problem though, not by a long shot. Perhaps the biggest issue is the corruption of money in politics and it's chilling affect on democracy. Other big issues include the killing of American citizens without due process and the ability for one branch of government to wage war independent of true threats to the nation. Gun laws to me, seem like a distraction. Like abortion or weed. hey divide us and leave us fighting in a system that's too broken to be able to do anything. If the country wasn't spinning out of control these issues would be completely worthy of political debate, but with our political system controlled entirely by multinational corporations that profit from war and poverty, we look like children in the back seat of a car swatting at flies while being driven off a cliff. We need to take our government back. Look up wolf pack. Get involved. Demand campaign finance reform. Whether you're liberal or conservative, we all agree, our vote needs to mean something and our politicians shouldn't be for sale. We can worry about the other things once we regain control of the wheel.

  26. NCX says:

    Pretty superficial, sound bite, analysis there Bruce.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post, NCX. I have to say, I have sympathy for celebs. The media (hello!) asks them a question. They are then on the spot — gotta say something, even if it's "no comment." And then cue the criticism…

  27. Ignore him says:

    Just a marketing ploy to promote the movie

  28. guest says:

    "No one commits a crime because they saw a film." Of course, Mr. Wills would say that since he makes his money on violent movies. Perhaps, Mr. Willis, you are not aware of what happened in Auora, Colorado. And then there was Columnbine. There are other movies, and shows, as well where life imitates so called art.
    Then, there is the other side of the coin – where Hollywood makes movies and money on tragic events.

  29. George Hart says:

    Let us for one second, look at the wording of the Second Amendment. The first clause, to establish a militia. No argument , its the second clause, that everyone seems to be either lying, or perhaps they may be Clair Voiyant . If one really looks at the probable thought process one could construct, that why would they add it, at all, because of hostile Indians, or wanton lawlessness; it (the second clause) was put there, for one thing, that if the people were armed, despotic governments could not do what England has done to us. Second, that all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights would have teeth. No armed populace no resistance, they never would have thought that we as people, would first close the mental hospitals, and turn loose millions of mentally ill people upon our fellow countrymen, nor allow our rights to be taken from us. In closing the second amendment was to make sure that all the other rights we hold as sacred couldn't be tampered with.

  30. DPawlowski says:

    Mr. Willis has always been very up front with his opinions as is his right. The issue with assault weapons could be addressed through the formation of state run "well ordered" militia's. The willing participants would receive yearly training refreshers and target practice much like is done in Switzerland for all able bodied (men) over 18. If US gun owners are willing to go through training and practical demonstration of skills to get their concealed carry then it could be done for military style assault weapons using the militia designation.

  31. Kittybarfola says:

    He's right. If you give our government an inch, it's going to take a mile… and the American People will be the one that loses. Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem.

  32. barbara propes says:

    Bruce makes a point,you can’t control crazys,but you can control how many bullets you need in a clip.I believe I have the right to own a gun and protect myself.Need to keep a closer eye on protecting our schools.Put us grandmothers in the school carrying guns to protect our children.No one messes with us Nannas.

    • anthony says:

      Look up 3d printers, it will get to the point that high capacity magazine prohibition will be just about as futile, if not more futile, then marijuana prohibition.

  33. electedface says:

    40% of guns sold do not perform background checks on the buyer. These are acquired illegally through online gun sales, gun shows, etc.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_hZQPpCJ1M

  34. c frame says:

    I could care less what bruce thinks, he makes his money on violence.

  35. Mike S says:

    Its not difficult to interpret the Bill of Rights – what with the We The People thing its got going. Unenlightened sheeple who have no interest in taking care of themselves should be left to their own wits; equipped with a phone to call a cop and pencil to fill out the crime report form. Thanks to Mr. Madison and the Bill of Rights that protects us from the moronic majority voting with the ideologues.

