Friday, January 11, 2013

Marine Sends Letter to Feinstein Regarding Gun Control

Marine Sends Letter to Feinstein Regarding Gun Control


By GOPUSA Staff
January 10, 2013

Sometimes someone just gets it right. Whether it is in a speech, an interview, or, in this case, a letter, there are times when the person says exactly what others are feeling, but in a way that makes complete sense. That is what happened when a Marine sent a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding proposed gun control legislation.

Here is the text of the letter as supplied by Fox News from Marine Cpl. Joshua Boston:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

No one should be a "subject" of the federal government. The government was designed to serve America, and now it is out of control.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Guns And Freedom

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published January 10, 2013, FoxNews.com

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty.

It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny.

And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West.

Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is.

Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us.

A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The essence of humanity is freedom.

Government -- whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force -- is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up.

From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution.

Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty -- the personal dominion over self -- by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government.

This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights.

Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment.

As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government.

If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense.

Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.

Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government.

Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?



Reprinted here with pleasure.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.



 

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Do You Carry A Gun To The Movies?

On Thursday, my wife and I went to the movies for her birthday. While watching people walk into the theater, because of what took place recently in a Aurora Colorado theater, I couldn't help but wonder how many were packing a pistol under their heavy winter coats?

Since we were there to see Parental Guidance with Billy Crystal and Bette Midler, a comedy, I was sure that there wouldn't be anyone jumping up trying to imitate Billy Crystal in the same way that the murdering jerkweed in Aurora Colorado did when he tried to imitate the Joker from a Batman film and kill everyone in the theater.

As we watched the movie, I realized that this movie should be watched by everyone raising kids today. It was just that good. It was well done without vulgarity or violence. And really, it didn't need any sort of violence to present to its viewers a wonderful story about grandparents, parents, and raising kids.

Was it funny? Absolutely, but not really stupid type of funny. It was great. After the movie, as I sat through the credits, I remember thinking that this is one movie that I'd recommend to anyone to watch and learn.

And there's the point, since people can watch and learn something good and wonderful from a great movie like Parental Guidance - why does Hollywood and people who support ultra-violent films assume that people can't watch and learn how to carry out extreme acts of violence from extremely twisted films like say Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, or the latest Batman film The Dark Knight Rises?

Fact is, they can and do!

And yes, while sitting there, I could not help but wonder if there were safe movies versus un-safe movies to go to? Are there ultra-violent movies that attract ultra-violent nutcases who want to do horrific harm to others? Maybe there are?

Maybe there are people out there who love the sight of blood and gore in movies ripe with gun violence, just the same as there are those who love the horror genre with all of that blood and gore? Maybe they enjoy it for some sick reason?

Quentin Tarantino is an American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor. He has received many movie industry awards, including an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and so on.

He is someone who director Peter Bogdanovich has called "the single most influential director of his generation."

Maybe so, but what kind of influence? A good influence or bad influence? I believe a horrible influence!

In the early 1990s, he began his career as an independent filmmaker with films employing satirical subject matter and the aestheticization of violence that often results in the exhibition of neo-noir characteristics.
His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Kill Bill (2003, 2004), Inglourious Basterds (2009), and Django Unchained (2012), all incredibly ultra-violent movies bathed in buckets of blood.

The aestheticization of violence in high culture art or mass media is the depiction of or references to violence in what Indiana University film studies professor Margaret Bruder calls a "stylistically excessive," "significant and sustained way."

When violence is depicted in this fashion in films, television shows, and other media, Bruder argues that audience members are able "to connect" references from the "play of images and signs" to artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts. But remember, connect to incredibly violent artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts

In Xavier Morales' review of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 1, entitled "Beauty and violence", he calls the film "a groundbreaking aestheticization of violence."

Morales says the film, which he calls "easily one of the most violent movies ever made" is "a breathtaking landscape in which art and violence coalesce into one unforgettable aesthetic experience".

How anyone can put together the words aesthetic and violence is beyond me?

I suspect it takes a warped mind to think that extremely violent acts can be "aesthetically pleasing" to anyone.
How can any thing be aesthetic, which means relating to, or dealing with beauty, as being pleasing in appearance, as attractive, as being something appreciative, or something pleasurable to the senses, and be remorse or ultra-violent?

