Published: Monday, Jan. 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Hollywood is involved with gun control. They have to have licences to use
auto-matic and restricted weapons even if they load them with blanks. I'd
say there is more gun paperwork in Hollywood than any other place on Earth.
"He is too beholden to the entertainment industry due to its generous
contributions to his campaign and support of his liberal agenda."And you fail to mention the "generous contributions" by the gun lobby
to the other side of the issue.Our politicians are bought and paid
for, no doubt.Funny how people only complain when the "other side"
gets bought.Until we get all the big money out of politics, we will
have the best politicians that money can buy (on both sides). Secondly, I find it ironic that people who want the second amendment of
constitution protected at all costs are so quick to want to step on the first
This is one of the most correct letters to appear in this paper in a long time.
No amount of gun control can bring moral values back to a society when that
society is constantly bombarded with messages claiming that violence is nothing
more than an entertaining pastime.It is irrefutable fact that Obama
ignores the social harm being done by modern Hollywood because he is beholden to
the left-wing directors and producers. Indeed, he could not have been elected
without Hollywood money and publicity.Hollywood has an open and
stated agenda of tearing down traditional moral values. Its promotion of
violence is just another part of this effort.In essence, Obama has
willingly sold his soul for a few pieces of silver. What is far worse is that
for a few more pieces of silver, he has sold the souls of millions of innocent
@John Charity Spring:Where can I read or hear Hollywood's open
and stated agenda of tearing down traditional moral values? I would be surprised
if everyone in Hollywood could agree on a lunch menu, much less a nefarious
Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to establish "gun
control"? How about Congress? How about the Courts? How about State and
Local governments (see the 2010 Court ruling)?Gun control is left to
the individual. Gun control is a guaranteed freedom where government is
prohibited from interfering. Gun control is the responsibility of each citizen.
Those who choose to misuse that responsibility will be prosecuted and
penalized.No level of government and no President has any authority
to modify the Supreme Law of the Land until 75% of the States ratify an
amendment allowing "gun control" laws.Arguments for
governmental gun control are simply arguments to disregard the Supreme Law of
the Land. There are many to whom the Constitution is an impediment. They want
nothing more than to re-establish a "king" to rule over us who will mete
out "liberties" as he desires. They want a return to King George. They
mock anyone who reminds them that we are a free people and that anything not
enumerated in the Constitution is left to the States or to the people. Gun
control is an issue that can only be "governed" by the individual.
This type of letter cracks me up. Starts off with a gently stated, reasonable
premise, and then immediately degrades into an "BUT OBAMA IS EVIL!"
backflip at the finish line. Yes, Obama is afraid to insult
Hollywood for fear of losing campaign contributions. For his third
So guns don't kill people (people kill people), but fake guns in Hollywood
If Obama called on restrictions on Hollywood and video games then you folks
would be complaining that he was violating the 1st Amendment. He just can't
win! Either way the far right would bash him.Just admit it, you
folks are less concerned with gun control and violence and far more concerned
with bashing the President.
"violent movies that Hollywood continues to churn out that glamorize the use
of guns and the committing of murders."..Grace did we forget our high school
literature courses? Have you forgotten the greek tragedies, have you forgotten
the theme of many of Shakesperes plays. The "glamorizing of murders"
has alwyas been one of the most central themes of entertainment. Hollywood is
better at portraying blood splatter now and that's it. Themes haven't
changed. Entertainment has always been centered on love/cheating, hate/murder,
commitment/infidelity. To Mr. Richards, please your self
agrandisment of being "mocked" is getting tiring. We disagree with your
interpretation of the constitution. Many..no most of Americans, including the
courts believe the constitution was written in a way that allows for the
application of principles within the context of changing circumstances. That is
not "mocking" you. It's disagreeing with you.