  36. Matt says:

    I too am a father and cried for those children and families. I however will not take away the freedom earned by our forefathers for me and one day my children the right to bear arms because some nut job went insane. He is absolutely correct that something needs to be done to protect what’s most precious to us, (our families). However to blame guns alone is a crime upon itself.

    If we would only agree that we don’t want dangerous people to have access to guns, and that we want to make sure our children are safe, as much as possible, we can find a solution. I am sure there are people out there a lot smarter than I, and if we put our heads together, there is a solution.

  37. guest says:

    Advertisers spend billions of dollars trying to influence people and how they spend their money by the way that they present their images, messages or both and this guy is trying to say that what people see at the movies has NOTHING to do with how it influences them to behave? We all know that constant exposure to something desensitizes a person to that thing, whether it is violence or suffering or whatever. Rather than defend guns of any kind which is what it sounds like he is doing, he should be saying that although there are automatic weapons in his movies, he in no way endorses the necessity for them in a civilized society. You don't need an automatic weapon to hunt. You don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. People should have the right to hunt and to bear arms to defend themselves and their families, but automatic weapons are basically weapons of mass destruction and should be eliminated for civilian use. I just don't know how anyone can argue with this. He says he has children, but he doesn't live in the "real" world of danger where he has to worry about his kids being involved in a drive by shooting or having them gunned down in school or having his home invaded or any such reality that normal people deal with. If he really cared, he'd take some of that wealth of his and start some programs for inner city kids to give them something better to do than to go around with gangs so that guns and other stuff like that wouldn't be necessary to make them feel important. But, he's a "busy man"….he's got movies to move and more money to make so that he can pile it on top of the big top that he already has. Yeah, just keep running at the mouth Bruce almighty know it all……we all know what your real agenda is.

  38. JZarris says:

    Funny, I don't remember Bruce Willis or any 2nd amendment activists creating much of a fuss over the passage of the Patriot Act or its subsidiary laws.

    • anthony says:

      If I understand what happened here, it is not like he came forward on his own. He was interviewed and someone ASKED him..

      How many interviewers asked him about the patriot act?

      If anything it is a journalist/news problem if anything.

  39. Yuma says:

    He'll still have the right to take his limited understanding of the Constitution to the public and assault our senses with his car chases and explosions which pass for entertainment, so what does he have to fear?

    • Bebosma says:

      You are a moron from Yuma! Go Bruce!!!! It is our RIGHT and the whole Bill of Rights needs to be protected completely. My husband is a retired vet and he fought for your right to say ignorant things. So, Yuma, go ahead!!!

    • Sharkster says:

      "limited understanding of the Constitution"? I suppose the SCOTUS judges that upheld that 2A is an individual right and that that right allows for possession of arms "in common use by the military at the time" also have a limited understanding of the Constitution?

      • E says:

        SCOTUS got it right, but Sharkster doesn’t have a clue. NO fundamental right is absolute. Why should the second amendment be different? As long as the government can show that their law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, the right can be limited.

        The first amendment is limited– you’re not free to make comments that are fighting words, true threats, or are obscene (to name just a FEW of the restrictions).

        A government can place reasonable restrictions on a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion as long as it’s not an undue burden.

        Why should this be different?

      • Sharkster says:

        I'm the one that doesn't have a clue, sir?
        Go read up on the Heller and Miller SCOTUS cases before you start preaching about anybody else having a clue.
        And how do you suppose any ban would pass the test of being " necessary to achieve a compelling government interest", when every area that has passed stringent gun control measures has experienced an INCREASE in crime and gun related deaths? Good luck with that one.

      • Sharkster says:

        Which Constitutional amendment is it again that gives a woman the fundamental right to an abortion?
        Oh, there isn't one. I see. You just made that up.
        Shocking.

      • Sharkster says:

        Which SCOTUS case is it that ruled that private citizens 1A rights are limited to those that are "fighting words" or "obscene"?
        Yeah, I wasn't familiar with that one either.