Aesthetics is all about emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Morales argues that "...Tarantino .. presents violence as a form of expressive art...[in which the]...violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have."

He goes on to say, "Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty...[, in which,]...like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value."

When the female sword-wielding protagonist "...skillfully slices and dices her way through...[the opposing fighters]...we get a sense that she is using them as a kind of canvas for her expression of revenge...[,]...like an artist who expresses herself through brush and paint,...[she]...expresses herself through sword and blood."

Yes, this jerkweed Morales is a Film Critic. And yes, we wonder why films that disgust everyone else passes film critics.

In my opinion, film critics like Morales who see ultra-violent films as "physically graceful" or "visually dazzling," really appear to have deep seated psychological problems that I don't see even many years of counseling helping.

According to one source, film critics analyzing violent films that seek to "aesthetically please the viewer" mainly fall into two categories.

There are those critics who see depictions of violence in film for what they are - superficial and exploitative. They argue that it leads audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thus increasing their aggression.

Then there are those film critics with their heads up their ass. Those critics view violence as a type of content, or as a theme. And believe it or not, they claim it provides "acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses."

That's right, some of the jerkweeds see no harm in ultra-violent films see them -- and see them acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses.

Imagine that for a moment, then ask yourself, how many of these jerkweed critics saw nothing wrong with the use of ultra-violence in The Dark Knight RisesHow many of them changed their minds now that they have seen the effects that that new Batman movie had on just one sick individual?

And yes, of all of the millions who see violence in the movies and in violent video games, all it takes is one to act out what he saw in a film.

The mass murderer in Aurora Colorado used a film to inspire him to violence.  The film makers knew their film was extremely violent. 

The film makers knew they crossed the line between a film being art -- and their making an actual instructional how-to film for those wanting to commit  murder on a large scale. They film  makers must have  have known that their film would be inspirational to someone who wanted to play out their anti-social impulses.

Adrian Martin argues that critics who hold violent cinema in high regard have developed a response to anti-violence advocates, "those who decry everything from Taxi Driver to Terminator 2 as dehumanising, desensitising cultural influences."

Martin claims that critics that value this sick twisted logic called "aestheticized violence" defend gory shocking depictions onscreen on the grounds that "screen violence is not real violence, and should never be confused with it."

Martin claims that their rebuttal also claims that "movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses."

It seems Adrian Martin is dead right on all accounts!

Margaret Bruder, a film studies professor at Indiana University and the author of "Aestheticizing Violence, or How To Do Things with Style" proposes that there is a distinction between aestheticized violence and the use of gore and blood in mass market action or war films.

In movies with aestheticized violence, she argues that the "standard realist modes of editing and cinematography are violated in order to spectacularize the action being played out on the screen"; directors use "quick and awkward editing", "canted framings," shock cuts, and slow motion, to emphasize the impacts of bullets or the "spurting of blood."

But of course, according to Hollywood, none of that incites or inspires others to violence. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Hollywood mega-star and director Quentin Tarantino said that shootings happen because of guns and mental health and not violent movies.

But how can that be the case since the creep who shot all of those innocent people at the theater in Aurora Colorado got the very idea to do what he did directly from an extremely violent movie?

Quentin Tarantino, the director of Pulp Fiction and the recent box office hit Django Unchained, has once again spoken out against accusations that film violence could be responsible for massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.

Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air," Tarantino said "I think it's disrespectful to their memory actually, the memory of the people who died, to talk about movies," Tarantino said of the 26 shooting victims.

"It's totally disrespectful to their memory," he said, before trying to pass off the use of violence in the movies as a small issue - asserting that "obviously, the issue is gun control and mental health."

The tense and often excruciatingly awkward exchange on the popular radio left the director feeling "really annoyed." Tarantino seemed surprised when the genial conversation suddenly turned to the serious subject of violence in movies.

When pressed on whether the tragedy, which claimed the lives of twenty children and six adults, has made movie violence "less fun."

"So, I just have to ask you, is it any less fun after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? Do you ever go through a period where you lose your taste for movie violence? And what do you like about that?" Gross asked.

"What do I like about it?" Tarantino asked with surprise, before laughing nervously. "It's fun."

