Looking through Think Progress's posts, I stumbled across an intriguing story involving national gun control. Now, many people are on the fence about the federal government's need to get involved in controlling the sales of guns, but in this instance I'm all for it. In this Story, a mass murderer, who would otherwise be unable to buy a gun, found a loophole that allowed him to purchase one easily. According to the post, the man had killed three and injured four in a day spa before killing himself. Also, in the United States, only people with clean criminal records are allowed to purchase a gun. However, he was able to purchase it online without restriction since most online sellers just want the cash without the hassle of background checks.
This post caught my attention because gun control is a big issue in the United States. Some believe gun control should be stricter while others think the entire opposite, that guns should be more easily attainable. After reading the post, I believe his intended audience was the general public in an effort to rile people up enough to bring this to the attention of the authorities. Although I'm net very sure of his credibility, he did do his research. Ian Millhiser, the author, quoted the results of a New York police investigation in which the online illegal arms sales were taking place.
The whole story seems pretty serious, and it seems that the police should be cracking down on this. If they've already been investigating, why hasn't this loophole been brought to the attention of lawmakers? The author doesn't explicitly say anything supporting stricter or looser control of firearms, but the tone of the post is generally that of disapproval. His thought process is very clear though; he organized the post in an easy go understand way that had the reader make an opinion and then read about what is currently being done. Overall, I agree with the thought of stricter gun control, or at least the closing of the loophole that the author seems to support. The fact that a mass murderer was able to commit his crime because of this loophole should be grounds for the immediate closure. If there wasn't this easy way out, maybe those lives would've been saved, and the others without injury. The man's wife was killed by him as well, only adding to the ridiculousness. It's sad to think that this horrible mass murder had to happen for the problems within the system to come to light.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Roe vs. Wade Under Romney/Ryan (Supposedly)
After reading the editorial: If Roe v. Wade Goes on The New York Times online newspaper, several questions were brought to my mind:
1. Could a president actually overturn a Supreme Court decision?
2. Why would Romney retract his past support for Roe v. Wade, especially when he had such a touching story?
I'll come back to these questions, but first I'd like to explain what the editorial claims. From the beginning, Romney/Ryan are made as opponents to abortion by Ryan's "essential" answer in last weeks debate that abortion supporters should be scared. Now, Ryan never uttered this word for word, but the editor seems to think this. However, the editor does give Romney/Ryan a grain of approval when he says that they will sway from the extreme Republican platform by allowing abortion in the cases of rape/incest/the life of the woman. The editor continues by describing the effects of reversing Roe v. Wade; the decision of abortion would be up to the states, and an extremely low number of states would actually allow it. In turn, he claims that the health problems that were evident before abortion was legal would resurface, and many women may even turn to self-aborting or going to illegal practices. The culmination to his attack on Romney/Ryan is the recount of Romney's past support of abortion, and the elaboration of his plans to take down everything the family he was touched by supported.
It seems to me that the author is targeting the unsure voters - the people who are caught in the middle of the two parties. By arguing that Romney/Ryan will do away with abortion, the author helps convince the abortion supporters to vote for Obama and Biden. However, even though Romney/Ryan want to get rid of abortion, they have to jump some serious loops to receive their wish. According to Ed Grabianowski's 10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases, there are two ways to retract a Supreme Court Ruling:
1) States can amend the Constitution themselves by receiving approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
2) The Supreme Court can overrule itself.
The author claims Romney will seek to do the latter by reappointing new Supreme Court Justices, but even then it seems far-fetched to me. This would require Romney's appointed justice(s) along with the residing justices to reach a majority rule decision in the opposite direction it has been the last 39 years. Overall, the author provides good points that would turn the opinions of readers who don't look further into the details, but the editorial as a whole is too rash and quick to make decisions in my opinion.
As a side note, the story about Romney and his past support for abortion involves a close relative who died from illegal abortion complications, and how her parents asked for money to be donated to Planned Parenthood. Evidently, Romney has vouched to retract federal funds to this organization, much like his retraction of abortion support. It's hard to discern Romney's change in beliefs, but if I were to take an educated guess on it, I'd have to say it's due to extremist Republican pressure.
1. Could a president actually overturn a Supreme Court decision?
2. Why would Romney retract his past support for Roe v. Wade, especially when he had such a touching story?
I'll come back to these questions, but first I'd like to explain what the editorial claims. From the beginning, Romney/Ryan are made as opponents to abortion by Ryan's "essential" answer in last weeks debate that abortion supporters should be scared. Now, Ryan never uttered this word for word, but the editor seems to think this. However, the editor does give Romney/Ryan a grain of approval when he says that they will sway from the extreme Republican platform by allowing abortion in the cases of rape/incest/the life of the woman. The editor continues by describing the effects of reversing Roe v. Wade; the decision of abortion would be up to the states, and an extremely low number of states would actually allow it. In turn, he claims that the health problems that were evident before abortion was legal would resurface, and many women may even turn to self-aborting or going to illegal practices. The culmination to his attack on Romney/Ryan is the recount of Romney's past support of abortion, and the elaboration of his plans to take down everything the family he was touched by supported.
It seems to me that the author is targeting the unsure voters - the people who are caught in the middle of the two parties. By arguing that Romney/Ryan will do away with abortion, the author helps convince the abortion supporters to vote for Obama and Biden. However, even though Romney/Ryan want to get rid of abortion, they have to jump some serious loops to receive their wish. According to Ed Grabianowski's 10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases, there are two ways to retract a Supreme Court Ruling:
1) States can amend the Constitution themselves by receiving approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
2) The Supreme Court can overrule itself.
The author claims Romney will seek to do the latter by reappointing new Supreme Court Justices, but even then it seems far-fetched to me. This would require Romney's appointed justice(s) along with the residing justices to reach a majority rule decision in the opposite direction it has been the last 39 years. Overall, the author provides good points that would turn the opinions of readers who don't look further into the details, but the editorial as a whole is too rash and quick to make decisions in my opinion.
As a side note, the story about Romney and his past support for abortion involves a close relative who died from illegal abortion complications, and how her parents asked for money to be donated to Planned Parenthood. Evidently, Romney has vouched to retract federal funds to this organization, much like his retraction of abortion support. It's hard to discern Romney's change in beliefs, but if I were to take an educated guess on it, I'd have to say it's due to extremist Republican pressure.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
High Anticipation!
After seeing the Presidential debate last week; seeing Romney walk over Obama like that, Democrats seem to be in a lot trouble coming towards the Biden and Ryan debate. However, after all of the lies Ryan sold at his convention speech, tomorrow night could be a disaster for the campaign. I decided to look towards mainstream media to try to get an idea and understanding of what to look for, and I found Michael Tomasky on Joe Biden’s Turn to Take Down Paul Ryan on The Daily Beast. It offers a more detailed look than I could ever offer anyone about what Joe Biden has to do in order to clean up the mess last week.
He talks about Biden needing to press Ryan on the "Loopholes" he will be cutting, and if they are legitimate, how he plans to cover the deficit. Also, Tomasky claims that Biden needs to grill Ryan on Obamacare and his plan if they get elected. Rather than the numerous articles about the debate, I wanted to look at something new and exciting about the election race, and I think it is worth reading due to its predictions of what to come. So exciting! This upcoming debate is going to either make-or-break the lead Romney created for the Republicans, so we'll see if Paul Ryan can keep this up, or if he'll crash their campaign back to ground zero.
(If the embedded link doesn't work, try: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/michael-tomasky-on-joe-biden-s-turn-to-take-down-paul-ryan.html)
He talks about Biden needing to press Ryan on the "Loopholes" he will be cutting, and if they are legitimate, how he plans to cover the deficit. Also, Tomasky claims that Biden needs to grill Ryan on Obamacare and his plan if they get elected. Rather than the numerous articles about the debate, I wanted to look at something new and exciting about the election race, and I think it is worth reading due to its predictions of what to come. So exciting! This upcoming debate is going to either make-or-break the lead Romney created for the Republicans, so we'll see if Paul Ryan can keep this up, or if he'll crash their campaign back to ground zero.
(If the embedded link doesn't work, try: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/michael-tomasky-on-joe-biden-s-turn-to-take-down-paul-ryan.html)
Monday, October 1, 2012
Moderately Politically Active? I'd say so!
Hello everyone! My name is Clay Patterson, and apparently I am a Libertarian (according to Political Typology). However, I believe I more Republican than most Libertarians because I believe that companies make too much money and that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost to the country. My Parents are both strongly Republican, so I like to think my beliefs have stemmed from theirs. Last summer I had the privilege of attending Texas Boys' State, a camp in which 900 boys from all around Texas learn about political process and create a State government of their own. We elected numerous positions, ranging from county attorney all the way up the chain to governor. I ran for county attorney which let me learn first-hand the art of campaigning and voting. After taking the Civics Quiz, I earned a 63.64%, that's 8.64% higher than the average college professor!
Overall, my experience from Boys State, lessons from my parents, and results from these quizzes lead me to believe that I am mostly Republican and moderately politically active (even though I'm unfortunately too young to vote in the upcoming 2012 election).
Overall, my experience from Boys State, lessons from my parents, and results from these quizzes lead me to believe that I am mostly Republican and moderately politically active (even though I'm unfortunately too young to vote in the upcoming 2012 election).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)