Gun Control

Throughout history we see that the use of firearms is imperative for the safe keeping of U.S citizens.  I believe any law-abiding citizen should not be deprived of the ownership of a gun, and am truly against enforcing gun control laws on U.S citizens.



First of all the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects our rights to acquire guns stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Enforcing laws that that take away our rights to bear arms is therefore a violation of the Constitution.  Enforcing gun control laws simply deprives us from our rights and invades our privacy.  Law abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun in order to protect family as well as property and for self-defense.  If our own defense is taken away, our own rights are taken away.

No matter how hard we try to remove weapons of any kind, it won't stop criminals from getting them.  Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence.  Different types of weapons have emerged throughout history.  We started with spears then moved on to darts and knives, guns, bombs, and on and on.  Society is advancing and new guns and weapons have emerged. The point is, a gun is just another weapon, and gun control will not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun or committing a crime.  Think back on the issue of alcoholism and before it was legalized in 1933; the fact that it was illegal didn't stop people from drinking. And even today with illegal drugs and the like, people that choose to defy these laws will obtain them whether they are legalized or not.  It's time to stop looking at the guns themselves but the people behind the guns.

Ann Coulter wrote an article that argued how guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do.  Coulter gives two examples such as Loughner and Lanza's shootings, stating that anyone who can shoot an innocent child is obviously not all there. Coulter gives facts that these two men had already shown signs of mental illness before committing their crimes, and maybe if the people who noticed this had worked in mental health institutions or spread awareness concerning these two men then there is a possibility that lives wouldn't have been taken. But of course, being psychotic is a civil right.  What about our civil right to bear arms?

Enforcing gun control laws cannot and will not work. There will always be weapons whether it is guns or knives. The concern should be with the person pulling the trigger, not the gun itself. Guns can provides us with the means of defense. We have a right to defend ourselves, and that right should not be taken away. 

Travel Ban?

Concern has inevitably been raised involving the new Ebola crisis, that was recently brought to Dallas Texas.  Questions have been arising over the topic of travel bans, and what can be done to stop this epidemic.  Recently, Andrew Sullivan posted a new article called “ The Grave Risks Of A Travel Ban,” on his blog known as The Dish.  Sullivan is a British author, editor and blogger, resident in the U.S.  Born and raised in England, his conservatism was established in his British Catholic background.  Sullivan expresses the issues and concerns of enforcing a travel ban by interpreting health officials including, the thoughts of Dr. Frieden on the subject.  Sullivan intends for his audience to be us, readers of the blog, to inform the people of the issues that are being debated on this topic.  Sullivan mainly speaks on the opinions of health officials and house speakers.

Sullivan starts off his article with the opinions of several health officials who want to enforce a travel ban between the U.S and West African countries.  Officials have spoken on how this Ebola issue needs to be resolved in Africa but until it is they are raising concern on whether of not we should allow these people in.  Dr. Frieden suggests that providing material support to the affected regions and securing the outbreak at its source is the main need that should be met at the moment. Sullivan’s article explains the needs that actually need to be met right now.  Panicking over the outbreak will most likely cause more harm than the disease itself in this instance.

I think that Sullivan presents these ideas in a good manner. As stated in the article our worries should not be focused on how this disease can get into the U.S, instead it should be on the fact that this disease could get into the larger portions of West Africa, where they don’t have the health facilities and quarantine set-ups that we have.  If we ban travel how are we supposed to help these people who are dying from the disease? My hope is that we can all be mature on the subject and act upon the needs of the people who are really facing the Ebola crisis.

Is it Really a Question of Inequality?

Does the gap between the rich and the poor affecting our society either in a positive or negative way? On September 28, 2014 Paul Krugman posted an article called Our Invisible Rich.  Krugman joined the New York Times in 1999 as a columnist, and continues as a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. He writes this article with the opinion that today it’s not the poor who are invisible, but the rich.  He intends for this article to reach out among American voters, claiming that our ignorance is the reason for the uncertainty of what our society is really like and why this affects our realization of inequality.

           

Krugman starts off his article saying, “I don’t think the poor are invisible today; instead, these days it’s the rich who are invisible.”  After this statement Krugman answers the question of our TV Programming, saying that it’s just celebrity culture, and doesn’t mean the public can properly understand the gap between the rich and the poor.  To back up these statement Krugmen describes a survey that was taken, with the results that the median respondent believed executives of major companies make about thirty times as much as the workers.  Instead they actually earn about three hundred times as much.  Krugmen suggests that the reasons for people being unaware of these developments are because the rich are simply removed from ordinary people’s lives.  Krugman states, “We don’t see what they have.”  Krugman believes the exceptions are celebrities, who live their lives publicly.

In the conclusion of this article, Krugman asks a logical question, whether the invisibility of the rich actually matter.  Krugman’s answer is that that politically, it does matter. The reason voters don’t care about inequality is because they don’t understand the extremity of it.  There is overwhelming support for higher minimum wages and so on.  Krugman also states “Today’s political balance rests on a foundation of ignorance.”

I personally disagree with Krugman in the article.  I don’t believe our society could be better off if the public was more aware of the extremity of the wealthy.  I understand that we often clump the rich into one category, and that there is actually a subcategory with an extraordinary income, which makes celebrities look poor.  On the other hand, we are not completely blind of this subcategory. American voters have tons of access through the media and are constantly bombarded with social networking sites.  By the survey Krugman mentioned, its true that the majority of Americans are unaware of how wealthy the super-rich really are.   It’s true, we are ignorant; but would our society really change if we knew these things?

By researching more about this topic I found that many people have very strong opinions about the gap between the rich and the poor, or even just the middle class. I don’t think that voters don’t care about inequality.  There is overwhelming support for higher minimum wages and higher taxes to be laid upon the rich.  This support will most likely increase if society is more aware of the sub category of the rich.  If this does happen, then these large business cooperation’s may start laying off more people, which will only end in less jobs for us Americans. In my opinion, anyone can be successful by hard work and discipline.  It’s not necessarily a question of inequality. In order for this to happen though, people have to try. What happened to the American dream that enables the patrons a chance to prosper?  Blaming our difficulties on the rich cannot be tolerated.  Babying Americans will only cause the government to grow.  This will result in our own personal rights to be taken away, and eventually we will not have the freedom to prosper.