This morning, President Obama climbed up onto his high and mighty soapbox to deliver his gun-grabbing recommendations. Among his 23 executive actions was a call on the Centers for Disease Control to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” including the effects of violent video games. But, somehow, he managed to overlook another major purveyor of glorified violence: Hollywood.

Given President Obama’s love of political theater, it should come as no surprise that he’s got a soft spot for Hollywood, but many conservatives couldn’t help but wonder why he isn’t targeting Tinseltown for a crackdown:

And where’s the media outcry?

How can they do nothing? It’s quite easy, actually.

Indeed. The bundler in chief needs to keep that cash coming in, so he’ll do whatever it takes to keep Hollyweird happy.

We wouldn’t hold our breath.

  • NachoCheese (D)

    And why was the Demagogue in Chief silent on the other similarity that these mass shooting have in common (aside from the type of firearm)?

    The shooters were all known to be mentally ill, but the laws in place prevent the “authorities” from doing anything about them until AFTER they kill (thanks ACLU).

    http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder

    • Patsplacepp

      @disqus_9kTwBSawj9:disqus @salvagesalvage:disqus thanks for the back and forth. Just wanted to leave you with this link from National Post up here in Canada. 31 days after Newton http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/ 919 people dead. Like 6 feet under. Like never to come back to their parents, loved ones, their jobs, their communities. All because of the Gun. Look up here in Canada it’s not all perfect and we have gun violence no doubt. If there is access even in a country that has tough gun laws, people will still be killed by guns. Just thought, maybe the discussion needs to be why do Americans need so many weapons? I mean your

      Second Amendment gives you the right but why? Just my two cents..carry on

      • NachoCheese (D)

        Why did the founders specifically add the 2nd Amendment when ratifying the bill of rights?

        Let’s see what they had to say on why people should have a right to keep and bear arms:

        ———
        “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
        – George Mason

        “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in
        Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man,
        who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was
        the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they
        should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink
        gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the
        whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who
        will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table
        gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of
        all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”
        – George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

        “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
        – Alexander Hamilton

        “A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”
        – Thomas Jefferson

        “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        – Richard Henry Lee 1788

        “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
        – Patrick Henry

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
        -Thomas Jefferson

        “We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists.”
        – Patrick Henry

        And lastly I will leave you with the words of Mahatma Gandhi (from his autobiography p.446):
        “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
        history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms,
        as the blackest.”

  • salvagesalvage

    Yeah, fake on screen violence doesn’t actually shoot people, guns on the other hand do. Try it, try and shoot someone with a movie be it DVD, VHS or on a reel, cannot be done.

    It’s a bit like complaining to the porn industry that pizza delivery guys are getting too much easy sex.

    • NachoCheese (D)

      Well there are studies that examine the correlation between pornography and rapists, so you comparison is flawed.

      There are also studies on the effects of violent imagery on the mentally ill, so asking why movies & video games are not being included in this “national discussion on gun violence” is legitimate and there is no excuse why Obama failed to even mention this.

      If gun grabbers think the 2nd Amendment will not protect my right to own so called “military style weapons” and “high capacity magazines”, then they shouldn’t delude themselves into thinking that the 1st Amendment will protect their desire to view murder porn.

      • salvagesalvage

        Uh huh.

        And that’s why Canada and countless other European nations as well as Japan and Australia consume more fake violence and have far less real violence.

        They also have far less guns.

        It’s amazing how many tiny coffins you want to fill for your false sense of security from an imaginary foe.

        • NachoCheese (D)

          “The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and the U.S.”
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

          “AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN”
          http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

          “Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime”
          http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8340/

          Imaginary foe?

          Tell that to these people:
          “Georgia woman shoots intruder 5 times”
          http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2013-01-09/georgia-woman-shoots-intruder-5-times

          “Investigators: 15-year-old son of deputy shoots burglary suspect”
          http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

          Armed citizen stopping a mass murder:
          “Oregon mall shooter may have been stopped by armed citizen”
          http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-mall-shooter-may-have-been-stopped-by-armed-citizen

          http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

          Shall I go on?

          • salvagesalvage

            How many people are killed by guns in America? How many people are killed by in guns in nations with fewer guns. I guess I wasn’t explicit enough that we’re talking about guns in the thread about guns.