      • Leviticas says:

        Thats the problem with this country its not about government interests, its about the interests of the citizen. thats what our country was founded on, why else did we have the revolutionary war to begin with? We fought because individual rights where being trampled on and we had fled here to get away from a government that only thought about its interests. The constitutions say for the people not for the government.

      • E says:

        “Which Constitutional amendment is it again that gives a woman the fundamental right to an abortion?”

        The fundamental right to privacy. This is according to SCOTUS. If you are going to follow SCOTUS when they argue that the second amendment grants a right to own a gun in your home (despite that whole “regulated militia bit,” then it’s logically inconsistent to forget about the other rights that you don’t like.

        “Which SCOTUS case is it that ruled that private citizens 1A rights are limited to those that are “fighting words” or “obscene”?”

        The 1A does NOT give you the right to say fighting words. This is a LIMITATION on your fundamental right. A 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

        Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment. Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973)

        “And how do you suppose any ban would pass the test of being ” necessary to achieve a compelling government interest”

        I actually completely agree with you on this. A ban on all guns likely wouldn’t pass this test. But a ban on assault weapons has been fine in the past, and I think universal background checks might. My whole point is that it’s not all or nothing.

      • Sharkster says:

        I haven't checked your research, but I do sincerely commend you on your specific responses.
        I will admit it is more than I expected, as most anti-gunners post little in the way of fact in their responses. Kudos to you.
        I find it hard to believe that even an assault weapons or high capacity magazine ban would pass constitutional muster as SCOTUS has already ruled that 2A rights extend to "arms in common use by the military at the time". Both magazines that hold greater than 7 to 10 rounds and assault rifles are carried by all US troops.

      • Lizzy says:

        Look at the context of regulated militia – and look at Switzerland.

      • E says:

        I’ve read DC v. Heller. The second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm. I’m not denying this. But again, like all fundamental rights, this right isn’t free from restritions. The ruling also only applies to DC, and it is unclear how it applies to the states

    • Or Land says:

      My problem is with the way the conversation is being framed. And Bruce Willis has bought into it. No one is taking away guns and making citizens register guns is a good thing.

      I hear supposed 2nd amendment supporters saying that we need to focus on mental health but HITLER made people register guns. The Hitler well will never run dry.

      Questions I have: In these situations are the weapons registered? To the person committing the crime? Did the owner report it stolen?

      The money spent on the failed drug war would be better spent on stopping the trafficing of illegal weapons.

      • Erin says:

        Have you read what is being proposed? Confiscation is included. Last time I checked confiscation is taking away guns. FYI registration is a first step in total confiscation which has already been cited as the end goal, with this being the first step…

    • Mark says:

      Why not just ban anything with or resembles anything with sharp or pointy objects. If deaths by pencil impalement skyrocket; they'll try and ban pencils! In the mean time guns are being bought, sold, traded all over the US tonight!! Wow, that sounds like second amendment stuff! I better hush, or I'll be banned.

    • kyrah says:

      Yea "Yuma" what the hell are you talking about? weirdo.

    • Lizzy says:

      Yuma, still feeling good about your comment? Enough specifics mentioned to support Willis and exposure your own "limited understanding"? If you don't like the Second Amendment there are plenty of other countries to move to where you would be defenseless and helpless, I could help you pack. Those of us who do understand the origins and intent of the second amendment will stand to maintain this country – your choice if you stand with is or hide behind us.

    • reasonable citizen says:

      Maybe the "rogue "cop" figure is not so glamorous any more.
      I wonder if Dorner fashioned himself after one of Willis' ridiculous movie characters.

    • Cisco says:

      I respect Bruce Willis for saying what he believes in. Not the typical Hollywood star who says whatever helps their career,

  40. Claudius Moran says:

    It's amazing to me that all the liberals LOVE when the LIBERAL actors speak about things which they know NOTHING (so-called "climate change, etc.), yet when a PATRIOTIC actor speaks out, suddenly he is "just an actor!" TYPICAL liberal hypocrisy!

