Gun Control

Thinking hes quite the comic, the author sarcastically lists reasons why one would support gun control in this fire-powered article.

I think my favorites are, "You like to discriminate against women and deny them the means of defending themselves" or "You enjoy punishing small children who have done nothing wrong."

Yes...I favor gun control because I want women and children to be punished...

But the one "reason" I would like to talk about is number 10. "You enjoy leaving students defenseless against school shooters". It explains how the past couple school shootings were all in gun-free zones and how "law-abiding students with bright futures" will keep their guns at home. The author goes on to note the example of the time where an armed student was able to stop a school shooter. So, I guess he is trying to say that if everyone was able to have a gun, then school shootings would stop and if they did occur...other students will have guns too, so they can just pop the shooter themselves!

Number nine talks about how if you favor gun control, than you like politicians that treat themselves more favorable than they treat their citizens. I don't care whether my government can shoot guns or not...it is the community, the majority, the citizens rights that need to be dealt with.

The author also claims that people in favor of gun-control must just be scared of guns because they have never owned one or used one. I don't need to own a gun to realize I don't need one as well as the millions of people across the U.S. that don't need one.

I understand that people feel safer with a gun and that despite any control laws, people will still get their hands on them. But you must ask yourself both these questions. How often do you hear about a shooting attack on an innocent citizen? How often do you hear about a gun owner, using his weapon in defense?

Prayer in Schools

In Jesse J. Holland's article, he explains the situation of a high school football team whose coach insisted on prayer during practices, games, gatherings, etc. A few parents complained, and here we have our controversy.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," Lynn said....I mean bottom line right? Separation of church and state is the oldest rule in the book....literally. If a parent, child, or family's desire is to be brought up in a religious environment they can attend a private religious school...that is what they are for. Public schools, like this particular article's East Brunswick High School, shouldn't be introducing, practicing or preaching about any kind of religion during school/school activities. Teachers and coaches shouldn't be influencing students on their beliefs. It's a family, personal matter that shouldn't forced in schools.

I just think that if a family or teacher is religious they should be part of a school that is specific to their beliefs. No one wants to hear it at a public school so why bother? If this particular coach was very religious and wanted to pray to whatever god he worshiped I think he could have prayed to himself... why bring the team into it when parents are going to complain? It baffles me how an adult could think that was appropriate.

Capital Punishment

To kill or not to kill, that is the question.

Adam Liptak bases his article on money, much like the rest of the U.S. government. He was able to capture a few economist takes on the issue and how they think capital punishment should be dealt with.

As the article reads, according to recent studies, execution works, saving 3-18 lives for every death and that overall, across the country, murder rates tend to fall as execution rises. However, many of these economist who have done several studies proving that capital punishment is affective, still morally don't agree with the concept; ie....one economist said they are opposed to the death penalty, even though their study showed capital punishment save about 5 lives.

As much as people are morally against it, they are economically against it as well. Liptak asks, "A single capital litigation can cost more than $1 million. It is at least possible that devoting that money to crime prevention would prevent more murders than whatever number, if any, an execution would deter." This may be true, but some argue that they don't want their tax dollars to be wasted on criminals sitting in jail.

Morally, I don't think that capital punishment is right, however if it is preventing more crimes than how can we stop doing it?

It is a hard topic to judge because of morality, so I think we should look at this from an economical stand point. If it is costing us too much money to execute them, then we shouldn't. But is it fair that law abiding citizens must pay for murderers, who will most likely be there for the rest of their life, to sleep and eat together?

Affrimative Action

I found a few articles on affirmative action. Mainly just examples of when it was abused or useful in the past. Then I came across this "article", which frankly is only a paragraph explaining how mindless the concept really is, to which I strongly agree.

This author says it perfect. The theory is of affirmative action is discrimination in itself. "Its policies totally judge people solely on skin color and gender"...exactly.

If a man and a woman are applying for a job and the man is more qualified, is it really fair that the woman gets hired...just because they have met there maximum amount of men on the payroll?

I understand the benefits this may have...there are still racist, sexist people out there who don't treat people equally. But I think, nowadays, in terms of scholarships and jobs it's causing more problems than it's solving.

Abortion

In an article I recently read, I received opposing views on the topic of abortion.

It begins with the philosophy that an abortion should be considered based on the "child's" brain progression. How much he can think or feel should determine if the life can be terminated or not. They claim that if the child is conscious than it is not fair for a mother to make that decision.

Some people, according to the article, think no matter how far along the "child" is, the life shouldn't be "extinguished". While other claim, "just because a fetus is alive doesn't mean that he or she is a person". There is also talk of the bible. Some of these people base their theory on personal religious views. I thought church and state were separated a long time ago?

I, myself, am pro-choice and believe the mother has the choice to have a baby or not. It is a fetus, it is not murder. You are not killing a child. However, if you are forced to have a baby that you know you can not provide for and give a healthy life to, then aren't you setting it up for failure anyway?

As of now, in the recession, we can't even provide for the hundreds of millions of people in our country today. Why would we bring more human beings into this country, when we know we don't have the money to provide for them? It is a lose-lose situation.

"The real question is why so many people want to take life away from a little human being who brings so much joy and meaning to life".......No one wants to take a life away. There will be no joy and meaning if the child grows up in an insufficient household, incapable of fostering a child. The U.S. is struggling. Our country is billions of dollars in debt. We can't not only afford to pay for the people in our country now, but we can't even afford the children that are being born by choice.