Bruce Willis: Don't infringe on Second Amendment

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:26 p.m.

    It is unfair and wrong to ban certain guns because someone has done something stupid. They will never be able to change the constitution.

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    Our ratios are higher because we have more urban/inner cities than most places cited. The vast majority of our gun violence comes from areas of low income, unemployment, drug use, and gang activity. It's unfortunate that these types of people mess up the ratios because they have a criminal disposition almost from childhood because that's what they have grown up with. Fatherless homes, welfare, drugs. It's probably the reason most resort to joining a gang anyway, but that is where the most crime comes from. I would love to see numbers outside of the inner city. I'll bet they are more in line with those "low crime" countries cited.

    So, why use Chicago Mark B? yes, why indeed. Let's use Cedar City, Nephi, Heber, Aspen, Beverly Hills, Wallsburg. Let's run the numbers there and see what they come up to shall we?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:25 p.m.

    @snowman: "
    Any gun control is infringment on the 2nd amendment."

    Taking your statement at face value, banning machine guns, banning fully automatic weapons, prohibiting felons and lunatics from owning guns, all of those are infringing on the Second Amendment. Since I can assume that you approve of those restrictions despite your statement to the contrary, I'm going to take the statement to mean, "Any law keeping me from owning the guns I want to own, in any quantities I want to own them, is an infringement of the Second Amendment." The above-mentioned restrictions make it abundantly clear that gun ownership is not an absolute right and that some limitations are acceptable. The only question is, what other restrictions are also reasonable and necessary for the good of society?

  • Dont Tread Iron County, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    I would love to see a tag-team political debate with Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood in one corner and Stevie Wonder and George Clooney in the other corner. Yippee-Kiyae...Punk.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:16 p.m.


    There are no limits in the 2nd amendment. It says we have the right to bear arms. It does not say what ones

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Then why does the organization you champion(NRA) actively, with lobbyists and campaign donations, try and suppress the gun laws that are already on the book. The people (I would use something stronger, but the deseret news only allows liberal bashing, don't speak ill of conservative causes) in control at the NRA are incredibly two faced. Publicly the support the laws on the books, but behind the scenes they are doing nothing but undermining them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    To "andyjaggy" actually we can't provide the mental health services because current regulations prevent the police from taking people to get mental evaluations. We used to get the mental evaluations done, but recently the government for whatever reason has stopped doing them. People can still get mental health evaluations, they either have their health insurance pay for them or else they pay out of pocket. (Why should the government pay for all mental health evaluations?)

    As you show, the US is lumped in with nations that have high crime rates and large amounts of organized crime. Maybe that has something to do with the US problems?

  • liberate Sandy, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    I hesitate to comment because this type of thread eventually becomes name calling and insults, but I will. I'm liberal in many ways and have generally supported Obama. But on gun control I think we achieve no benefit by preventing only law abiding citizens from owning weapons. If we could somehow remove all guns from society, except perhaps those used for hunting, I'd support gun control. But to increase the laws on the books to effectively make it more difficult for only those who abide by the laws to procure weapons is ludicrous. As I've studied it, we have enough gun laws on the books and only need to enforce them. Why add more when we are not able to enforce the ones we already have? Unfortunately we live in a society that has a high crime rate relative to most other OECD countries (like the oft cited Japan). We will always have crime so why tilt the balance of power further to the criminally minded?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    Provo, UT,

    Craig Clark
    "Any gun control is infringment on the 2nd amendment...."

    Not according to no less a defender of the Second Amendment than Antonin Scalia who in the 2008 ruling that protects a person’s right to bear arms also wrote, "....the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...."

    Scalia has often reaffirmed the right of the Courts to decide where the line is to drawn.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Okay, let's see if I have this straight.

    We can't regulate assault weapons because it infringes on our 2nd amendment rights.

    Hollywood and video games aren't too blame.

    We can't provide mental health services to people who need them because that's socialism and Obamacare is evil.