            It’s cute that you want to lump gun violence in with other bits of violence.

            Yeah, imaginary, as in the “Gubberment commin’ to take my rights away!” Alex Jones shrieking “1776!!”.

            For everyone of those stories I have dozens like this:

            Police say a Richmond man has died after being accidentally shot by a juvenile relative.

            Casper R. Jones was shot Sunday at his residence. Richmond police said Tuesday in a news release that Jones died from the gunshot wound.

            Father won’t be charged over accidentally shooting dead son, 7, when his handgun went off in his car outside a gun shop

            According to a report from our sister station WDAF, four children under the age of six were in the room where the shooting happened at the time. When the woman watching the children left the room, a child picked up the loaded gun that was left on a chair and it went off, striking the young girl.

            Thirty-year-old Jason Matthews Parker of Franklinton now faces charges in the accidental shooting death of his 12-year-old nephew, James Parker, or Tarboro.

            https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&q=child+accidentally+shot&oq=child+accidentally+shot&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.2263.4902.0.5061.23.5.0.18.18.0.145.468.4j1.5.0…0.0…1ac.1.o2-1ZCCTQ-A

            Hey but I guess all those dead kids are worth your fantasy of one day being John Rambo McClain.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            How many people are killed by guns in Chicago?

            Gun ban sure has worked there. What’s that you will likely argue…”but but but they get there guns elsewhere”…And? You seriously think banning guns will make them go away? Yeah, because that sure has worked with cocaine…it is clearly not present in this country in any substantive amount.

            Further, the statistics are out there if you care to set your predisposition aside and look at them objectively. More guns = less crime.

            “An interview with John R. Lott, Jr.
            author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Law”

            http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

            http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

          • salvagesalvage

            CHICAGOLAND!! If I ever get around to making a wingnut drinking game that’ll be one of them.

            Yeah, Chicago has lots of gun deaths, you know why? Because it’s in America! Where is is easy to get guns so it’s only slightly harder to get guns in Chicago.

            But if you go north to Canada where it’s hard to get guns everywhere you see less people getting shot! Can you guess why? Hint: It’s the lack of guns.

            Less guns = less people getting shot, it’s so simple even a wingnut should get it.

            But you love your guns and you don’t care how many children that are not yours have to die for them.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            What of your love for murder porn? Is your addicitve violence fetish so intense that it renders you impotent to “how many children that are not yours have to die for it”?

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! Yes! Murder porn! That’s what movies are and I guess that makes what? 90% of the people of planet Earth murder perverts!

          • NachoCheese (D)

            No just people like you who refuse to acknowledge the effects of violent imagery on the mentally ill inspite of the mountains of evidence and would instead blame the tool. All to satiate your violence fetish…shameful. Think of the children you pervert!

          • salvagesalvage

            There are no mountains of evidence of any such thing. Crazy people do crazy things and they did them before the first movie, tv show or even play.

            And as you yourself said “You know what else has been on a steady downward trend the last 40 years? The rate of gun homicide as well as firearm related mass murders.”

            Yet there has been more and more violent imagery in that time, movies from 40 and 20 years ago can’t even begin to compete with the gore we have now.

            Wingnuts! Can’t even keep track of their own bullshit.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “There are no mountains of evidence of any such thing.”

            You denying it does not make your refutation a fact. You do grasp the concept of supporting your argument with something other than conjecture, right?

            Funny how you are acknowledging that the rate of gun violence has declined without your gun grabbing schemes. You do realize that the reduction in rate is directly related to the increase in concealed carry permits and overall firearm ownership right? Congratulations, you have achieved complete cognitive dissonance!

          • salvagesalvage

            Oh wingnut, your projections are endless.

            > You do realize that the reduction in rate is directly related to the increase in concealed carry permits

            >You do grasp the concept of supporting your argument with something other than conjecture, right?

            Yes that would be an example.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “How many people are killed by in guns in nations with fewer guns”

            Is it only death by gun you care about?

            What about all those drunk driving deaths (there are more of them than gun deaths you know)…why don’t we ban hard liquor? You don’t NEED hard liquor and it could possibly save “even one life”. You could still satisfy your lust for alcohol with beer and wine, so why not (right?)…

          • salvagesalvage

            >Is it only death by gun you care about?

