"The most significant threat to our national security is our debt," Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, August 27, 2010


Thursday, February 21, 2013

Gun Violence Issue – Compromise Proposal

There are two constitutional amendments involved in our simple proposal –

1.    Right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, and

2.    Right to express oneself (speech/press, etc.) cannot be abridged

We don’t know what motivates deluded humans to grab guns and kill innocents – crimes that don’t adhere to routine motivations (lust, money, anger, envy and jealousy) or cannot be anticipated and prevented.   Could it be that governments everywhere engage in such activities with their large guns and thereby spread authenticity and approval to such acts?  Clearly the most violent portions of many societies are the governments.  America’s recent presidents have directed actions that have killed a lot of kids – mostly with high tech weaponry.  The type these deluded killers get off on.

We do know why Hollywood produces all forms of violent entertainment – in book form, in movie form, on TV, on the stage, on computers, in games, etc. – much of it digitally created and spread electronically, directly into our homes – they do it for money; lots of money.

Is there a connection?  Between misguided behavior from distorted minds and the ready accessibility to killing weapons and violent government behavior and greedy Hollywood producers with their digital creative skills?   Common sense would seem to say yes.  But the gun forces and the Hollywood money making forces still demand their “constitutional rights.”

So what to do?  Here is what we suggest –

            Pass a law – for a five year period only.  Outlaw the clips that hold more than 8 or 10 bullets and limit access to “assault style” weapons to proven, responsible adults (25+ y.o.)  And tax the Hollywood “creative” product – any form of material that contains a gun or other weapon brandished against any living thing; a violent act or a shooting or a massacre or anything in which,  justifiable or not, one human does violence to another living creature.   This would include American military enactments.  Make the tax the same as the federal tax on cigarettes – currently $1.01 per pack.  Anyone wishing to buy, rent or view the Hollywood violence product in any form pays $1.01 each time, or whatever congress sets the federal cigarette tax at.  Every time anyone wants a Hollywood violence product – buy it/lease it/or just view  – add $1.01 to the price.  

Five years, give it a try.  Both side’s compromise (favorite new word of the progressive movement which, of course, includes Hollywood) and we try to reduce the violence of the crazies amongst us.  Obama will love it because it brings in more money for his deluded schemes  - does cause one to wonder – is presidential delusion part of the problem?

Hollywood, we know you want to do your part and NRA, we are sure you are ready to do something jointly with the creative set out in southern California.

Hollywood could even make a movie about passing the law – coming together – compromising – big drama – stirring music – everyone weeping as the credits roll.  It could star Sean and the Clooney gang and Meryl and Matt and even Quentin and Steven could get in on the action.  No violence, of course.  They could do a “director’s version with violence” for  the viewers willing to pay the cigarette tax – could have the feds take their pictures and register them as “violent voyeurs” or some such thing.   

Let’s see if we can stop the violence by limiting the bullets and taxing those who get off on them.  It will pass Supreme Court review because “it’s a tax” just like Obamacare.  States can add whatever additional tax they wish – surprised Bloomberg didn’t think of it.  Hollywood could announce their support for the compromise this Sunday night during their big show.

 

1 comment:

Patrick Flynn said...

Probably a good idea to quote the amendments correctly if one is going to address them.
That being said, it seems the essayist is suggesting that we limit the God-given rights protected by the Constitution in order to save them.This loyal reader replies"NONSENSE!".
Once the slippery slope is enjoined, the end is always the abyss.
We remind the author that the purpose of the 2nd amendment to enable free men to protect themselves against tyranny, including the home grown variety.