    We are quickly running out of options here. Are mass shooting just one of the "freedoms" that we get to experience by living in the Unites States? Last I checked we are grouped right around Uruguay, Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, and Nicaragua in gun related homicides (3.6 gun homicides/100,000 people). Meanwhile countries that have stricter gun laws enjoy rates far below ours. UK 0.04, Japan 0.02, Norway 0.04, Germany 0.06, etc.... If gun regulations don't work than why does every other country with stricter regulations enjoy massively lower gun homicide rates? Work that one out.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    Snowman, you can't buy a fraction of the number and type of weapons that exist because they are illegal to possess. Are totally unaware that the 2nd Amendment is chock full of limits?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Kirk, I can argue the same point: What's to stop one from carrying multiple 30-round clips? We can argue the semantics all day, but I stand by my post that smaller clips would do less damage (and that's smaller clips used by a person to appease Lost!) I would also argue against the regular Joe changing out clips in a half a second. This is just my opinion.

    As far as knee-jerk reactions, there has been plenty of that on both sides, and both sides have strong arguments. But nothing will change until there is a cultural change within the whole country as far as conflict resolution.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    Movies no.
    Video games yes.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    Bruce Willis says, Don't blame me!

    Ok, Bruce. I don't blame you, personally, for all of it. But most people have a good hunch that violence in films probably has a negative effect on us. Can you accept that?

    And regarding the untouchable 2nd has already been touched, and limited ages ago. You cannot buy every weapon you use and see in the movies. Many of them, some of the real ones, are against the law to possess. Can you accept that?

    Sorry, Bruce, you are just plain wrong on both accounts.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    Craig Clark
    Any gun control is infringment on the 2nd amendment. The criminals will have guns so why can't we.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    "If I take a gun to a school with a 5-round clip, and someone else takes a gun to a school with a 30-round clip, who is going to do the most damage?"

    You miss the point entirely. What is to stop the guy with the 5 round clip from carrying 20 of them? and how long does it take to drop and reload a clip? About .5 seconds for someone who has practiced. So, what exactly is the difference between a 50-round clip and a 5-round clip? 5 second. And with only .5 second reload time, there is no difference at all as things are happening.

    restricting gun ownership is not about safety. The arguments used by those for restrictions don't hold any water (except perhaps background checks). So, what is it really about? It's about our politicians being seen to do something (think knee jerk reaction). doesn't matter what, as long as we think they're doing it. And if they can turn it into a us vs them thing, then they win even more at the polls.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    Media should shoulder some of the blame for the rise in violent acts, we portray so much violence in movies, tv, and video games. However, we will continue to see problems as 1st and 2nd amendment rights clash in what is actually right and moral to do, thus placing responsibility on those exercising both amendments' rights to show some moral judgement in how they act. If we continue to have those who stick to only one tenet then we'll continue to see problems.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 6, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Lost: Would you care to have an adult discussion, or the childish discussion you resorted to? It's up to you!

    If I take a gun to a school with a 5-round clip, and someone else takes a gun to a school with a 30-round clip, who is going to do the most damage?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    you mean that gun carried itself into the school, pulled its own trigger, reloaded all by itself? No human handled it? WOW!

    You said the gun was the culprit.

    Pretty smart weapon, self-aware and everything.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    To "lket" why can't people own different rifles for the fun and enjoyment of shooting?

    Are all automobiles limited to the speedlimit for the maximum speed?

    If we applied your logic to cars, we would never need passenger cars with more than about 180 hp. Why would anybody need a car that can go faster than 75 mph? We should limit all car manufacturers to preventing cars from going faster than 75 mph, and limit their hp to 180.

    To "Mark B" how about we look at Mexico for gun enforcement laws. In Mexico they have 15 guns per 100 people, yet have a firearm related death rate of 11.7/100000 (that is higher than the US). We could look at the #1 country for firearm related deaths, El Salvador (50.36/100000) and their gun ownership rate of 5.8/100 people.

    Why is it that the countries with much higher firearm related death rates have so few guns if it is the number of guns that are the problem?

    The data indicates that firearm related homicide rates have more to do with criminal activity and not the number of guns.