            Oh wingnut, it’s what we are talking about here.

            >What about all those drunk driving deaths

            Those would be the deaths that have been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 years since local and state laws came into effect to control it? Stuff like check points that do violate Constitutional rights but are allowed because of the overall proportion of safety?

            Please, tell me about them.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “steady downward trend”?

            You know what else has been on a steady downward trend the last 40 years? The rate of gun homicide as well as firearm related mass murders.

          • salvagesalvage

            And wouldn’t it be awful to make some sensible laws to bring it down further? NO! My gun must hold dozens of bullets!

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “It’s cute that you want to lump gun violence in with other bits of violence.”

            Cute? Violence is violence. Why not try and address the root cause of violence, rather than babbling on and on about violence committed with only a specific tool?

            http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder

          • salvagesalvage

            While violence might be violence try shooting someone without a gun, it’s really hard, just ask the people in Canada, the Uk and other sane about guns nations.

          • rinodino

            Please stop, conservatives brains may explode with actual real information…. real information in their world equals “Left Wing Lies”

          • NachoCheese (D)

            So post some of this “real information” you claim to see. So far salvagesalvage’s replies have been conjecture and appeal to emotion.

          • salvagesalvage

            Oh sad wingnut, no, your kind are immune to facts, from evolution to Obama’s citizenship no matter how much proof, evidence and theory you are shown you will not learn.

            But I think my overall point that it’s really hard to shoot someone without a gun and the fact that nations with fewer guns and tighter gun control have few shootings stands without any linkage.

          • salvagesalvage

            No, the majority of the posters here are not conservatives, actual conservatives can be sensible and quite sane, don’t always agree with them, they can be wrong but still good people.

            There are wingnuts, different class.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            So you are “safer” when the criminal shoots you but, because of gun control, you can’t shoot back?

          • salvagesalvage

            Yes! That’s how it works in real life, it’s like the movies, he draws, you draw, everthing goes slow motion as you shoot him right between the eyes and next you’re on Leno being interviewed as America’s hero!

            Again, you are far more likely to shoot a loved one than a criminal. Yes, there are many scenarios where the right person with a gun manages to save a day but for each of those there are a half-dozen tragedies.

            No one is saying you can’t have a gun, what they are saying is that there needs to be some control over guns because they are dangerous.

            It’s the same thinking that goes into a car licence and limits on engines.

            If the Constitution mentioned cars would that mean all Americans could drive F1 Racers to the office?

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “what they are saying is that there needs to be some control over guns because they are dangerous.”

            And the only thing I have been attempting to get you to understand is that mentally ill people are also dangerous and that there is evidence supporting the fact that violent imagery can have a serious negative effect on them (note this article is about Hollywood and strictly gun control as you have tried to imply).

            You want to address gun restrictions…fine, but I am asking that mental illness, specifically what role violent imagery plays in motivating the mentally ill, as well as how de-institutionalization has adversely affected the mentally ill and society as a whole.

            EDIT:
            Note my first comment on this thread:
            —–
            And why was the Demagogue in Chief silent on the other similarity that these mass shooting have in common (aside from the type of firearm)?

            The shooters were all known to be mentally ill, but the laws in place prevent the “authorities” from doing anything about them until AFTER they kill (thanks ACLU).

            http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder
            —-

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “It’s the same thinking that goes into a car licence and limits on engines.”

            All of which are handled by the individual states and not the federal government. Being Canadian, I guess you didn’t understand that.

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! Yes! That makes a difference, state and federal.

            And it’s being a sane person who doesn’t live in fear that makes me not understand the need to have five different guns that can shoot a dozen bullets in a second.

          • walterc

            Dude, you really should just move to Canada. Your life would be so much easier.

          • salvagesalvage

            Dude! I’m already here, didn’t have to even move!

          • walterc

            Then quit trying to tell us how to run our country.

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! Yes! That is what I am doing!

            Except you don’t run your country wingnut, you just bitch and complain about it when the guy you didn’t vote for is.

          • v1cious

            My god, someone with common sense on Twitchy! This must be a dream.

    • TroyGates

      Tell that to Brandon Lee, shot while making a movie with what was supposed to be a fake gun.