Gross asked: "Are there times when it is just not a fun movie experience for you, either to be making it that way or to be in the audience?"

"Not for me," Tarantino said flatly. Then added, "Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe. Because they have nothing to do with each other."

"You sound annoyed?" Gross responded.

Tarantino wrapped up the subject with his thoughts on movies and violence by defending his influence on murdering rampages this way: "I've been asked this question for 20 years, About the effects of violence in movies relating to violence in real life. And my answer is the same as 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota."

Tarantino added that violence in movies does not affect violence in society, saying, "Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health." 

So according to Tarantino, he says that tragedies like Sandy Hook are all about gun control and mental health -- and not movies or video games violence. Yes, like most of you, I think he's full of shit.

And we're not alone. In fact, even the star of his new movie Django Unchained, Jamie Foxx feels differently than he does.

"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in a recent interview. "It does."
Back in late August of 2012, another of many reports came out to dispute creeps like Tarantino. The report agrees with Jamie Foxx and others. It found that violent images in movies, TV or computer games can act as triggers for aggression.

After that took place, an international panel concluded that media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts and feelings.

"Violent TV, films and video games do increase aggression," that's from an international panel of experts who are warning parents to keep an eye on what their children are watching saying, "Ratings are not substitutes for parents watching, playing, or listening to the media their children use."

The report for the The International Society for Research on Aggression (IRSA) concluded that that evidence shows that the consumption of media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts or feelings already stored.

The panel is only one of many groups who study violence, and have concluded that exposure to violent images in different media, such as movies and video games, increases the relative risk of aggression. The panel also warn parents that a ratings system is no substitute for the watchful eye of a parent.

Grand Theft Auto IV was a critically-acclaimed 18-rated game, but there were concerns about younger players emulating the violence they saw on-screen.

The IRSA appointed the International Media Violence Commission in December of 2011. In their report, the commission concluded that aside from being sources of imitation, violent images such as scenes in movies, games or even pictures in comic books -- act as triggers for activating aggressive thoughts and feelings already stored in memory.

If these aggressive thoughts and feelings are activated over and over again because of repeated exposure to media violence, they become chronically accessible, and therefore more likely to influence behaviour.

The commission concluded, "One may also become more vigilant for hostility and aggression in the world, and therefore, begin to feel some ambiguous actions by others (such as being bumped in a crowded room) are deliberate acts of provocation."

The researchers wrote, "Parents can also set limits on screen use, and should discuss media content with their children to promote critical thinking when viewing. Schools may help parents by teaching students from an early age to be critical consumers of the media and that, just like food, the ‘you are what you eat' principle applies to healthy media consumption."

Research shows that the "you are what you eat" principle applies to violent film consumption. If people are exposed to violence, then some may be prone to act out what they see.

My wife and I sat through the previews of the upcoming films, I couldn't help but shake my head at how many new films had so much violence -- even the animation fims have a lot of violence.

Hollywood's desire to supposedly make everything more "authentic and real" should not be mistaken for "authentically real life violence." Fact is, Hollywood violence is sensationalized and exaggerated.

Fact is, while Directors like Tarantino who have a blood lust try to make violence somehow pleasing, Hollywood's depictions of violent acts are not supposed to be instructional -- yet they are as they are in fact reenacted.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets.

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., said.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said "people on the far-right, on the NRA front ... they go to bed at night ... afraid somebody's going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests."

On CNN, host Piers Morgan called Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt "an unbelievably stupid man."

Yet, there's another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize, and that's Hollywood. As we've discussed here, Hollywood bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence because they incite violence.

"Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does," Parents Television Council's Dan Isett said.

"What happened in Newtown is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn't take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids."

Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino typifies Hollywood's position on the issue -- minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities.

James Holmes who is in jail is accused of going on a shooting spree during a midnight screening of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises on July 20, 2012, at a movie complex in Aurora Colorado. He faces 152 charges.

He was inspired to to his horrible act by a horribly violent film. He learned how to do the deed from Hollywood and he emulated the scene from the film to do what he did. Thank you Hollywood!

But, what does Tarantino say about that and the violence in his latest film Django Unlimited?

"I just think, you know, there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers," Tarantino said.