  41. George Hart says:

    It has been said, that there is a correlation between violent movies, and violent behavior in SOME children, and perhaps that control group were from violent based households. The correlation between Alcohol, and violence is well documented. That is why we don't give children guns, or alcohol. The folks at APA, and AMA, and other conscience based organizations have made our world more dangerous! Well, seeing Americans are blind to history, ask the APA, who was instrumental in emptying the mental hospitals starting in early sixties, With Statements like, Human Warehouses, and the like. With those closings, there was supposed to be a community mental health system, it was never done, so the legal system started putting them in jail. and the rest, ON OUR STREETS, that is why children disappear, and people think our streets are not safe. Mix all this , most of the Mass murders weren't done by criminals, but by MADMEN. Now add 2+2, and most stole the weapons. Go figure right! Of course these violent movies spur violent activity. because they are either unstable, and/or should be in a hospital for violently insane people!

  42. ross says:

    Willis has made million by acting in some extraordinarily violent movies. The type of movies condemned by the NRA for making us a more violent nation. Despite this I suspect the gun shill organization is cheering on his comments.

  43. Mike says:

    Bruce Willis is an actor so we'll forgive hime for not understanding that Dc v. Heller upholds a person's right to own a gun for self defense.

  44. Snuffy says:

    I always take my political advice from celebrities, 'cause they're just soooo smart.

  45. BMC says:

    Bruce Willis has a right to his opinion. However, I really don't think at the time of the writing of so many of the laws, it was contemplated that the assault weapons (like the type used at Sandy Hook) would be available to people outside law enforcement and the military. These are weapons of war. They should never have been available to the general public. Exactly how many bullets do hunters need to take down a single deer. It is pure insanity to continue to allow sales of these weapons to continue.

  46. Shiroto says:

    Yeah, first your "right" to guns is taken away, and the next thing you know, your right to have your family, friends and neighbors massacred by a lunatic with an assault rifle will be taken away.

  47. OH2DC2LA says:

    leave it to Bruce…what a delight to finally have a "bankable one" stand up and openly speak his truth, as I dare say it more reasonably reflects the wider ("below the line"/worker bees) community here in "Hollywood" than the rest of America would ever be led to believe by certain media outlets.

    as an industry dad raising 3 boys here in LA, I can offer first hand, on-the-ground testimony that there are far more "out here" on "the Left coast" who echo and support BW's statement.

    (cont.)

    • Rene Lynch says:

      That is really interesting, OH2 — so much for the theory of "the Left coast." thank you for taking the time to comment on my article.

  48. OH2DC2LA says:

    unfortunately, the dominant symbols of our industry, our location, even our cars and foods have been co-opted to serve a politicized, media-driven mythology: farm fresh/organic does not mean anti-gun (just ask my farmer and his truck driver!) any more than my Prius should be assumed a symbol of my "Leftist" views (its actually a wholly pragmatic, libertarian gesture — take THAT Big Oil!).

    so for those of us here living and working in LA (and across the USA) who share Bruce's compassion for the families in CT (and Chicago and Newark … and … and …) at the same time an abiding respect for our Bill of Rights and Constitution, well, I say thank you for your thoughtful statements.

    ultimately, this is the stuff of true leadership — unpremeditated, unprogrammed, unfiltered — whether on a single topic or an entire platform, such candid remarks inspire and move folks.

    while I'm sure it wasn't your intention (all the more inspiring!), you certainly got my vote, Bruce!

  49. Steve-o says:

    I like how the stupid people commenting here say that bruce is not right when commenting on our constitutional rights. He obviously has read the 2nd amendment and all of the quotes from the founding fathers during the time the constitution was made. And many of the founding fathers have CLEARLY said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizens of the U.S. to protect themselves from a tyrannical government should one ever come into power. And its common sense also to have a gun or rifle to protect yourselves from thugs in your city.

  50. E says:

    A lot of people fail to understand that NO fundamental right is absolute. Yes the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. But as long as the government can show that their law is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, the right can be limited. Why should the second amendment be different?

