NON print version:
:)
By actors who are anti-gun.
Yes indeed. I’ve heard it said that since Canadian laws have prohibited persons from owning automatic firearms since January 1, 1978 (through grandfathering), why are movies depicting Arnold and Sylvester cutting up people with such types of firearms allowed to be shown in Canada?
I’ve also read that in Switzerland, “Rambo” style movies are not very popular there and that is a country where kids go to shooting practice on weekend mornings and where adult males are issued an automatic rifle as part of their military service and citizens keep large private collections of handguns and other types of firearms.
Lead by example, Hollywood, lead by example!
I just watched “Death Wish 3” starring Charles Bronson, from 1985, and one of the characters, and Bronson himself, pulled out of a closet, two old .30 Cal machine guns, complete with belt ammo, and used them to fight off, and kill, the bad guys. Cool!
But it’s ok if it’s from Hollywood! Because they are good decent folks there who only want to please. Right, Harvey?
Art imitates life.
I remember the days when Boggy, Cagney, and Robinson only used a 38 or a 45 and fewer shots. All you saw was an occasional stain on their shirts in black and white. I watched “The Roaring 20’s” a couple of nights ago on You Tube, considering it was made right after the days of Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd the ultra violence wasn’t there, and how the hell did they ever manage to make a gangster picture without using the “F” word? Hate to say this, but to me, 1968 was the year we started to die as a country with morals.
Congress has the power to stop the gratuitous promotion of evil by Hollywood.
The first amendment includes freedom of the press (as well as speech and religion). This has wrongly been interpreted by the courts to include protection of the rights of pornographers to make and disseminate pornography. That was never considered even remotely the case by the founders, but is simply the result of treating the Constitution as a “living document.”
However, be that as it may, Congress has complete authority over copyright. And while those with printing presses (and websites, and blogs) have the right to write and publish their ideas, and even charge money for this, Congress has control over whether others may lawfully copy these works. Congress may also determine the limitations of what a copyright holder may charge to license his or her works. And Congress may further prescribe the length that any such protections of intellectual property ownership last, disposing all such works into the public domain in which all speech, press, and religious ideas become truly “free.”
Take away the copyright privileges of Hollywood films that do not meet community values. Those that are already copyrighted can still keep their protection (no ex post facto), only tax their proceeds at 110% (for the common welfare, of course).
Congress has the power to stop the gratuitous promotion of evil by Hollywood.
The first amendment includes freedom of the press (as well as speech and religion). This has wrongly been interpreted by the courts to include protection of the rights of pornographers to make and disseminate pornography. That was never considered even remotely the case by the founders, but is simply the result of treating the Constitution as a “living document.”
However, be that as it may, Congress has complete authority over copyright. And while those with printing presses (and websites, and blogs) have the right to write and publish their ideas, and even charge money for this, Congress has control over whether others may lawfully copy these works. Congress may also determine the limitations of what a copyright holder may charge to license his or her works. And Congress may further prescribe the length that any such protections of intellectual property ownership last, disposing all such works into the public domain in which all speech, press, and religious ideas become truly “free.”
Take away the copyright privileges of Hollywood films that do not meet community values. Those that are already copyrighted can still keep their protection (no ex post facto), only tax their proceeds at 110% (for the common welfare, of course).
They promote gun violence for a paycheck while standing on the ban weapons band wagon. Hypocrites.