Commentary on Kyle Grier's Blog

In Kyle Grier's blog post he expresses several issues over gun control and several possible solutions. I agree with him that it is a very touchy subject, many people, especially hunters, find the 2nd amendment very important to their way of life. We cannot take away the right to bear arms when so many people use it for recreational activities that go back so far in history. On the other hand not all guns are used for recreational purposes, some people purchase guns for reasons such as protection or in some cases as weapons against victims. There is no way to distinguish between a person purchasing guns for recreation or to do harm to other people, but there needs to be a way to find out. In my last blog post I mentioned that licenses should be scanned when purchasing guns and ammunition just as they are when people purchase medicines. This would just record in a database the amount of guns and ammunition a person is purchasing, and if necessary would spark alarm to police monitoring that database to look into a person purchasing an unusual amount of weaponry. And they could check to make sure that they are using it in responsible safe ways.
The fact that guns are available for purchase online seems very unsafe. There is no way to track such purchases, some can be paid for in cash through sites such as Craigslist and eBay. I feel it should be illegal for weaponry to be sold online or there should be a way to at least log such purchases into a database like those that record medicine purchases. Weapon purchases are something that need to be monitored, especially if medicines are being monitored, why not guns?

Keep Your Rights But Monitor the Danger

    Lately the topic of gun control and the purchasing of bullets has been on the minds of Americans following the Colorado Movie Massacre. The large amount of guns and ammunitions that James Holmes purchased in the time leading up to the shooting has alarmed many citizens. He purchased some of the ammunition and the protective gear that he wore that night online with rush delivery. The fact that he was able to make such purchases and not spark alarm is quite concerning. People have been arguing over issues such as gun control and monitoring how many bullets a buyer purchases and how they are not monitored carefully.
    Arguments have been made that by monitoring such purchases and placing a limit on how much may be bought, it will decrease the likelihood of another massacre like the one in Colorado. This could be done by scanning a person's license. On the other hand people feel the monitoring would infringe upon our 2nd amendment right to bear arms. They feel if you want a stock pile of munitions it's ok because you have the right to bear arms under the Constitution. I believe it should be monitored, if not limited, just to make sure that those who purchase an amount of firearms and ammunition that would cause alarm are recorded and an alert sent to the police department so that the individual can be looked into to make sure that they are using it for hunting and practicing at a firing range. If certain medications can be monitored and limited why not our weapons. Is medicine more dangerous to society than guns and bullets?
    In my opinion as long as medication is monitored, it can't hurt to have our arms purchases monitored as well. The monitoring does not have to mean there is a limit on the purchases, but it would make the purchasing of large amounts of weapons visible to authorities and other parties that would see such purchases and be able to act on them appropriately. Such monitoring would alert police to purchases such as those made by Holmes, possibly preventing similar massacres by allowing police to look into people purchasing so much ammunition.

Commentary on Monica Tan's take on Abortion

   In Monica Tan's post about abortion she makes a good point that abortion is a woman's right that we cannot take away. I agree that abortion is a woman's personal right to control rather than something a government has to decide. She stresses the need to keep abortions legal for the health of women, another valid argument she backs up with examples such as "back-alley abortions" and "self-executed abortions". A woman shouldn't have to go to such extreme measures to achieve something which is her right to obtain.
     Monica takes an approach that I would agree with, although I feel less of a need for stress on alternative options such as parenting aid and adoption. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could have more options available but I don't think it's lack of alternative options. I think it's more of a social issue when it comes to a woman choosing abortion, some women just don't want to be face other people with the fact that they accidentally got pregnant. I feel education on prevention of pregnancy in the first place needs to be stressed before how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Women already have access to birth control and even the morning after pill, these would prevent the need to even consider other options. Those preventatives also take out the controversy over murder because a baby is being prevented from even beginning to form. It is our job to go out and inform women on options they have to prevent pregnancy and avoid abortion, not to take their rights from them so that they act how others think they should.

To Repeal or Not to Repeal

    The US House of Representatives just voted to a repeal of the Obama Healthcare bill. Before the voting even began the outcome was obvious, the house majority is Republican and as a result the repeal would pass. The Senate and the Presidency are both held by the Democrats.  Therefore, they passed the repeal knowing that it wouldn't pass the Senate, and even if it did pass the Senate President Obama swore to veto the repeal if it got to him. Though the President's veto can be overruled if there is enough votes in the House and Senate, in this situation there wouldn't be enough approval. What was the point of voting on the repeal anyway? If the outcome was already foreseeable why did we need to waste time proving what we already knew. Instead of voting on the repeal, they should have been trying to come to a better solution to dealing with the Healthcare bill that would pass through both Houses.

    The Republicans claim that they are doing the "will of the people" but are they really? While many Americans have questions and concerns about the Obama Healthcare Bill, there are some points that many Americans do favor, such as children being under their parents healthcare plan until the age of 25 and allowing pre-existing conditions not to be a factor in a person receiving insurance. According to a CNN/ ORG international poll "52% of respondents favor all or most provisions of the healthcare law, while at the same time, 51% want Congress to repeal the entire measure".Wouldn't the repeal have been better if it also included some items that people did like about the bill that would be kept in place. As a citizen, it would be preferable to see our government working to take care of its people in a responsible way both fiscally and physically, rather than taking shots at the other side of the political aisle.

