Hollywood Liberals Decry Violence in Movies
But their answer is to have more gun control laws. Absurd. It is difficult for me at times to understand the way liberals think. I try. I really do. I honestly attempt to approach things from their perspective, at least as much of that perspective as I can comprehend, but I come up empty most of the time.
The idea that Hollywood has produced a warehouse full of movies depicting bloodbath and violence that most have become accustomed to seeing as well as video games that leave nothing to the imagination tells me that while some in Hollywood are at least getting that part of the equation correct, then make a jump that defies logic.
Every time there is a terrible tragedy where some lunatic obtained weapons and then proceeded to destroy the lives of countless innocent people, it is normally followed up with the statements screamed from the rooftops by liberals alike that guns are the culprit and access to them must be curtailed.
Instead of attempting to identify the aberrant traits within certain individuals that makes them want to kill people indiscriminately, the general liberal belief is that simply removing the object that these same individuals used in the commission of their murderous crime spree will solve the problem.
As I stated before, IF it were actually possible to remove ALL guns from society permanently, that would make it possible. However, since the invention of the gun took place long ago and guns have simply gotten smarter, more powerful, and worldwide in acceptance, it is fully impossible to remove them from society. It is a fool’s errand to think this can happen.
Creating more gun laws that regulate how they are obtained, who obtains them, and where they can be used simply plays into the hands of the criminal. It never affects them, but simply affects law-abiding citizens.
James Holmes was effectively – for all intents and purposes – a law-abiding citizen prior to his murderous rampage at the Colorado theater. I believe there was on traffic ticket in his past. Then, he appears on the scene as a cold-blooded murderer. Yet, what is interesting to note is that this same James Holmes BROKE several gun laws and ordinances on the day he killed 12 innocent people and shot up over four times as many.
For instance, guns were not allowed at the Cinemark movie theater in Colorado. Their policy of no guns included individuals who legally possessed a concealed weapons permit. In that audience that day were law-abiding citizens, including military personnel, who fully OBEYED that law. Me? Having a concealed weapons permit means being able to carry it concealed, so if a business does not support my right to bear arms in a legally concealed manner, they don’t need my business. It’s as simple as that. Rather than BREAK a law myself, I would simply not patronize that movie theater. I wouldn’t make a big scene out of it, but would quietly and simply obey their policy by not going to their showing of any movies. I would, in essence, remain a law-abiding citizen.
James Holmes did no such thing. He broke the law by ignoring that company’s polices regarding their theaters’ “no gun zone” policy. This should be clear to everyone. He broke the law by choosing to deliberately ignore Cinemark’s no gun policy.
Moreover, things are still coming out, but it is clear that Holmes also had things in his possession that were fully illegal to have, yet all the existing laws did not stop him from obtaining them. That much is also clear.
However, liberals – whether in Hollywood or DC – believe that making MORE laws related to guns will go a long way in solving this problem of violence run amok. This is in spite of the fact that at least two heavy hitters from Hollywood recently cited the tremendous amount of rabid violence in too many movies and games today. The reason there is so much violence in society, according to them? It’s because gun laws are not tough enough. Again, this is plainly absurd.
Shortly after this tragedy in Colorado occurred, Heath Ledger’s father came to the microphone to denounce the gun-related violence in the United States. He said something needs to be done about it by creating more anti-gun laws.
I notice that he was not critical of the amount of violence in the movies in which his son – Heath Ledger – took part. In “The Dark Knight,” he portrayed a maniacal killer named the Joker. In point of fact, Ledger was brilliant in that role as the green-haired mad man. However, that movie, like the other two in the Christopher Nolan trilogy was extremely dark and violent. I’ve previously written an article for this blog on that trilogy’s violence; the same violence that our Hollywood heroes have come out against.
I also noted that Heath Ledger’s father did not come out in condemnation of the many prescription medications that Heath was on and apparently overdosed on, resulting in his death. My question is why did Heath Ledger have ALL of those pills? Just because they were legally obtained (I’m assuming) through the prescriptive services of qualified medical personnel does not mean that they are not culpable for somehow participating in his death. At the time of his death, Heath Ledger was found to have had way too many drugs and combination of drugs in his system. Why weren’t people in the medical profession more concerned about this?
Yet, Heath Ledger’s father does not fault the doctors, nor does he fault the Hollywood machinery that produces one violent movie after another, under the guise of an “action” film. Instead, the elder Ledger decries the violence in society (as if it got their in a vacuum) and announces that something needs to be done about guns.
No one has ever been able to tell me HOW more gun laws will result in less crime. I’ve gone over the statistics here on numerous occasions in other articles. Since no amount of laws affect the criminal element and since criminals easily and readily obtain any weapon they want on the Black Market, we can assume that even if all guns were taken away from law-abiding citizens (as authorities did during Katrina), criminals would STILL have guns. That should be a no-brainer, even for our too politically correct politicians. They somehow miss this point altogether because they are too busy saying that even if is saves ONE life, it is worth it (complete with alligator tears).
This argument assumes that guns are ONLY used to kill innocent people. There are many, many cases on the books of innocent people turning the tables against the criminal element, in the process saving their own life as well as others. So, in spite of these facts, politicians continue to want to remove guns from society by making it tougher to obtain them and the ammo that is needed for them.
The truth of the matter appears to be that guns can actually be used to save lives and have been used to that end on many occasions. In essence, average law-abiding citizens have been able to save their own or someone else’s life in dangerous situations. On numerous occasions, that same law-abiding citizen did not even have to shoot his/her gun, but simply had to show it, pointing it at the perpetrator when the perpetrator brandished a weapon of their own.
There are MILLIONS of law-abiding gun owners in the United States alone. They know the law. They know their weapons because they practice with them. They understand that the last thing they want to do is take another life, but if it comes down to that, they will do what is necessarily to protect themselves or their families against the criminal element.
If someone broke into our home and attempting to rob us, or rape my wife, you can bet I would do everything I could to protect my wife and family against that criminal element even if it meant dying during the attempt. There is absolutely no way I would simply stand there and become a pawn in the hands of some lunatic criminal who was feeling the power he had because of the weapon he possessed.
The government cannot save everyone and they shouldn’t even try. I find it not only unconscionable but the height of irony that in this country, it is perfectly legally to kill more than 1.25 MILLION unborn children each year, yet, this same government is doing whatever it can to weaken the 2nd Amendment. That is not only absurd, but shows what our government has become. It panders to the liberal element, somehow believing that a woman’s right to choose supersedes any rights of the unborn. It also inordinately believes that a baby is not a real person until after it is born. How asinine is that?
The government should spend more time doing what they can to uphold the existing laws that are built into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, instead of tracking their dirty feet all over those documents. We, the people, have rights that were ordained by our Founding Fathers and no group of growing liberals has the right to abrogate them.
Recently, Mr. Obama gave a speech indicating that there needs to be more gun laws. He stated that most would agree that a gun like the one used by James Holmes belongs not on the streets of America, but on the battlefield.
First of all, the gun used by James Holmes was an AR-15, which some are erroneously calling an “assault” rifle. It is NOT an assault rifle because off the shelf, AR-15 weapons are NOT automatics. They will shoot a bullet as fast as the trigger can be pulled, like all guns, which means that it is a semi-automatic.
If James Holmes somehow modified the AR-15 so that it became a true automatic weapon, that is illegal. Tell me, do you think that James Holmes cared about the laws he was breaking? Sure doesn’t look like it, does it?
Mr. Obama is unfortunately – in my opinion – lying to the American people once again. He says he supports the 2nd Amendment, but it is clear that he does not. The Arms Trade Treaty that his administration has been pushing (and the Bush Administration rejected) is proof that he wants to do whatever he can to abrogate gun rights.
The fact that he stood up and called for more anti-gun laws is also proof that he would like to do what he can to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment. He needs to stop lying.
Diane Feinstein recently stated that no one needs to own a 100-clip ammo drum for their AR-15. What does she want to do? Make a law that makes it impossible for law-abiding citizens to have it. Will this have any affect on criminals, or someone who is determined to obtain what is illegal? Not at all and down deep, she knows it, just like all other liberals know that no amount of gun laws will affect criminals. Criminals simply do not abide by or obey any laws because it does not suit them.
Gun laws exist. Anti-drug laws exist. Laws against murder exist, as do laws that prohibit thievery, prostitution, tax-evasion, and a host of others. None of these laws affect criminals at all. It simply provides them with information to attempt to go around the laws. That’s all. At best, the laws are a minor inconvenience for them.
It seems to me, that if Hollywood is so concerned about violence in movies and games, then the answer is simple: stop making super-violent movies and games! Don’t spoon feed two or three generations of young people violence, violence, and more violence, and then say that the problem is really guns! People are too smart for that and they understand that this is merely sleight of hand and redirect.
The real problem remains and that problem has to do with the fact that Hollywood has pumped out a steady stream of ramped up violence in movies and games. They are the perpetrators, but are trying to place the blame elsewhere. Even if/when they say that the violence in movies and games needs to be ramped down, the truth is that they believe they should have the freedom to do whatever they want to do and blame the problem of societal violence on guns.
Every year, more drugs kill people than guns. Every year, more fatalities occur than gun deaths. Every year, cancers take more lives than guns. We have tried to outlaw drugs – just say no! – and it doesn’t work. We have forced people to wear seatbelts and helmets while on a motorcycle. We have reduced the speed limit then raised it again. We have made laws that are designed to protect bicycle riders and people in crosswalks. The problem is that these laws only provide the government – whether, local, state, or federal – the ability to punish the offender. Law-abiding citizens generally do what is right for their own safety and the safety of others. No amount of laws will turn a criminal or criminal wannabe into a law-abiding citizen.
Drugs – both prescription and illegal – will continue to kill people. Car accidents and road rage will still take lives of people on the road. Cancer will continue to kill and out of the examples, only cancers are ones that take lives indiscriminately.
When will the liberal wake up to the sound of their own stupidity? I’m convinced that it won’t happen because too many liberals – like our current administration – only want to control people. They want to remove freedoms, not guarantee the freedoms that are embedded into our founding documents.
I pointed out in a previous article that one well-known rapper stated that the right to keep and bear arms is the last form of protection for governmental tyranny. I agree. It is easy to see why liberals want to abrogate that right because they prefer not to go up against a citizenry that is armed. They want to run roughshod over Americans and they can’t do it when the chance remains that someone will shoot back.
It’s all part of the plan to dominate a society that has been forced into submission through a myriad of laws; laws that have absolutely no effect on criminals.
Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: colorado tragedy, gun control advocates, hollywood liberals and gun control, james holmes.