Mike,Your stance has been NO RESTRICTION ever.If the
choice came down to NO Restrictions as you suggest, OR reasonable gun laws, I
am quite confident that 75% of the states would ratify. Instead, we have a
supreme court that has the latitude to interpret the constitution within the
context of the times that we live in.And until you are appointed to
the Supreme Court, they, rather than you get to make those determinations.Is it really that difficult to see that in the days of the Constitution,
there was no federal army?That the citizens could be called to defend this
country in the form of a militia? Is it really that difficult to understand
that when the Constitution was written, the second amendment made perfect
sense?You would advocate that the average citizen can carry weapons
in bars. And on airplanes. And into courtrooms. That makes NO sense in todays
society.Your views are out of touch with the mainstream, they are
out of touch with the constitution, and at times, they are out of touch with the
reality that we live in today.
Could you imagine how angry repubs would be if president Obama made restrictions
on Hollywood? The comparisons to hitler would never end.
I think these cries about movie violence are disingenuous. Those violent movies
have done well in America, including here in Utah, for a long, long time. We
want this stuff, and we pay for it. Guns are something of a national sickness,
and pop culture reflects that. The president is trying to treat root cause, not
symptoms, and accusing him of playing to hollywood is just a distraction.
Hollywood isn't selling violence, it's selling heroism. Nobody goes
to the movies thinking 'gee, I really want to see a lot of violent
images.' You go because you want to see a story, an interesting and
engaging story. And most action movies (the ones everyone's upset about
right now), all tend to explore the same basic narrative elements--good guys,
going after bad guys. We see bad guys using violence to do bad things, and then
we see good guys shooting them. In fact, a lot of the most violent movies being
made hardly involve human beings at all--mostly they're about space aliens,
vampires, zombies, super-heroes.Nobody makes 'violent movies.'
Filmmakers tell stories. Often the conflicts in those stories involve acts of
violence. This has always been true, and it's especially true today,
because movie technology has advanced to the point that really cool action
sequences look very realistic. But the point is to sell heroism. Not violence
disconnected from narrative.
In the animal kingdom, the play of the young prepares them for adult life.
Predatory animal babies "play kill" until they are big enough to do it
for real.Like it or not, humans are in the animal catagory. Our
children's play will prepare and train them to be adults. If their play is
filled with predatory killing, why are we surprised that they become predatory
killers as adults.Somewhere we need to recognize that the media our
children engage in, does shape who they are. Hollywood goes after guns to hide
their own guilt. They set the trends and the masses follow, on Twitter, in
fashion, in humor, and in violent behavior. I shun the Hollywood
trends. I consume very little of their fare. I could care less who was oozing
out of her dress at the Oscars, or who got an Oscar. But I live in a world full
of people who worship the Hollywood type, as idols, just like the people of the
Old Testament worshiped their idols. The entertainment industry is
ruining our children and our society, and we are paying them very well to do it.
Just love reading Mike Richard's interpretation of the Constitution.He puts himself and his single opinions above United States Supreme
Court's.Mike -- Isn't that trampling the Constitution?Since the Constitution clearly calls out that ONLY the Supreme Court can make
rulings as to what is or is not Constitutional?You're making
yourself an ENEMY of the Constitution, rather than defending it....and
that's why I fight you.
It's "irrefutable" that JCS is an extremely extreme extremist.But I did once hear a TV executive boast that it was his intention to
"push the envelope" when it came to the shows his network was going to
offer.They did. And now his network has some of the most violent
and raunchy shows on the tube.Which network?FOX!
The first phrase of the 2nd Amendment is an absolute phrase that modifies the
following clause, as any lawyer can tell you. My question to all the gun nuts
here: Which well-regulated militia do you belong to? Who regulates it? What
regulations do you abide by?
The "mockers" are in high form today. They pretend that they are
incapable of self-contorl or self-restraint. They claim that without the boot
of government on our necks that we cannot choose to do the right thing. They
ignore the fact that "criminals" use guns to slaughter people and that
law abiding citizens use arms properly. They twist and turn our
words to suit their purposes. They reject the Constitution relying
instead on their "wisdom".No President, no Congress and no
Court can change the Constitution. Only the States have that right and only
when 75% of the States agree. The mocker ignore the process just as they ignore
the rest of the Constitution. Their greatest insult to the people is that
they're tired of hearing about the Constitution. Maybe that's because
the Constitution rejects everything that they do and everything that they say.
MR..potatoe/potahto..disagree/mock. So he doubles down on next post.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments