Comments on Gun Control Debate

In Kylie Moden's post, she brings up the debate on a gun control law. The awful Colorado massacre, brought up more concern for a gun control law. Many believe that if there were a gun control law, the disaster in Colorado could've been prevented. I agree with Kylie, having a gun control law may have not prevented the massacre from happening. Sick people will do whatever they have to do to harm others. Even if there was a gun control law or tight restrictions, people will find ways to get a gun. When someone tells another that they are not allowed to do something, most of the times it will only make them want to do it more. I can see that occurring if there was such a law, it would make others feel less safe. 

There have been battles in court over the second amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." They are fighting over how this amendment should be interpreted, and whether the government should have the ability to limit the use of guns. The way I see it is if the government begins to slowly place gun control laws, then they will continue to place gun control laws. If they were to take away our rights from owning a gun, then we would have no way to protect ourselves from the government. Look at what that has done in the past to other countries, such as Germany under Hitler and North Korea. We learn from our mistakes and others, so we don't repeat history. I believe that there will always be debates over gun control, and it will always be sparked up when something tragic happens. People will find ways to blame it on the government. I believe that stricter gun laws are not the way to go, unless the government wants more citizens to be enraged. 

Sources:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html

Democrat's Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage has been a controversial issue for decades. There are around 9 million Americans that consider themselves lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. It's estimated that 1 in every 10 Americans are LGBT. No major political parties support same-sex marriages until now. Democrats have decided to include their support for same-sex marriages in the official party platform at the national convention. The majority of Democrats are on board for supporting same-sex marriage.

It's understandable to hear that many Americans are upset and don't support same-sex marriages. They stand strong for their traditional beliefs. When Obama first supported same-sex marriage, there were African American Pastors ready to protest. There is no doubt that there will always be many who disagree. It is important that we treat them like everyone else, and they share the same rights. Every American should be treated equally and that includes having the right to be married to someone of the same gender. We all need to be more excepting of LGBT. It's very exciting to hear that there are more supporters.

As a Christian, I believe in God's word. I also believe in equality. Everyone has the right to love whoever they want, so they should be able to marry whomever they want. I think that more states should allow same-sex marriage. I also believe that later in the future there will be more states that will accept it. Now that the Democrats are supporting it, they can help push to adopt same-sex marriage laws in many more states.

In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This just goes to prove they have the right to get married and be happy. Marriage should be between two people who love each other, no matter what sexual orientation. If we accept this and adopt more same-sex marriage laws, America will be on the road to freedom.



Resources:

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/30/dems-move-to-include-gay-marriage-support-in-official-party-platform/

Comments on the Immigration Law

Bianca Tamez's blog post discusses the immigration law in Arizona, the SB 1070. The law was established in 2010. The SB 1070 allows police officials to stop someone and ask for identification; they stop them if they believe they don't belong here legally. This has led to a controversial issue not only in Arizona but around the U.S. In the past years Texas, California, and Colorado have also tried to pass bills similar to the SB 1070, but failed. 

Many believe the law shows discrimination. Public officials say the border is very dangerous, and the illegal immigrations have brought more crime, drugs, and kidnapings into the states. They believe the federal government isn't doing its job in keeping the border safe, so they believe the states need to intervene.I understand why many are angry with the law and how it seems that they are racial profiling, but we need to protect ourselves from the Mexican drug cartel. I agree with Bianca, where they should just improve the border patrol, instead of laws like the SB 1070. Also, I do believe that the law may be misused and/or misunderstood. It's disappointing to know those who have fully earned the right to live in this country, are being mistaken as a criminal. If the border patrol had been stricter, than we would possibly have less crime than we would with illegal immigrants. The border needs to be tighter than it is now, so we can protect those in the borderline states and those who will endanger our country.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/analysis-of-arizonas-immigration-law.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-15-border-violence-quotes_n.htm

Abortion Ultrasounds

Abortion continues to be a constant debate between those who are pro-life and pro-choice. In the mid-1990s, certain states began to issue policies and laws that made sure women receive information on accessing an ultrasound. Many pro-life Americans are trying to stop women from having abortions. The law and policies on the use of the ultrasound are to make sure that women are fully aware of the consequences on having an abortion. Whether the women have an ultrasound or gather information on the ultrasound and the abortion, all depend on what state they live in. Different states have different policies on the use of the ultrasound, such as whether the woman must view the ultrasound or not. Many pro-life Americans, hope the ultrasound will change the mind of those who want to have an abortion. 

The main issue here is, should the government get involved with abortion rights? Abortion is a terrible thing, and the ultrasound law is a good idea. It's not harming anybody. The only downfall for women, who get an ultrasound, is the cost. Whether the women decide to proceed with abortion after the ultrasound is up to them, they still have the right to do what ever they want with their bodies. With the ultrasound, it could provide a change of heart. 

There are many risks women face when proceeding to have an abortion, such as an increase of breast cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, and infertility. Information on abortion provided for women and the use of an ultrasound should hopefully stop them from having an abortion. Everyday, approximately 3,700 abortions take place in just the U.S. There are around 1.37 million abortions by the end of the year. If we continue to place policies and laws in the many other states, we can hopefully bring those numbers down. In the end, women still have a say on what to do with their bodies. As pro-life Americans, it is better to know we could make a change in another persons decision to not have an abortion. 

Resources:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-05/ultrasound-National-Right-to-Life-Committee/53374658/1

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm

Have you paid your dollar for free abortions today?

Barack Obama promised us that no federal money would go to fund abortions, but that's not the case here. In the editorial it talks about the Obamacare legislation now are having "people who enroll in a healthcare exchange plan will be required to pay a $1 ‘abortion surcharge’ every month on their plans." What’s wrong is how Obamacare guidelines were being added after the legislation was signed. Kathleen Sebelius, the Human Services secretary created the guidelines that were recently added. I think what's upsetting is the fact is that she is an unelected official. Should she really have the control to put out all of the guidelines? 

In the editorial the author doesn't exactly state his view on abortion. I'm guessing since the blog was posted on the Free Republic website, the author would be more conservative. Conservatives tend to be more pro-life, so I think the author could’ve been pro-life as well. I think that the author overall just seemed disappointed at how the guidelines were added. I agree that what Kathleen Sebelius did wasn't very fair or right. I believe what the author wanted to point out, is that Obama didn't follow through with his promise. When Joe Wilson yelled out "you lie" at Obama's State of the Union Address, Obama made his promise. The author then states “The answer to that question is quite obvious now." This shows the author believes Obama lied as he made that promise.

What attracted me to this blog was that it had to do with abortion. This past January, I went to the pro-life rally in Austin. Many mothers were there that had abortions and they regretted their decision. I think the many young women that had or going to have an abortion will regret their choice later on in life. Abortion is just a very sad and awful choice. I know there are many out there who are pro-abortion, but one thing is Obama broke his promise. Now the people who use the healthcare plan are considered to be abortionists. Abortion has been an on-going issue in politics, there are many strong views towards it. It will remain to be a continuing issue in politics.

Obama's new immigration change

The editorial I found in the New York Times, “A Step Toward a Dream” discusses Obama’s recent decision on immigration. Obama decided to hold back the deportation of young immigrants. Now immigrants are temporary allowed to work legally under certain circumstances. It seems obvious the author is in favor of the new decision, as he defends immigrants writing, “It wisely rescues blameless young people from legal limbo.” Although the author believes that Obama’s plan has nothing to do with a path to citizenship.

In the editorial, the author mentioned the Dream Act which has been delayed in Congress. The Act is used to, “give legal status to young immigrants who go to college or serve in the military.” It also mentions Florida’s Senator Rubio has plans for his version of the Dream Act. The author suggests that Rubio and Obama could come together to, “push Congress to make the Dream Act come true.” I think that would be great if this could help establish the Dream Act. 

The author believes Obama’s decision was led by, “young Dream Act advocates.” It doesn’t imply that he also did it for votes in the coming re-election. I believe Obama pursued the plan to get more votes from Latinos for the election.

It seems that the author doesn’t really have anything negative or opposing to say about the new change. It just shows its consent towards the change. It could have possibly gave cons about the decision. 

For the most part I agree with what the editorial said. Instead of deporting every immigrant, this can help who deserves to be here. For those who qualify can now get a higher education and have careers. This will put those with criminal records back to where they came from.Overall I approve with how this new change will help immigrants in America. I think this will also help Congress be able to establish an immigration law. I know many people don't like that there are many immigrants here, but it's what makes America, America. 

Surveillance Law Blocked

I have been reading many articles trying to decide which one I would choose. Most of the articles didn't appeal to me until I came across, "Senator wants scrutiny of surveillance law." The article reads that this past Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden blocked a five-year extension of the surveillance law. The surveillance law was used for the government to monitor foreigner's communication with American's, through review of e-mails and phone calls.  This was originally intended for the government to watch out for suspicious activity. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon found out the count of how many people were being monitored, "not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed." Wyden believes the government should be stopped from monitoring calls and e-mails, unless they have a warrant or emergency authorization. 

The reason I found this particular article appealing, was the fact that I have relatives out of states that I communicate with. It would be weird to think that the government could possibly be hearing in on my phone calls or reading my e-mails. I don't completely agree with this law. I like the fact that they have more awareness on the suspicious activity that could occur. On the other hand, there are many American's that have had their privacy invaded. Watch out the government could be monitoring your calls or e-mails.