"Is that a question you're tired of?" asked a reporter.

"Yeah, I'm really tired. It's a western. Give me a break." that was what Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood's impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, Django Unchained.

Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of extreme violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say.
Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Democrats in Congress do not change the current system of "self regulation" that labels content violent or not.

Not unlike any big political action organization, Democrat in Congress fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies.

After all, Hollywood supports Democrats even if the candidate were known for fact to be a convicted Pedophile and devout Communist. From Hollywood, millions of dollars of campaign contribution roll in.

Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democrati politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced extremely violent films.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, MPAA CEO former Democrat Senator Chris Dodd released this statement: "Those of us in the motion picture and television industry want to do our part to help America heal. We stand ready to be part of the national conversation."

"Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem," said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for Reelchange.net.

"Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo," Isett said.

Since 1998, America's five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA in the same time period according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA.

The difference is that the NRA is fighting to keep a Constitutional Right shared by all Americans -- while the MPAA lobbys to keep violent prominent in films and videos.

The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Democrats who controlled Congress for the most part since 1925 off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.

Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie "Dark Knight,." where dozens died in the movie, often graphically, yet it got a PG-13 rating.

Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games - a $11 billion a year business. But, that too was shot down.

"It's pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence," Gittell said.

"If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority."

As stated previously, at a press conference held at a Washington, DC, hotel last month, the National Rifle Association's leadership responded to the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School by decrying the impact of violent movies on our culture.

During his speech at Washington DC's Willard Hotel, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre sought to put the blame where it should be and called the film industry "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people," specifically highlighting "the blood-soaked slasher films like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers that are aired like propaganda loops."

The  pro-gun control media immediately dismissed his comments and openly worked to discredit the notion that violent movies encourage violent behavior. In fact, pro-gun control groups even stooped to pointing to an NRA museum that displays movie prop guns of all sorts.

Believe it or not, those wanting to ban guns are reaching new lows as they try to link the display of "non-firing" and "blank-firing" guns to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Since 2010, the NRA National Firearms Museum has hosted "Hollywood Guns," an exhibit featuring firearms made famous in all sorts of movies and television shows from movies such as old 1930s westerns and gangster movies to modern movies like Dirty Harry and Die Hard and Quigley Down Under. And yes, from 1950s television Westerns to present day cop shows.

According to NRA magazine American Rifleman, "If you love guns or you love movies, or still luckier you love guns and movies, this is a trip you cannot miss."

In a promotional video for the museum, senior curator Phil Schreier says, "We encourage you to come by and visit this sequel and come see a true blockbuster here in Fairfax, where all the stars of the silver screen have descended into these galleries and are represented by some of the firearms that we've fallen in love with in our youth and our adulthood, wishing that we too could be like our matinee idols."
Somehow anti-gun groups see that as a bad thing. For me, I'd love to see the pistols that stars like Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others carried. Blank-firing or Non-gun, they would be interesting see.

I'd love to see the guns used when making The Sands Of Iwo Jima with John Wayne, or the gun that Humphrey Bogart used to gun down Edward G. Robinson in Key Largo.

I was brought up on John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Tim Holt, Hopalong Cassidy westerns were there was a always some gunplay, but back in those days the gun play was secondary to the story of good versus evil.

The small use of violence in movies was never the focus of the movie as it is today. And yes, in many cases depending which old movies you talk about from back then, some didn't even show any blood at all when someone was shot.

It was always a case of the act lending to the story, and not the other way around like movies these days. The shot that killed the bad guy was not in vivid color spurting out and splattering everywhere, it was usually done without focus on the killing - but instead more on what took us to that point in the movie.
Yes, those old movies were extremely mild in comparison to today's blood lust classics.

My favorite Western movie has only one person being shot dead in the entire movie. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, an outlaw named Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin) is out of control.

A dude by the name of Ransom "Ranse" Stoddard (played by James Stewart), someone from the East who knows nothing about the ways of the West or guns, finally accepts a challenge to a duel despite his complete lack of skills.

In the movie, Stoddard tries and supposedly miraculously kills Valance with one shot to the surprise of everyone, including himself. In reality, a local Cowboy Tom Doniphon, ( played by John Wayne, was asked to protect him and shot Valance from a dark ally.

