Bruce Willis Speaks Out Against Gun Laws

[Sam Fisher]

02/08/13

Hollywood actor Bruce Willis has spoken out against the new gun-control laws, brushing off link between onscreen and real-life violence.

The Die Hard star has said he's staunchly opposed to the new laws, discounting a perceived theory that violent films influence real-life shoot-outs while warning against the potential erosion of civil rights that such laws may engender, reported E! Online.

"No one commits a crime because they saw a film. There's nothing to support that. 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," Bruce Willis said.

The 57-year-old star said he remains deeply empathetic toward families of victims of horrific mass shootings in the wake of tragedies like the one in Newtown.

"It's a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families. I'm a father and it's just a tragedy."




Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130208005-willis-laws.html#OmwLKW37tQXMxhRT.99

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

Funny, any time a liberal celebrity is mentioned around here, you're always first in line to bitch about how celebrities are all out-of-touch hypocritical moon-bats, and how no one should care about/listen to their delusional opinions.

 

[Rey C.]

Funny, any time a liberal celebrity is mentioned around here, you're always first in line to bitch about how celebrities are all out-of-touch hypocritical moon-bats, and how no one should care about/listen to their delusional opinions.

^^^ This ^^^

Yeah, that is interesting, isn't it? I think it's just part of what we have in this country (the world?) now: people seek out whoever tends to agree with them, supposedly validating their beliefs, and glom onto their words, even if that person is part of a group that they usually say is part of the problem.

While I am opposed to many of the gun control schemes I've heard about so far, I also have no more (or less) respect for Bruce Willis and his claims than I do for those of Patricia Arquette or Rosie O'Donnell. I think he's full of shit on the basis of his theory. If people are not influenced by what they see, then why do companies pay millions of dollars per minute for Super Bowl commercials, why do modern politicians spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign ads, why did Hitler and Goebbels spend so much time developing propaganda films in Nazi Germany, why did one of my former employers spend $10 million a year to place our company name on a Formula One car and why has Hollywood always gone to such lengths to push certain social messages in its mainstream films, but not others? Of course people are influenced by this stuff. That doesn't mean that I think a particular movie or scene causes someone to commit a violent act. But I do think that there are people on the margins that might be more influenced by certain scenes or depictions than others.

 

[Johan]

Funny to se how the so-called Reagan Coalition fight against banning assault rifles considering where Reagan standed on that issue

Irony, you such a bitch !

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Funny to se how the so-called Reagan Coalition fight against banning assault rifles considering where Reagan standed on that issue

Irony, you such a bitch !

Well he is right, it's not needed to defend a home, or for hunting....but it is necessary, as defined in the Second Amendment, to the security of a free State, and to fight the oppressive government, that may need to defend ourselves from.


And if you want to talk about irony, you should've brought up, how HE traded AK47's, and missile launchers for drugs, to arm the Contras, and fund a rebel war. Funny how people forget that.

Your anti gun Republican, is as much of a fucking hypocrite, as your messiah, obama is.

Has anyone else noticed how Johan has started becoming snotty, and bitchy, ever since EVERY single one of his anti gun arguments have been bitch slapped right back down to him? He's resorting to the very behavior he condemns many others for.

IRONY IS A BITCH!!!

 

[Mayhem]

Well he is right, it's not needed to defend a home, or for hunting....but it is necessary, as defined in the Second Amendment, to the security of a free State, and to fight the oppressive government, that may need to defend ourselves from.


And if you want to talk about irony, you should've brought up, how HE traded AK47's, and missile launchers for drugs, to arm the Contras, and fund a rebel war. Funny how people forget that.

Your anti gun Republican, is as much of a fucking hypocrite, as your messiah, obama is.

Has anyone else noticed how Johan has started becoming snotty, and bitchy, ever since EVERY single one of his anti gun arguments have been bitch slapped right back down to him? He's resorting to the very behavior he condemns many others for.

IRONY IS A BITCH!!!

Seriously, I have noticed this.

 

[Johan]

I'm being sontty and bitchy towards Sam and Will (or sometimes other people whose words I find deeply stupid).

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

^^^ This ^^^

Yeah, that is interesting, isn't it? I think it's just part of what we have in this country (the world?) now: people seek out whoever tends to agree with them, supposedly validating their beliefs, and glom onto their words, even if that person is part of a group that they usually say is part of the problem.

It's called confirmation bias. Fox News and MSNBC rely on it as a business model.

 

[Rey C.]

If he could talk (from my dinner plate) the Whitetail deer that I shot with my AK might disagree with Reagan that it is not a sporting weapon. Course, much like Reagan, the deer is also dead. Also, it's becoming tiresome to have to point out that the AK's available to most Americans (and others) are not machine guns. They're not fully automatic or even select fire. So they're not "assault weapons"... they're not sturmgewehrs. My car may look (cosmetically) similar to a race car. But it's not a race car. To the untrained eye, someone who doesn't know anything about racing or cars might be fooled and wonder why something that looks that way is allowed on the public roads, I guess. But just like the civilian models of the AK variants available here, it's not what it looks like.