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    bottom line you dont need 30 round magazine for any rifle. i was in the army for 6 years as armourer. ar15, and ak style rifles are made for killing people, as fast and as many as possible so to say regulating them in any way is wrong, is child like. 20 round magazine is plenty. my 870 remington shot gun can protect my home and mine. i know how to use many weapons and know we sell too many, and that we should not . you can but 50 cal. rifles and if you have right permit, a m2 machine gun. about a 5 mile range . what do we need it for?

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    Bruce Willis doesn't think there is a connection between violence and popular entertainment. Who would have thought? Why is this news?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    @ CHS A few years ago the FBI conducted a study and found that about 70% of crimes committed in our cities are perpetrated by young men with no father in the home. Draw you own conclusions about why we have social problems in this country and why we have so many murders! The culture of America has changed being enabled by our welfare system that has made fathers in the home irrelevant! Think its bad now, wait until the next fatherless generation hits the streets?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @CHS Its called enforcement of laws, not just having ever more unenforced laws on the books. Gun laws are not being enforced as it is. Crooks can carry illegal guns with impunity in most American cities, so having more unenforced laws is beyond ridiculous. If cops were allowed to stop and search suspicious people on the street we could actually do some good but the left would call it "profiling" and the ACLU would have the cops in court. And there in a nut shell is the real problem; a moral relativism and secular progressivism culture. Add to that the entitlement culture of our inner cities and one can understand the consequences of our culture! Blaming guns for our culture is like blaming matches for arson or pencils for poor grammar!

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Amen, Bruce.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:52 a.m.


    So we should have no laws then. Why bother trying to regulate anything. If we only pass laws that we know everyone will obey, why do we even need a legislature, judges, etc? Why not let our country devolve into a free-for-all?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Mountanman is correct, in that our society needs to change. Many countries allow gun ownership, but do not have the problems we have. It's a whole culturual issue. However, I'm sure we will disagree on banning the assault-style, high-capacity clip weapons that tend to be the culprits in these mass shootings. While I will agree it will not stop people from gaining access to them, it would also make it more difficult and maybe, just maybe, a few lives would be saved. One this is for sure, in my opinion: Arming every last man, woman, and child is not and will not be the answer. Again, it starts with a whole cultural change of thinking!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Bruce is correct on the 2nd amendment, but I would not say he is any way an expert.

    I disagree with his assertion that violence in movies has no effect on our society.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Different cultures Mark! Let me give you some examples of many that are possible. During the tsunami in Japan, there was no looting. Compare that with what happened in the aftermath of Sandy and Katrina, especially in New Orleans. Besides, Brazil has their hands full with criminals with "illegal" guns. Mexico is another example where its illegal for citizens to own guns but now the crooks can operate with impunity and even the police can not stop them!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Instead of citing Chicago, which is one city in the middle of an area touching several states, M-man should compare the whole country's gun violence rate to, say, Japan or Brazil. We lead the world in gun ownership, but not in safety.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    He knows that criminals will not obey more gun laws and all this debate about how we need more gun laws is irrelevant because in the end, more laws will not stop crime. Its already against the law to murder people but it happens everyday especially in Chicago where we already have the strictest gun laws in the nation! Translation: gun laws do not work, never have, never will!

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Reasonable gun control is no infringement on the Second Amendment. I'm not sure what Bruce Willis' angle is since he also took the time to dis the notion of a link between Hollywood movies and real life violence.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    ''If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn't they take all your rights away from you?"
    Using that logic, or lack of logic, we would never have amended the Constitution or revised any existing laws once enacted. Did abolishing slavery, giving the vote to women and passing the pure food and drug act decades ago take away all our rights? Changes in laws over the years tend to show the progress and reconsideration of errors of the past that mark a maturing and developing society.

    Mr. Willis may be an excellent actor, but he is no more an authority on constitutional law than any other lay person, and fame should not give his personal opinions any particular weight. Here, he shows a particular lack of knowledge and understanding of both law and history.

  • Russ Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Bruce knows what he is talking about. It is nice to read a Hollywood actor that does not spout nonsense.