To the editor:

The media has been full of articles and reports taking on the NRA, espousing common sense gun control, bashing gun owners, launching polls supporting its point of view., etc.  While I am not the most staunch supporter of the rigidity with which some interpret the Second Amendment, I very much support it.

I can live with some of the common sense approaches; however, I think we also should be open to some common sense approaches to the First Amendment.  Isn't it the First Amendment that various forms of media hide behind when they promote, publish, stream, or air the vilest, most violent, lack of moral value, pornographic, demeaning content?

Anyone who has looked at some of the violent video games cannot help believe that such games may have a negative impact on people particularly if they are mentally unstable possibly leading to events similar to Sandy Hook.  Why doesn't the media promote bans on these type of things?  They can't because they are so corporately intertwined that they would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Let's strike a deal.  Ban assault rifles (whatever they are - not Diane Feinstein's definition) and ban violent video games.  Ban large capacity clips and ban violent scenes in movies and on TV and on the internet.  Enact universal background checks and ban songs with lyrics glorifying shooting law enforcement officers and ban songs with lyrics denigrating women and other vulgar, suggestive lyrics.  You get my point.

The First Amendment was written at a time when our forefathers had no knowledge of movies, video games, TV, internet, etc., just as they had no knowledge of high capacity, high power, semi-automatic weapons, etc., when they wrote the Second Amendment.  If it is fair to bash our rights from one amendment then it should be fair to bash our rights under another amendment.  Would we accept a common sense Second Amendment? No way. It depends too much on who stands to lose the most on their bottom line.

Virgil Imel