Is there a reason President Clinton is trying to take the spotlight off the role movies and television play in violence in our nation?
President Clinton and his many "yes men" are having a field day trying to beat up on anyone who appears favorable to the National Rifle Assn. or who indicates opposition to tighter so-called "gun control" laws.
The horrible shooting in Littleton, Colo., has provided a timely stage for the president and those opposed to guns to re-energize their efforts to ban guns and/or to impose laws relative to the ownership of guns. To hear some of these people talk, new gun laws would have made the Colorado shooting much more unlikely.
The fact is, criminals and those who want guns for reasons other than hunting, target shooting, protection, etc., always are going to be able to get a gun. Gun laws are not going to take guns out of the hands of criminals. The nation already has hundreds, thousands, of gun laws, but they are not being enforced.
Everyone is having a field day trying to figure out what caused the Colorado shootings, as well as shootings at other schools across the country. Pointing the finger of blame is a national pastime these days.
It would seem appropriate for the president to spend just as much time attacking the American movie and television industries for their concentration on violence as he does in attacking the NRA and those opposed to new and ineffective gun laws.
Why doesn't he get tough with the movie and TV industries? This weekend, he is busy on the West Coast in his constant fund-raising efforts, and some of his most generous fiscal supporters come from the Hollywood film industry. Could there be any connection and reason for this silence in criticizing the film industry or calling for tighter laws and higher standards, and the millions of dollars he has received from his film industry cronies?