The Cowboy congratulates the Dude on his success, and notices how his girl Hallie, played by Vera Miles, is lovingly caring for the Dude's wounds. Later, when the Dude Stoddard is feeling remorse over killing the outlaw -- the Cowboy tells him what he did.

Doniphon tells Stoddard that he (Doniphon) hid across the street and shot and killed Valance in cold blood, and that it was not Stoddard who killed Valance in self-defense. Stoddard asks him why he shot Valance. Doniphon tells him that he did it for Hallie.

In my favorite movie of all time, Casablanca, the only person shot dead was the evil Nazi officer.

And yes, American Humphrey Bogart warned Major Strasser twice before he left him no choice but to shoot. If he hadn't shot him, French patriot Victor Laszlo and his wife Ingrid Bergman couldn't have escaped Casablanca on a plane.

That was only the one shot in the movie that showed anyone getting hit. No big bucket of blood splatter in a 2 minute slow motion sequence. Bogart fires the shot and the n azi falls down dead.

Again, like in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance where Valance  falls down dead, in Casablanca the bad guy Major Strasser just falls down dead.

In both examples, those shot were not the focus of the story. The focus was on the storyline. They certainly, above all else, did not use huge blood splattering scenes in some sick twisted sense of logic to be aesthetically pleasing violence.

As I sat through the credits of the movie, I thought how well made the movie Parental Guidance really was. And yes, I thought to myself, I don't see today's ultra-violent films surviving the test of time.

I see them as being what they are, just trashy movies filled with gratuitous violence. Just violence for the sake of being violent. Just violence depicted without need or reason. And for the part, totally unrealistic with the sole purpose of glorifying violent acts and inciting others to violence.

Yes, I can't help but wonder how many go to see those extremely violent movies because they love it? And really, I can't help but wonder how many are like James Holmes when it comes to wanting to reenact such horribly violent films? How many are truly caught up in some movie director's sick sense of reality?
I'm sorry to say that I really believe that there are more out there like the nutcase who dressed himself like the Joker and tried to kill everyone in a theater in Aurora Colorado.

If there is one, than we can be fairly certian that there is at least one more like him. And yes, he is probably out there.

I  believe that he will show up one day to play out his fantasy to be just like some murderous character in a movie. He will try to emulate a scene he saw in a movie -- and probably want to be famous. He too will find his moment when to terrorize and be like someone depicted in a horrible film that few will remember.

That's why I believe that there are people who are now going to the movies armed. And yes. because of that concern I know a few for certain just because of the reasons I've stated.

Tom Correa

Friday, January 4, 2013

RANDOM SHOTS - Gun Control, Al Gore Sells Out To Radical Muslims, Unions Want It All, and More!


FIRST SHOT!

Releasing Names Of Gun Permit Holders Endangers Public, says New York County Clerk

Americans have a new hero today. His name is Dennis Sant. He is a man who stood up and said, no, this is not right.

A New York county clerk justified his refusal to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders to the same newspaper who published the names of other gun owners in another country.

He said, "it would give stalkers and thieves a convenient roadmap to target potential victims -- and determine whether they have a gun."

"This certainly puts my public in danger," Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.

The Journal News, which serves New York City's northern suburbs, created citizen outrage last month when it published clickable online maps with the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties.

The Journal News does not care if a citizen's safety becomes jeopardized, And it works either way, the Journal News handed robbers and burglars a detailed map on which houses they could hit and find guns, or the houses of those now known to be defenseless.

When the newspaper requested the same information from Putnam, Dennis Sant initially said the county needed more time to fulfill the request.

Dennis Sant balked entirely this week, saying the law gives him the prerogative to refuse to release public information if it endangers the public.

Judges and police officers could be targeted by the people they put behind bars, he said. People with orders of protection have expressed concern to him about would-be attackers finding them through the database.

And yes, there are women who are thought to be armed so to protect themselves and their children. If this data is released, it may expose the truth that they may be unarmed to violent former husbands and boyfriends who would love to find out such information so that they could go and do harm upon those women and children.

Yes, Dennis Sant has become one of my heroes!