And Reagan's claim that AKs are unsuitable for home defense... uh, just why not? Please give me some exact, precise reasons. Although I voted for him, unlike the tighty righties of today, I didn't worship the guy. Like my recent votes for Obama, he was just the better option at that time, IMO. And I'm unaware that he was any sort of firearms expert. For most homes, a handgun is the better (indoor) option for self defense. But outdoors, I would reach for the AK (or maybe a shotgun) before I would a pistol. And I don't mean against a human threat - under most circumstances I think it would be pretty stupid to leave my house just to prove my manly manliness, away from the cover of walls and doors - stupid, fake-brave (dead) people do that. The outdoor threat that I have in my area typically involves coyotes. And if a pack of coyotes is after my horses or my dog, I'm sure as hell not going to wander around outside with a pistol or a bolt action rifle. I'm going to take my AK. With a shotgun, why would I take a chance on accidentally shooting my horses or my dog if a coyote is on them? And like probably 99% of shooters, I'm a lot better with a rifle/carbine than I am a pistol.

Reagan had Secret Service agents with mini-Uzis protecting him - before and after he left the White House. Long after he left office, like all former Presidents, the taxpayers paid for him to have dudes with (real) assault weapons protecting him in his home. So my obvious question is this: if assault weapons are not suitable for home defense, then why does the Secret Serrvice use them to protect Presidents in their homes??? Something is not adding up here. But look, on issues of self-defense and what type of firearm is appropriate for me or other private homeowners, Reagan's words mean no more to me than the words of Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy or Michael Bloomberg. Anybody that has professional security forces (who always have submachine guns slung across their shoulders) watching over them 24/7 has few valid points to make on this issue, IMO.

 

[Will E Worm]

The real meaning behind the 2nd Amendment Link

 

[Whit]

I'm being sontty and bitchy towards Sam and Will (or sometimes other people whose words I find deeply stupid).

It's only OK for right wing idiots to act like that here, not you.

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

Well he is right, it's not needed to defend a home, or for hunting....but it is necessary, as defined in the Second Amendment, to the security of a free State, and to fight the oppressive government, that may need to defend ourselves from.


And if you want to talk about irony, you should've brought up, how HE traded AK47's, and missile launchers for drugs, to arm the Contras, and fund a rebel war. Funny how people forget that.

Your anti gun Republican, is as much of a fucking hypocrite, as your messiah, obama is.

Has anyone else noticed how Johan has started becoming snotty, and bitchy, ever since EVERY single one of his anti gun arguments have been bitch slapped right back down to him? He's resorting to the very behavior he condemns many others for.

IRONY IS A BITCH!!!

1: I don't recall ever seeing his arguments about gun control being "bitched slapped right back down at him". If anything they're met with macho name-calling (sam) and dismissive emoticons (will).

2: Given the numerous times he's presented reason and fact as part of his argument, and been met with what I just described, why the fuck would he bother to mind his manners around such contemptible scum?

Nobody's going to change their minds around here. There is only argument, which is fine for a bit of sport. But why should Johan have to display good sportsmanship when Sam and Will continually throw rabbit punches and stomp in pile?

 

[xfire]

Why should Johan have to display good sportsmanship when Sam and Will continually throw rabbit punches and stomp in pile?

That's a good question that deserves an answer.

 

[Sam Fisher]

1: I don't recall ever seeing his arguments about gun control being "bitched slapped right back down at him". If anything they're met with macho name-calling (sam) and dismissive emoticons (will).

2: Given the numerous times he's presented reason and fact as part of his argument, and been met with what I just described, why the fuck would he bother to mind his manners around such contemptible scum?

Nobody's going to change their minds around here. There is only argument, which is fine for a bit of sport. But why should Johan have to display good sportsmanship when Sam and Will continually throw rabbit punches and stomp in pile?

What about your signature? Aren't you throwing rabbit punches?

icardfacepalm:

 

[xfire]

What about your signature? Aren't you throwing rabbit punches?

He's not Johan, and you didn't answer the question.

 

[Sam Fisher]

He's not Johan, and you didn't answer the question.

Who designated you the referee?

 

[xfire]

I'm not a referee, I'm just interested in an answer. If you can't or won't answer, just say so.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I'm not a referee, I'm just interested in an answer. If you can't or won't answer, just say so.

I never accused Johan of being bitchy nor snotty. You Might want to direct that question to revidffum, and not me.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

1: I don't recall ever seeing his arguments about gun control being "bitched slapped right back down at him". If anything they're met with macho name-calling (sam) and dismissive emoticons (will).

2: Given the numerous times he's presented reason and fact as part of his argument, and been met with what I just described, why the fuck would he bother to mind his manners around such contemptible scum?

Nobody's going to change their minds around here. There is only argument, which is fine for a bit of sport. But why should Johan have to display good sportsmanship when Sam and Will continually throw rabbit punches and stomp in pile?

I never said Sam wasn't acting douchey...I was referring to Johan, and my exchanges actually. Most of his reason and fact has been refuted...my word for that was bitch slapped. The whole post was about him and I, no one else....Sam or Will have nothing to do with it.

 

[lurkingdirk]

2: Given the numerous times he's presented reason and fact as part of his argument, and been met with what I just described, why the fuck would he bother to mind his manners around such contemptible scum?

Nobody's going to change their minds around here. There is only argument, which is fine for a bit of sport. But why should Johan have to display good sportsmanship when Sam and Will continually throw rabbit punches and stomp in pile?

This is excellent advice for everyone. Do you think arguing/name calling is going to change people's minds? Hell, presenting some people with solid facts that disprove their arguments isn't enough to change minds on an internet porn forum.