      I'd like to see my government attempting to work together in important issues facing the country, rather than partisan bickering. Focus needs to be brought back to the well being of the people and how to attain these goals in responsible manner without leaving tax burdens on future generations, such as our own.


CNN Article

But, But, But...Teh Facts

Here is a link to the blog I am critiquing 
       I found this blog at The Talking Points Memo blog and initially the title caught my eye. Upon reading the article I became interested in the short sided nature of the blogger in their attempt to appeal to their Democratic audience. He critiques Romney and his actions in regards to the Medicare situation currently facing the US. However, he takes a Democratic one-sided view and turns down Romney's statements. In his analysis, which is quite short, he gives little information on the debate at hand.
       In the TPM editor's blog, the blogger is critiquing the "contradictory actions" of Mitt Romney.  He states that Romney approved a similar bill to Obamacare in his home state, but claims that Obamacare is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. He quotes Romney as saying that Obamacare was "bad law yesterday and bad law today." He believes that Romney is a hypocrite in the way he deals with medicare.
      The author is correct in stating that the Supreme Court agreed that the Health Care Bill was Constitutional based on the idea that it was a tax and not a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  But while the author may think that since the decision by the Supreme Court keeps the Law in effect, it does not necessarily mean that all Americans must accept it.  Romney is of the belief that it is a State issue and not a Federal issue.  Therefore, his criticism of Romney is a bit hasty. He writes that Romney is for Obamacare in his own state and should accept it now that the Supreme Court has made it legal in all states. What this blogger fails to adress is that though Romney is for that policy in his own state he believes healthcare is not a federal decision but one that should be made by the state. By not giving full facts on Romney's point of view the blogger lowers his credibility and makes the reader feel as if what he is saying is just intended to please the Democrats reading his blog.

Checks and Balances?

           In the ongoing debate over evidence from the "Fast and Furious", Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has withheld some evidence from Congress pertaining to the investigation. Congress was fulfilling their duty under checks and balances to check the acts of the executive branch by checking on the investigation. The "Fast and Furious" scandal took place when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives allowed some weapons to slip over the boarder in order for them to track the weapons up the drug cartels. When they lost track of the weapons, they turned up in some border conflicts where US citizens were injured and a border patrol officer was killed. Senator Charles Grassley received news in a letter from the internal justice department that denied A.T.F engagement in the gun running strategy.  In late 2011 the department retracted the letter, sparking the investigation. The executive branch was looking into what happened and Congress decided to look in on how Eric Holder was conducting the investigation. Holder did turn over some evidence to Congress but left out some documents in his attempt to save the investigation. After much debate over whether Holder had to give up the information or not, President Obama stepped in using executive privilege to allow Holder to keep the evidence from Congress.
          The author of this New York Times editorial supplies sufficient background on the scandal, but lacks detail in Holder's reasoning for withholding the evidence and Obama's reasoning for barring Holder from prosecution. There is little detail telling why decisions were made, making it hard for the reader to take a knowledgable stance on the issue. We are being told who did what but not why, and who to agree with but the evidence given does not support the agreement enough. With more knowledge on the decisions I would be able to make a more educated decision and agree with one side or the other, but from this article I feel there must be something left out that would make President Obama's decision, and Holder's decision, logical and agreeable. The author does however correctly critique the petty debates between the Executive Branch and Congress over the role of Congress under Checks and Balances. Congress and the Executive Branch spark debate over issues whether big or small and the author properly highlights this. I think this author just sees the entire debate as being a political confrontation.  He disagrees with the Republicans investigation of Holder but also thinks that by invoking Executive Privilege Obama is playing political game too. 
Link to this editorial

Musical Chairs

     Tensions have risen as the election Gabrielle Giffords Arizona House seat draws near. Last year Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman and is now giving up her seat to focus on recovery. Giffords has backed her former staffer Ron Barber, a Democrat, in his campaign for her seat, and though he has a double diget lead over the Republican candidate, Jesse Kelly, the race is still a tossup. Kelly went up against Giffords in the previous election when Giffords won by 4,000 votes.

      On June 5 democrats in Wisconsin, failed to defeat GOP Gov. Scott Walker. This shows some faltering in the opinions of the people, making Democrats unsure about Giffords seat. If Barber loses in this election it sends a message about the poor performance of Democrats in office, mainly president Obama. This election is harder to predict because it is a special election, not a regular one. This election will be a key one for the Democratic party.

       I chose this article because I had heard about the Gabrielle Giffords accident on the news a while back and when I saw that she was back in the news I was interested in seeing how everything had worked out for her after the accident. This article is worth reading because it shows how a simple special election of one House Seat can say so much about the state of our Government and how well our political leaders are doing in their jobs. I am interested to see who wins the election and what influence it will have on the upcoming presidential election.

Link to the article