    The first amendment is limited– you’re not free to make comments that are fighting words, true threats, or are obscene (to name just a FEW of the restrictions).

    A government can place reasonable restrictions on a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion pre-viability as long as it’s not an undue burden.

    Why should this be different?

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Good points, E! Thanks for taking the time to comment on my story.

    • Chris Gadsden says:

      Can you point me to the 'fundamental right to abortion' in the Constitution, please? I know John Adams or Ben Franklin put it in there, perhaps towards the back somewhere…

      And yes, if you read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence you will see that God has given Mankind absolute, unalienable rights that the govt are ransacking. The ONLY way to amend the Constitution is by a two-thirds majority in the Congress. The Supreme Court cannot restrict these UNALIENABLE rights any more then the executive branch can; though they can OVERTURN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.

      NO AWB, 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, is constitutional unless it is an amendment passed by 2/3 majority in Congress, effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment.

      And yes, I argue that restrictions to the First Amendment are likewise UNCONSTITUTIONAL (though the SCOTUS didn't agree).

      And who elects the SCOTUS? No one. The President APPOINTS THEM!

      'Compelling Government Interest?' Yes, this is a term straight out of Constitutional Law 101, but wouldn't a Tyrannical Government have a 'Compelling Interest' in disarming a populace they intended to enslave? Compelling Government Interest is a sham. Just an excuse to INFRINGE on UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

  51. John says:

    Finally someone who gets it

  52. NoDuh says:

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

    The 2nd ammendment was a change in the first place. It wasn't in the Constitution, that's why they call it an ammendment.

  53. charles morgan says:

    I think Mr. Willis is absolutely right and I agree wholeheartedly with his take on this matter. You can not legislate craziness and if there are 300 million plus guns in America, then obviously law abiding citizens are taking great care not to break the law and/or have accidental shootings while in their possession at their homes, etc. Furthermore, Mr. Willis is a citizen and acting is his profession. He has every right to share his opinion openly!

  54. srdjan says:

    agree, got some good points, enough of this pierce morgan bs

  55. Natalie says:

    OMG! its Bruce Willis. Someone take notes. Get back to the set.

  56. HarveyMushman says:

    As unapologetically left as the Los Angeles Times has become, I am surprise they are even reporting this story….

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Hey Harvey, thanks for commenting on my story. I'm sorry you think the paper leans "unapologetically left." I did my best — hope you agree — to play this one straight down the middle. Thanks again.

  57. Sophie says:

    I'm progressive, and I agree with him, though I do believe in banning assault weapons.

  58. Bill Hoover says:

    I own a pistol, have had a gun in my face—but still struggle on this matter. Do I want EVERY adult who CAN own & legally 'carry' a pistol in the U.S. to have one?? NO. I strongly believe that convicted shooters need be studied. How many, in passion, use one because it was convenient/at hand?? How many would not have acted in so deadly a manner if a pistol was not SO readily available; and, I'm not talking common criminals as much as otherwise decent folks who, in flare of passion or desperation used a gun unnecessarily? If ALL who could–legally–carried full time, how many unwarranted killings would result? Truly a subject needing in depth study & consideration.

  59. TruePatriot3percent says:

    I'm so damn tired of listening to these Liberals trying to rationalize their reasons for destroying the constitution. The reason you oppose the 2nd amendment is because you're conditioned to do so. We fight for the 2nd amendment not because we like violence and certainly not because we want to hurt ANYONE. We do it because we want the ability to take care of ourselves. Whether it be from home invaders, or a tyrannical government. We don't want the government telling us what's good for us and we don't trust them to take care of us. New laws do nothing except make new criminals. No more laws, No more regulation, GET OUT OF OUR BUSINESS! 3%!

  60. Indalo says:

    I think actors should keep deeply quiet from time to time. Some of them seem to be senile when they´re only on sixties. It´s not the best for such great players as Willis.

