Gov. Schwarzenegger: a modest proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
3,983
Hypocrisy is one of many problems I see in California's ambivalent attitudes towards guns, but it is the most easily remedied of all those problems.

At the root of this problem is that California allows and even encourages the production of films and other media, including audio recordings, that glorify guns and make them attractive to our children. Then, after having created a child's attraction to guns, California shifts its moral ground and tries to deny guns to the adults that once were those very same children. The state's behavior on this subject is hypocritical and creates unnecessary frustration.

My proposal to Gov. Schwarzenegger is simply that he use his executive powers to ban the creation, production, and distribution of all media that refer to all firearms in any way in the state of California.

It might be argued that there is positive value in films and recordings that show guns in an unfavorable light, but such an argument assumes that anyone can predict the reactions of all children, and that argument is obviously absurd.

It also could be argued that such an executive order would violate the Constitutional right of free speech protected by the First Amendment, but that argument fails because it assumes that Freedom of Speech is an individual right when everyone knows that it is a collective right like all others in the Bill of Rights.

Gov. Schwarzenegger will understand better than ordinary citizens that although the First Amendment protects the right of everyone in the United States to express themselves it does not protect the right of any individual citizen to express himself or herself. So when everyone in the country says exactly the same thing at the same moment, their right to do so is guaranteed by the First Amendment. But if even one person does not participate in that uniform chorus nobody else has the right to speak.

Laymen are often confused about that point but Gov. Schwarzenegger should understand it or, if he needs explanation, can contact Paul Helmke of The Brady Campaign or California's own Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, for assistance.

Please do not get bogged down in my explanation of these fine Constitutional points. Consider writing or e-mailing Gov. Schwarzenegger today to ask him to issue an immediate executive order banning the production of films and other media, including audio recordings, that glorify guns and make them attractive to our children. That order should include immediate confiscation of such destructive media produced in the past. We look to him to protect us from the illegal media with which California has been flooding our nation for nearly a century.

I am, by the way, absolutely serious. Here is Gov. Schwarzenegger's e-mail address: http://www.capwiz.com/politicsol/mail/?id=141270&type=GV&state=CA. I have no doubt that he would be happy to hear from everyone in the country because the corrosive media produced in California corrupts the entire United States.
 
Oh, I love this. Ahnold would just LOVE it if nobody could see movies with guns/violence. Bye bye residuals....
 
we need a Hairless President in 08!

An old thread of mine somewhere here in thr
once expressed a similar sentiment.

I sometimes tell people that many States have an Assembly, as well as a Militia
(sometimes referred to as the National Guard)
Now if only the State militia may own battle weapons then only the State Assembly has the right to assemble, as enumerated in the Constitution.

My only problem is the people I tell are to dimwitted to know what I am talking about...I need smarter people to actually talk to.
Thank God for thr!:cool:
 
All Movies

My proposal to Gov. Schwarzenegger is simply that he use his executive powers to ban the creation, production, and distribution of all media that refer to all firearms in any way in the state of California.
Absolutely.

There was a particularly violent series . . . oh yeah, those Terminator movies, and that jungle flick . . . Predator? . . . and, oh, wait, that spy thing, True Lies, and . . .

For the children, of course.
 
a more modest proposal would be to simply eat the children, rather than worry about the psychological impact of films they might view if allowed to live.
 
justashooter said:
a more modest proposal would be to simply eat the children, rather than worry about the psychological impact of films they might view if allowed to live.

Geez....where's Idi Amin when you need him.....:rolleyes:
 
This does NOT help the situatuion at hand.

Oh darn. I didn't know that. There I go again, thinking for myself and speaking without first checking with the people who make the rules. And there are so many rulemakers that I can't excuse my behavior on the grounds that I couldn't find one handy. But I do appreciate being told when I don't think right thoughts or say right things, and I'm especially grateful when any of those people who make the rules about what to think and what to say takes time out of his busy schedule to tell me that I have strayed yet again.

I worry, though, that the Earth might spin off track when something I've posted distracts those engaged in steering the planet and directing all who dwell thereon. I can't express the guilt I would feel if it were my fault that there was a prolonged drought or a plague of locusts or if the Red Sea didn't part on time or something else bad happened because I had been a distraction. I'm unworthy of the attention and know at least that.

Anyway it is gratifying to know that my modest proposal has received swift recognition.
 
well i think it would be legal and not going against the 1st amendment because not ALL movies are being banned just the mean evil looking ones.
 
I was not being sarcastic, Tom, and I couldn't be snark if I tried. It's just not in me. I was serious. How come nobody but ArfinGreebly ever recognizes when I'm serious?

I really am advocating a campaign to demand that Gov. Schwarzenneger do what I've outlined. Next on the list are media companies that support gun control. Time-Warner, for example, would help the cause by withdrawing the Warner Bros. crime movies that glorify guns and the Time-Warner record companies would help by terminating its contracts with gangster music groups.

It must be that I have more confidence that you folks in the sincerity of people and companies in the entertainment industry. I don't think that they are out for the dollar at the cost of human lives. They want to do good. We all need to show them ways to do good that they obviously haven't yet recognized.

Gov. Schwarzenneger is just the obvious starting point. I bet that if lots of people called his attention to the source of his wealth--those films ArfinGreebly mentioned--he would immediately divest himself of it and donate every penny to worthy causes such as, say, shelters for wayward children. Then he might talk with his wife Maria about the source of her wealth. She is likely to decide that she could not continue to benefit from her grandfather Joseph P. Kennedy's insider trading, anti-Semitism, and support of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. These are good people, not hypocrites, and all they need is encouragement and assistance in doing the right thing. Help them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top