While anyone can come into his office and file the necessary paperwork to request information on individual permits, Sant said the difference is that the Journal News plans to publish the information in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, instantaneously.

"First of all, it tells criminals who doesn't have a gun," he said. "It gives a burglar or it gives a thief a map."

The Journal News' database and accompanying story, "The Gun Owner Next Door," was supposedly published as part of the newspaper's coverage following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

But that doesn't pass the sniff test, it smells too fishy. After all, they are a paper known to have an anti-gun agenda. And honestly, if they are so concerned about public safety - why have they never listed known Child Molesters and Convicted Rapists? Because that doesn't fit their agenda!

Some readers say the paper unfairly stigmatized gun owners, branding them in the same way as if they were outlaws and law violators or some sort of sex offenders that the community needed to be warned about.

The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.

I'm hoping they post armed guards at their homes as well.

Maybe those who work for the Journal News now have to hire guards to escort their children to school or their families to work or the market? Maybe the Journal News employees who thought it was OK to target law abiding citizens has to now protect their homes from vandals or arsonists? Maybe they now understand how it is to live in harms way?

Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson did not respond to several requests for comment Thursday but has issued statements previously standing behind the newspaper's project and maintaining residents have a right to see such public information.

Diane Kennedy, president of the New York News Publishers Association, said she reached out to Hasson offering support. Imagine that!

Janet Hasson puts folks in the community in danger, and Diane Kennedy who is the president of the New York News Publishers Association says she is reaching out to Hasson to offer her support.


She said editors may debate whether the Journal News should have published the database, but they fully backed the newspaper's right to access public records under New York's Freedom of Information Law. If the issue went to court, she said, member newspapers would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Journal News.

"It's really clear cut," Kennedy said. "The existing law doesn't have exemptions in it. It says this information is subject to FOIL."

No surprise to anyone, another newspaper sides with Hasson and Kennedy, Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., said : "There is a broad consensus that the kind of resistance to the FOIL application that we're seeing in Putnam County is intolerable."

My friends, conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms, principles and rules, understanding what is legal may not be what is right.


I guess this is just more proof that those without conscience will support others of the same ilk.

And yes, newspapers wonder why they are dieing across the nation in huge numbers. With their circulation is at an all time low, most Americans see newspapers as out of touch or arrogant.

The Journal News proves they are definitely out of touch with the desires of their community. And yes, all their community wants from a newspaper is to be informed  - not be an informer for criminals and other crazies who would do harm simply because they now have an address they didn't have before.

People are fed up with newspapers forcing their leftist ideology on their customers. People do not see newspapers as a guardian of freedom fighting for the people, but instead as an abuser who is in fact fighting against the best interest of the people.

The denial of similar information to The Wall Street Journal by New York City's police commissioner led to a case that in 1981 was decided in favor of the newspaper.

But Dennis Sant  says that times have changed.

"The technology today is so different," he said. "I'm looking forward to the opportunity of bringing to the magistrates that this is not 30 years ago."

Yes, Dennis Sant is a real American hero for taking a stand against what is not right. He is a hero for standing up to a big money politically connected newspaper. He is a hero for doing what is right for his county!

SECOND SHOT!

FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles


January 3rd, 2013
Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14th, Democrats are making reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" a major priority for the 113th Congress.

This is ddespite factsthat show relatively few murders are committed with rifles such as the ones that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles of any sort, reports Breitbart.

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records.

In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.”

Yet, Democrats want to go after rifles - especially black rifles they term assault rifles.

Technically, an assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or 3 round burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Assault rifle should not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard military service rifles in most modern militaries around the world. The term, assault weapons, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle.

They are not the same because the military style assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, while the assault weapon only cosmetically looks like an assault rifle.

Think of it like this President Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States and a great leader.

There are many reasons he was a great leader, but mostly because he lifted the nation's spirit and instilled pride in Americans. Comparing President Reagan to President Obama is like comparing a real leader to a wannabe who only looks the part.

One writer wrote about the 1994 gun ban this way, "Supporters of the assault weapons ban use emotion to convince the public that there are many rapid-fire weapons easily accessible to dangerous persons who use them frequently to kill and wound large numbers of people. Factual evidence does not support this claim."