  61. alfred perez says:

    All i know is all you cry babies so concetned about what your neighbor may or may not have in his possesion for protection are gonna wish you had it when you need it .. Sissies

  62. Sean says:

    We all know the saying in regards to the oh so precious 1st amendment liberals guard with a passion," I might not agree to what you're saying, but I'll support to the death your right to say it."

    How can we "support to the death" without the 2nd amendment? Are you liberals getting it yet?

    • Digitoxin says:

      LOL. Liberals would rather surrender their rights than die for them, let alone on behalf of someone who dares to disagree with them.

  63. Gil says:

    Willis doesn't seem to be a very intelligent person.

  64. Ellen says:

    Too bad he doesn't understand that there are limits on some rights, for example, the 1st amendment. So why not the 2nd? Always better to speak up AFTER you have your facts straight.

  65. Ellen says:

    In fact, there are also limits on the 2nd amendment: you can't run around with a machine gun or tank, can you.

  66. @spartantown says:

    Bruce is entitled to his opinion. I'm sure considering the gun violence in the movie some reporter asked about gun control. It's clear he doesn't fully understand what gun control measures are on the table right now so his uninformed opinion is of no consequence. With that said I'm looking forward to the movie.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Thanks for commenting on my story, Spartantown — I think we have chatted over on Twitter, too, no?? I like your point: I, too, am looking forward to the movie!

  67. Johnz52 says:

    Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent, two aging baby boomer beacons of intellectual thought and restraint.

  68. Livi says:

    Well, his views are his business. Regardless of what is right or not, I respect him for speaking his mind.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      thanks for taking the time to comment on my story, Livi. I am with you — I admire him speaking out on something particularly when he must know he'll be criticized. Gotta give him that.

  69. mike says:

    Lets get real. gun violence has to do with our culture. you cannot legislate a change in culture! I believe that if you change gun laws the "bad guys" will continue to commit terrible crimes and the law abiding public will follow the law. how does that make common folk more safe? Owning a gun is not a crime. using it to harm innocent children/people is. Please, please focus on the individual and not the Right to own a gun. The individual makes the decision to use the gun to harm others. The law abiding citizen uses the gun for recreation, sport and to protect family. If we outlaw guns do we really think that makes us safer? Really? Outlawing drugs has worked so well! Focus on the intent of the 2nd ammendment to fight off an oppressive government. sure the current military has weapons that far outweigh weapons that are leagal to own, but does that mean we diminish the rights of citizens? I would never hurt a child or another adult unless they threatened my family. Am i to give up that right because mentally unstable individuals have acted without regard for the common man?

    • Rene Lynch says:

      Excellent point mike: "you cannot legislate a change in culture!"

      • Digitoxin says:

        If you can’t legislate changes in culture, then I guess we’re just imagining the Civil Rights Movement and the subsequent legislation of the cultural change.

  70. John Haynes says:

    For all you ignorant people out there, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, learn what a rifle is before you put your foots in your stupid mouths. Just Because ignorant govt officials call them assault rifles , doesn't mean they are , go look up the definition. Doesn't anyone in this country know how to find out what the military considers assault rifles ? Also any other definition of an AR-15 , it is a long rifle , not an assault rifle. I can see that most of the people in this country just don't know what they are talking about. Letting them ban AR-15s just opens the door to banning all semi-auto rifles or bolt action, as they are all defined as long rifles.

  71. JohnR says:

    Can any of you give the definition of an assault weapon ?

  72. @ridgebac52 says:

    Bruce Willis can't act and is ignorant about firearms that maim and kills tens of thousands Americans each year. He thinks he has something special to say because as a grade B actor his movies are about rogue violent cops who take the law into their own hands. Mr. Willis has mistaken his roles for the real world and needs some mental health help to get himself together. As for his understanding of constitutional law let's just say it's as vacant as his opinion on guns.