      • salvagesalvage

        And that’s why people should be allowed own guns that shoot as many bullets as you like!

        • NachoCheese (D)

          “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
          state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
          infringed.”

          Show me where that mentions a limit on the number of rounds my weapon may hold?

          Show me where that mentions the type of arms I may own?

          Militia argument?

          13 U.S.C. X

          —–
          -EXPCITE-
          TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
          Subtitle A – General Military Law
          PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
          CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA

          -HEAD-
          Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

          -STATUTE-
          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
          males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
          313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
          declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
          and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
          National Guard.
          (b) The classes of the militia are –
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
          and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
          the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
          Naval Militia.
          —–
          http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

          EDIT:
          Added referenced Title 32 section 313:
          —–
          -EXPCITE-
          TITLE 32 – NATIONAL GUARD
          CHAPTER 3 – PERSONNEL

          -HEAD-
          Sec. 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

          -STATUTE-
          (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
          a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
          years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
          Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
          reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
          (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
          Guard, a person must –
          (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
          (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
          —–
          http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/32C3.txt

          • NachoCheese (D)

            Note that the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms, it merely states that the government shall not infringe on our Natural
            Right to own firearms.

          • salvagesalvage

            Show me where you’re a “well regulated militia”.

            And rights can be curbed if it helps prevent children being massacred, see freedom of speech inciting genocide for an example.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
            state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
            infringed.”

            Note that it says:
            “the right OF THE PEOPLE”

            not “the right of the Militia”

            Shall not be infringed.

            Also, try re-reading what I posted. Specifically Section 13, Title 10 United States Code.

          • salvagesalvage

            So that would be you are not part of a well regulated militia?

          • NachoCheese (D)

            Once again, Section 13 Title 10 United States Code.

            Not that being part of a militia has anything to do with my individual Natural Right to keep and bear arms (see the Heller decision for clarification).

          • detroit19

            ?!?

          • NachoCheese (D)

            Lastly, 2 points on “curbing rights”.

            1. Show me your proof that “curbing rights” via restricting law abiding citizens from owning firearms will “help prevent” any gun violence. Note that “proof” is actual fact, not mere conjecture or appeal to emotion.

            2. Why are you so gleeful in curbing 2nd Amendment rights, but hyper-sensitive to curbing 1st Amendment rights? Is your addiction to murder porn so great as to preclude you from being willing to “help prevent children from being massacred”?

          • salvagesalvage

            Once again, nations that have stricter gun control has fewer gun deaths. Yes, there are more violent places but not when it comes to citizens shooting each other for crazy reasons.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            Still waiting on facts rather than conjecture as to how gun control will make you safer.

          • salvagesalvage

            Fact: When there are fewer guns that can shoot fewer bullets fewer people are shot.

          • NachoCheese (D)

            Fact, deinstitutionalization has resulted in more deranged monsters freely roaming our streets while crippling our societies ability to do anything about them until after they kill.

            http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder

            Note that this is what is known as using facts to support my argument, rather than conjecture, logical fallacies or idiotic statements of the obvious.

          • detroit19

            Bet Flint, MI, Detroit, Memphis, TN, Oakland, CA, Memphis, TN, etc (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-25-most-dangerous-cities-in-america.html?page=2) wish they had a ‘well regulated militia’ in place of the impotent, gun control legislators they’re saddled with,

          • salvagesalvage

            Ha! Ha! Yes! If those places had more guns less people would get shot! And only bad people would get shot!

          • TroyGates

            The level of guns in this country has gone up in the past decade while the number of gun related deaths has gone down.

          • salvagesalvage

            And compared to places with sensible gun control?

            It’s so cute the way wingnuts ignore the simple fact that more guns = more gun violence.

            But again, you don’t care how many children die as long as you can feel the artificial sense of security that a gun brings.

      • detroit19

        ‘with what was supposed to be a fake gun’, Sounds like an issue with Hollywood ‘props’ and not guns.

        • TroyGates

          My reply was to show that the statement of “fake movie crime” doesn’t kill anyone is false. It has killed someone.

  • Conrad2010

    You really have to ask why? THEY FINANCED HIS RE-ELECTION, THAT’S WHY! WTF!