|

Like millions of other Americans, actor Bruce Willis doesn’t understand the Second Amendment

923243_10152855477960515_133141032_n

The image above, which I ran across on Facebook this morning, is based on an INTERVIEW of three months ago with actor Bruce Willis.

And, of course, it’s pure bunk.

Willis clearly doesn’t understand what the Second Amendment really means. It means what the Supreme Court says it means, not what the firearms industry and its mouthpieces at the National Rifle Association say it means.

As I’ve pointed out here on numerous occasions, Justice Antonin Scalia, the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, put it well when he wrote the majority opinion in a case of four years ago in which the court overturned a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…

The Court’s opinion [in the D.C. case] should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…

Share:

5 Comments

  1. Ron Carlson

    Bruce Willis should stick to acting he is fairly good at it. Making comments on things he really don’t know much about he should keep to himself.

  2. Brian Opsahl

    Bruce is a gifted actor who is caught up up in his own shoot-em up world of make believe
    Yippy ky yea…!!

  3. MrApple

    Haven’t we already had this battle before? The anti-gun people will spout on and on about how the pro-gun crowd always leaves out the part of the 2nd Amendment concerning the “well regulated militia”, they bring up the fact that pro-gun people MUST want to take things to an absurd extreme, meaning flame throwers, tanks, and RPGs for every home, and inevitably the notion of fighting against governmental tyranny will spark the discussion of how the American public would have NO chance in hell against the US armed forces. Whereas, the pro-gun folks will undoubtedly point out that the “well regulated militia” section doesn’t mean controlled by the government but instead that the individual is supposed to be responsible for his/her own arms and knowledge regarding the use of those arms (probably pointing out that it is “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” and not the right of the MILITIA or militia members), the absurd extreme argument of possession of RPGs, tanks, and the like will be dealt with by trying to explain the difference between small arms and weapons of mass destruction, and the tyranny issue will bring on the usual battle between the people who understand the power and might of the provoked mass of angry Americans looking to maintain their own safety, way of life, and beliefs in the utmost importance of the Constitution and those folks that see the US government as some all knowing, invincible, essentially altruistic juggernaut that could crush the American people at will.

    There, I have saved us all a lot of typing time.

  4. Slicemaster19

    I don’t think most gun rights people (other than a handful of extremists that embarrass everyone) are talking about un-fettered access to any weapon. In fact, the only real concerted effort there has been at the federal level to roll back gun control has been to get a universal carry bill put through. This would “normalize” the carry laws across the states, not remove them.

    Most gun rights people agree there are portions of society that SHOULD NOT have guns. What we are arguing is that none of your recent legislation would actually make a difference in keeping guns out of the hands of those people.

    Background checks right now are flawed, so expanded checks will only result in more flawed checks of law abiding citizens instead of criminals.

    Modern sporting rifles (“Assault rifles for those of you that still use that incorrect term) have no operational difference from other rifles you don’t seem to mind, and are used in such a tiny percentage of gun violence that it would make no difference while at the same time making the most popular rifle in the US illegal.

    All the time you spend carrying on about how you are being stymied by gun owners on your mis-guided efforts, you refuse to admit that it is the PERSON that is the real danger, and that mental health awareness and enforcing current laws would have a much greater impact and could start TODAY saving thousands of lives. Instead you want to wait until 2014 or 2016, when you may or may not get an election victory and then have to start you whole process over again from scratch.

  5. MrApple

    To Slicemaster19:

    Well said, I could not agree more.

Leave a Reply

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

CAPTCHA Image

*

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