    • Digitoxin says:

      Generalizing and throwing around the word “ignorant” isn’t an end-game saysall, nor does insulting his acting or his films – both of which are irrelevant to the real-life debacle over the 2’nd Amendment insomuch that it’s fictional. “The Sixth Sense” and the role a gun played in it could also be brought into question here, as well as the part he played – which, as it happens, isn’t a gun-toting rogue slaughtering baddies on his own terms. Or how about “Look Who’s Talking?” No? Your opinion of his acting doesn’t have anything to do with this argument. You just threw it in to smear him because you don’t agree. Nice try, though.

      Ignorant about firearms? Bruce Willis owns them, has been in several films with guns you apparently don’t like too much, and has worked with pyrotechnicians his whole career. What do you mean by “ignorant about firearms?”

      What, again, is your measure of Constitutional authority, or your knowledge of how much Bruce Willis understands it? Oh wait.

      So the common consensus is that actors who play similar roles in movies, yet protest the 2’nd Amendment, are exempted from the same scrutiny people like Bruce Willis have to endure? That’s some logic. Side with the hypocrites and attack Constitutional proponents by implying they’re being hypocritical.

  73. Joe says:

    It's about time someone stood up and told the politicians to stop screwing with our rights!

  74. Xdm40cal says:

    At one has something good to say….thankful that the 1st amendment has been attacked…yet.

  75. BubbaLubba says:

    Free Obama Phones,free Health care, free food stamps to use at the strip clubs, Hmmmm but Only if your of Color, WTFU Sheeple yes Bruce Willis has it right on this one. Leave our guns ALONE !!!

  76. MissClarity says:

    Bruce: Your ignorance is showing. Suggest you read up on the 'facts'. And hurry up and make your moviessssss. We are waiting.

  77. This dbag just trying to sell his movie. How many times can one make the same movie? Honey Boo Bo is as good at acting as this hack. The movie, the acting, the subject is just tired. It’s all about the money. Boring. Which branch of the military did this tough guy serve in?

  78. Richard Reiser says:

    Good for you Bruce!!! My family has been avoiding going out to the movies and spending our money at theaters cause most Hollywood types are hypocrites who put out gun type movies then preach anti gun garbage like that Idiot Stalone. I will go to your next movie. In fact I’m buying all of your movies on blue ray. Thumbs up sir.

    • Rene Lynch says:

      You are not the only one who will be voting with your dollars when the new "Die Hard" movie opens next month, Richard! Several other folks who posted here also say they will turn out to support Willis and his stance. Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post.

  79. Pepper says:

    Wow. I do not understand. There are so many ill educated people out there. Bruce, rock on, thank you for being a voice for so many being silenced. Here is something I wrote, not sure if it is going to post on the comment I replied to, but I'll see if it will show up here;

    ‎2+2=fish

    7+7=triangle

    If you understand that, you have an open mind, if you do not, get frustrated, and tell me I am stupid, then you are foolish and close minded. I am just saying, libral logic makes no sense, why are you against our Constitutional rights? Without our right to bear arms, we would have no rights. When Britain was governing the colonies, they treated the colonists as if they were less than people, they did not have the same rights as the people of Britain, and with that being said, they had no right to a fair and speedy trial, they didn't have to have probable cause to arrest and hold the Colonists for as long as they wanted.

    Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, stating in the First Amendment that the people will have the right to Press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble. The Second Amendment was not written to protect the right for people to hunt, it was written to protect the First Amendment from a Tyranical Government.

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. [Misattributed]”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
    ― George Washington

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson, Complete Jefferson

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
    ― Noah Webster

  80. Wayniac says:

    Good on Bruce. I may have to break my typical rule and actually go to see his movie in the theater just to show my appreciation for his pro 2nd Amendment stand.

  81. Kim says:

    Finally!!! Someone from Hollywood who's not afraid of the Prez

  82. razarbak says:

    Does anyone realize how we became the greatest country in the history of the world?

    What would the people from the 1770’s say to us today? The problems we experience today will not be fixed with gun control.

    Folks, I believe we are in a downward spiral, god help us all.

