The New York Times' latest housebroken "conservative," Bret Stephens, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment as the answer to reduce killings involving guns.  Stephens views our constitutionally protected right to bear arms as a "fetish."

The Times, and Stephens, a #NeverTrump, expected Hillary to win.  Hillary would then have appointed another Ginsburg or Sotomayor, who would have provided the fifth Supreme Court vote to water down the Second Amendment to the point that it may as well be repealed.

A Hillary Court would have ruled that the right to own guns is not a personal right, but a state right, or upheld all state and local laws that limit the number and type of guns owned, taxed at high rates guns and ammunition, and severely limited the ability to carry a gun outside the home.

Since President Trump has saved our country and Constitution from Hillary, now the battle has moved to start a "conversation" to repeal the Second Amendment following the Las Vegas mass murders by Paddock.  Liberals and phony conservatives like Stephens first propose radical solutions to make their subsequent gun regulations seem reasonable compared to repeal of the Second Amendment.

Nobody has explained how any new law would have prevented the Las Vegas killings.  Stephens calls for an outright repeal of our right to bear arms.  Stephens must assume that a repeal would be followed by a total confiscation of guns owned by Americans, with a ban on sales of guns.

Since Stephens has proposed a radical solution to reduce gun-related crime, it seems logical to examine other radical solutions.  For example, our popular culture is soaked in violence and death.  Hollywood and the entertainment industry, which are part of the Democratic Party, produce movies, songs, music, videos, books, magazines, and other media that depict violence and the use of guns.  We are bombarded by violent movies and songs.  Why is there no proposal to restrict the "right" of Hollywood to do this?  They cannot believe that there is no effect on our culture and the behavior of some by being constantly exposed to such violence on the screen and songs.  Liberals like to look at "root causes."  Why not look at the effect on our culture by Hollywood?

But any mention of this will send Hollywood into convulsions.  Hollywood will preach to us about the First Amendment that protects free speech.  But does anyone really believe that James Madison, and our Founders, believed that the First Amendment was written to protect the entertainment industry to produce violent books and music and depictions of murder and other crime to make money?

Since Stephens and his ilk want to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment as a means to reduce crime, then how about amending the First Amendment to ban movies, books, songs, music, magazines, etc. that describe and depict violence, killings, rapes, robberies, and all crimes?

The Stephens types take no responsibility for the culture of violence promoted and glorified by Hollywood but now protected by the First Amendment.

The Stephens types want to have a discussion about causes of violence and amending the Constitution.  Let us then start with the role of Hollywood and the entertainment industry that is part of the Democratic Party in contributing to the violence.

If we are going to tamper with the Constitution, then let us examine the multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry that supports the Democratic Party and pollutes our culture with violent movies, videos, and songs.