"Those who oppose this ban should promote greater exposure for people who use firearms of all kinds for self-defense. Everyone understands and can empathize with the person who used a firearm, especially a semi- automatic military gun, to defend against looters during riots, hurricanes, and other disasters, or to defend one's home against invasion by criminals."

This all holds true today. Like back in 1195, studies today reveal similar findings in that only a small number of crimes involve the use of weapons classified as "assault weapons."

But again, the problem is being sidestepped as no one is focusing on the root cause - and instead are focused only the effect.

The cause is violent movies like the Dark Knight Rises which implanted the idea of a mass murder in a theater in the mind of the Aurora Colorado killer. He saw it done in that movie and decided to recreate it.

The murderer in Newtown Connecticut, was known to have spend an enormous amount of time playing ultra-violent video games. And yes, I can't help but wonder about the connection there?

If Democrats want something to ban, go after the root cause of the problem - and ban extremely violent movies and video games that are the inspiration for such acts of horror.
  THIRD SHOT!   Unions look for benefits from Obama re-election
Going into his second term, President Obama may find himself more beholden than ever to America's labor unions, even as their membership continues to decline -- lately, to just 11.8 percent of the workforce.

The unions, as in 2008, contributed heavily in manpower and money to Obama's election this year. The president, in return, has made a point of supporting them -- like with his post-election visit to the Daimler Diesel Plant in Dearborn, Mich., on Dec. 10.

"You only have to look to Michigan where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America," Obama said.

But Obama could be going against the legislative tide. The president's dilemma was demonstrated in the fact that a day after that visit, the union stronghold of Michigan became the 24th state to pass a right-to-work law preventing unions from demanding dues from workers.

Hampered in the states by right-to-work momentum -- and in Washington by a divided Congress, and abroad by low-cost competition -- the unions may see limited options on the part of the president to reward them. But they still expect some payback.

"There are things a president can do alone, and we will be expecting that leadership from President Obama," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the immediate aftermath of Obama's re-election victory.

Trumka may have been referencing the Obama administration's enthusiasm for new federal regulations and executive orders, some of which have benefited unions and penalized non-union employers.

More than 5,700 new regulations have been posted in the last 90 days alone.

FOURTH SHOT!

Whoever says Unions are for American Workers is dead wrong!

Union leaders like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have also been exploring other options that address the fundamental realities of globalization that have decimated U.S. manufacturing.

"The way to do it, from a union's perspective, is to raise those workers' pay around the world," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.

U.S. unions are trying to do just that, laying the groundwork, as Trumka said last year, "to protect workers from Detroit to Juarez and Shanghai to Bogota."

Getting foreign governments and multi-national corporations to agree is, admittedly, a long-term strategy for labor organizers. But as standards of living increase in those third world countries, union organizers hope so too will workers' thirst for greater protections.

The most recent high-profile union fight has involved dockworkers all along the East and Gulf coasts.

They had threatened a strike at 14 ports stretching from Massachusetts to Texas - but a 30-day contract extension agreed to by dockworkers, shippers and port operators last Friday temporarily averted the shut-down.

Mediators have said the major sticking point -- over fees paid to longshoremen based upon the weight of each individual container -- has largely been resolved. But they would not describe how it was resolved, as negotiations continue.

FIFTH SHOT!

Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as pollutant in Virginia

Virginia officials scored a key victory Thursday in their battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over what EPA critics describe as a land takeover.

U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.

O'Grady sided with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which challenged EPA's stormwater restrictions

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says the ruling could ultimately save Virginia taxpayers more than $300 million.

The EPA, citing an abundance of stormwater runoff, had proposed a plan that Virginia officials said could cost homeowners and businesses their private property.

The EPA contended that water itself can be regulated as a pollutant if there's too much of it. Imagine that would you. The EPA contends that rain water can be regulated as a pollutant if they feel there is too much of it.

Some would call this one stupid statement, and they'd be right. But also, others would call this a lame ass way of grabbing power - and yes, they'd be right as well.

The EPA says heavy runoff is having a negative impact on Accotink Creek and that it has the regulatory authority to remedy the situation - even though it is not their jurisdiction.
Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, argued what the EPA has proposed is "illegal," and he's not alone in the fight.

As surprising as it may be, Ken Cuccinelli was joined in the lawsuit against the federal agency by the Democrat-controlled Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

In legal filings, the EPA says that its plan is "in harmony with the broader purposes" of the Clean Water Act, including "reducing the water quality impacts of stormwater."

Federal Judge O'Grady did not agree, saying,  "EPA may not regulate something over which it has no statutorily granted power... as a proxy for something over which it is granted power."

He continued, "If the sediment levels in Accotink Creek have become dangerously high, what better way to address the problem than by limiting the amount of sediment permitted in the creek?"

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

"EPA was literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant," noted Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

"This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement. And it was likely to do more harm than good, as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."

I'm not going to lie, it is very nice to see the EPA get put in their place. They are a rogue federal agency with way too much authority. The EPA is directly responsible for farmers losing farms, ranchers losing herds, agriculture progress being stifled, and American manufacturing disappearing. 

LAST SHOT!

Al Gore Sells His TV Channel To Radical Muslim Anti-American Al-Jazeera

Well, Glenn Beck tried to buy it but Al Gore supposedly said no because Beck is a Conservative.

And you know Al Gore? He was once the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away as they say.

He's also the guy who pulled one of the biggest scams on the American people - and in fact, some say the entire world with his Global Warming hoax.

If you don't remember that, how about the fact that he contested the 2000 Presidential Election when he loss to George W.Bush? Yeah that's him!

Mister Leftist, our little Al Gore, the man who would be King if he could - but couldn't get 'er done.

Well, now Al Gore has sold his enemic television channel to a group of radical Muslims who own Al-Jazeera. The same Al-Jazeer who supported our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same guys you proclaimed the 9-11 terrorists as heroes to Muslims everywhere.

Their Pan-Arab news channel has struggled to win space on American cable television. But now, thanks to Al Gore, they have now acquired Current TV - boosting Al-Jazeer's reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million American homes.

With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that co-founder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.

The former vice president confirmed the sale on Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."

In other words, Muslim Propaganda!

The Wall Street Journal said that Al-Jazeera  "became famous in the U.S. about a decade ago when its Arabic-language outlet aired videos of Usama bin Laden in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks."

The network is based in Qatar, an oil producing country, and is state-funded.

Back in 2006, Al Jazeera talk show host (and former CNN International journalist) Riz Kahn wouldn’t call either Hamas or Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" during an interview. “I’m not one to judge,” Kahn said.

In 2008, the network celebrated the birthday of a released terrorist who had shot and killed one Israeli and then beat to death a 4-year-old Israeli girl.

The network doesn’t call out Arabs for crimes either. In 2011, even liberal Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart criticized the network for ignoring the attack in Egypt on CBS News reporter Lara Logan.

But lefties love Al Jazeera. The network gained a bigger name for itself covering Arab Spring and is also the outlet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “real news” back in 2011.

The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera's reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English.

Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a new channel called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists.

Al-Jazeera spokesman Stan Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.

Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.

"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.

Previous to Al-Jazeera's purchase, Current TV was in 60 million American homes.

In 2010, the network's managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a "very aggressive hostility" from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network.

Now before you write and ask if I made that up, please don't. I can't help it if jerkweed liberals are still blaming Bush years after he left office. That is a quote from the news article reporting this.

Al-Jazeera is anti-American. Anyone who has doubts should contact Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington. He said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.

Current TV was political talk television with a liberal bent. Among the ultra-leftist who worked there was Al Gore who worked on-air as an analyst during its recent election night coverage.

Former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Cenk Uygur are currently its lead personalities. Current signed Keith Olbermann to be its top host in 2011 but his tenure lasted less than a year before it ended in bad blood on both sides.

Current has largely been outflanked by ultra-left MSNBC in its effort be a super liberal alternative to the leading cable news network, Fox News Channel.

The sale of Current TV and the taxes paid on that say are another issue that's being talked about. It appears that founder Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, is expected to post $114 million in revenue in 2013, according to research firm SNL Kagan.

Some reports have it that Al Gore was or is right now trying to get out of paying the steep taxes incurred by delaying the sale date. Imagine that.

A liberal not wanting to pay taxes? I thought they love paying taxes.

I guess they only want you to pay taxes, while they try to weasel out of it.


Story by Tom Correa