  83. Joyce says:

    Dang Bruce I always thought of you as one of the intelligent actors, in fact I kinda love you, but the laws made back then we were using muskets not automatic machine guns, the law needs to be changed to exclude such weapons.

  84. Digitoxin says:

    I’m just shocked so many people have been duped into believing they don’t **really** have rights to begin with. They can believe that, and that belief makes it true, but for those of us who don’t swallow every propaganda load the MSM tries to blow down our throats, we like what we have. And yes, we’d rather die than surrender them. If there are people who feel their rights are tangible or subject to repeal, there are people seeking to terminate those rights perpetuating the notion. But I’ll be god-damned if I allow anyone to convince me to question or willingly surrender any right I was born with. They can just go right ahead and get to kissing my ass.

  85. Shannon says:

    Something to think about…..

    You can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone

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

  86. jeremy says:

    bruce is right,one law to limit the people will just make it easier for another law and another law!and after they take away assualt rifles and that doesnt work then they will take away another till no guns,like isn't illegal to have fully auto guns,well why do the gangsters where i live still have them?and what will stop the guns from crossing the border last i looked meth and herion is illegal and (not sure how accuarent)i bet over 50% of US citezen have tried one or both so no on any new gun laws or any laws!

  87. Karie says:

    Bruce Willis may "just" be an actor, but he is still an American citizen and has a right to voice his opinion, First Amendment. The Second Amendment, a right for the people to bear arms against tyranny. We are a Constitutional Republic, a society based on the rule of law. Our current administration and a few previous others seemed to have forgotten this. Of The People, By The People, For The People.

  88. Cat Bardwell says:

    I respect this actor more all the time. Thank you, Bruce Willis, for having the courage to speak out your convictions. Rock on, man!

  89. Chris Gadsden says:

    Why is it that hordes of liberal 'actors' have and continue to use their fame to sway public opinion AGAINST the Second Amendment, while contemporaneously poisoning young viewers with viloent 'cinema' that, while itself may not CAUSE violence in young people, will certainly FACILITATE it through pshchological conditioning (read Pavlov), and it is the ONE actor who stands against HOLLYWOOD as a whole who is lambasted for mixing POLITICS with ENTERTAINMENT?

    I, for one, will do everything in my power to encourage people like Mr. Willis to stand up for freedom and liberty, as outlined in the Constitution, in real life as well as in the movies. This includes watching his movies and boycotting those who oppose LIBERTY.

    Mr. Willis, I applaud you.

  90. JRPerk1ns says:

    He's got it 100% on the nose. Go Bruce

  91. joe says:

    You are full of it Bruce no body is taking your rights? maybe your rights to make mega dollars on your gun gun movies? I dunno but some thing has you speaking out?

  92. vincewarde says:

    Bruce gets it. He makes his living with the 1st Amendment.

    There is no question that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep us free from an oppressive central government – among other things. It seems to me that this should still be a concern to anyone – left, right or center – who values freedom.

    Long guns are used in a very small percentage of crimes – so few that the DC Circuit recently ruled that long gun registration is unconstitutional. That case is likely headed to SCOTUS. Yet what has been the focus of most gun control efforts? Long guns, of course.

    Long guns do indeed make very poor crime guns (hard to conceal) – but they are the best tool we have to resist a truly out of control central government, if – God forbidden – one ever comes to power. Indeed, the mere fact that the American people could resist, that state governments could mobilize resistance forces – the very militia envisioned by the founders – IS A POWERFUL DETERRENT TO TYRANNY.

  93. CommonSense says:

    Repeal the second amendment, the same way we repealed the 18th amendment. 18th amendment helped vicious bootleggers so we repealed it, 2nd ammendment helps vicious gun-runners (aka NRA) so we should repeal that. Guns have no place in civil society , and changing a bad amendment doesn't mean "all our rights go away", just NRA scare tactics. NRA routinely threatens both congress and celebrities to support their gun-running, got a call it out for what it is. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close
E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis