Bowling for Columbine

Gun control is a debate that occurs in many countries around the world, and is one of the biggest issues being dealt with in the United States. My government recently watched a movie called Bowling for Columbine. In this movie, Michael Moore focused on the pros and the cons of living in a pro-gun society and leaves his audience questioning their opinion on gun control issues.

In 2013, there were 14,827 murders in the United this is higher than any other country in the world. But what causes this high number of deaths in the United States? Many would like to blame our loose gun laws. I do not believe that this is the cause, how many criminals that shoot people acquire their guns legally? Many don’t, so how are making stricter gun laws going to stop this? It’s not! Criminals are criminals they break the law if they want a gun they will find a way to get it whether it is against the law or not. So don’t pass gun control laws punishing the people who don’t kill people.

The second amendment was passed in 1791 and states the following: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”( See more on the second amendment at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.FjWrxQNq.dpuf) many people see this as everyone has the right to own and bear arms no matter what, but is that how it was meant to be interrupted? I think at the time that the founding fathers meant that everyone has the right to own guns. Why? I think they knew that if the government was not regulated that it could get out of control and try to control everything. They knew that if this were to happen that the people would need guns to overthrow the government just as they did in the revolution against Great Britain. Now back then the guns they had were not very advanced and wouldn’t cause mass destruction like the weapons do today. I think that if the writers of the constitution were to write it today with the great advancement in weapons they would put regulations on weapons. I think that any weapon that the government has access to should be accessed by the public other than the weapons of mass destruction. Why?  Because if the sole purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people to be able to overthrow the government if it gets out of control then we the people need to be able to put up a fight.

People say that we need stricter gun laws because murder rate is higher and higher each year. This is not true. Murder rate has been slowly declining every year since 1993 and continues to decline. The reason that it seems like there are so much more murders is because of the media. The reason that the media focuses so much on the violence is to scare people.  Personally, I think that the government is using the media to scare people into giving up their guns. The reason the government would want that is so the people have no way of protecting themselves if they want to take over.

Personally, I think that gun control is bull crap. People look at guns as if the guns themselves are killing the people when in reality the people are killing the people. The gun is just how they choose to kill the person. If a person truly wanted to kill another person and they didn’t have a gun they would find something else to use. The United States may have the highest murder rate of any other country but not all of the murders in the United States are because of guns. In fact, about 55% of all murders are gun related. If only a little over half of the murders are gun related, then why are the only murders that are reported in the news gun related? What about all the other murders are they less important or is it just another way of making the people afraid of guns?  

I personally do not think that people need to be afraid of guns. If anything they need to be afraid of the person that uses the guns to cause harm to others.  I think they need to look deeper into a situation before jumping to the conclusion that it’s the guns that kill people and that they are dangerous. It’s not the guns it’s the people that are dangerous. The people that use the guns for things like hunting and aren’t causing harm to others shouldn’t be punished because of a few people who do use them wrongly.

Guns have been always been a part of the American culture and are what gave and still gives this country the freedom we have today. Yes, gun can be dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands and unfortunately have been used to claim many innocent lives that didn’t need to be taken. Gun control is necessary to a certain degree. I do not believe in the government taking away out assault rifles or any other type of rifle. The only thing that should be restricted are any type of explosives.

 

Abuse

Many people might have heard about the recent abuse scandals that are occurring in the NFL. Are these so called abuse scandals actually abuse or are these players just disciplining their children like they were when they were young? Even if they are abusing their children are the NFL and the court systems handling these accusations correctly?

I strongly believe that you need to discipline your children. If you don’t, how are these children supposed to learn what is right and wrong? I believe that without discipline these children will think that they can do whatever they want to and they can get away with it without being punished. This could cause problems when they grow up and still think they can get away with anything because that is how they were raised. I’m not saying that just because you are disciplined as a child that you are going to grow up and be a better person that someone who wasn’t disciplined, because that is a lie, I know many good people that were not strongly disciplined as a child. 

What draws the line between disciplining a child and abusing a child? First of all, I think that if you are going to discipline a child make sure that they are at an age that when you discipline them they know why and can fully understand the reasoning. Secondly, I think that leaving marks is the line between abuse and discipline. If you are going to spank a child don’t leave marks. By marks I mostly mean anything that is worst that a red mark. A red mark is not a big deal to me because a red mark can be caused by lightly slapping someone’s arm. By marks I mean like bruises. If you are leaving bruises on a child you are being too strict. Bruises unlike red marks take a lot more force than just a slap, you have to put a lot of force into it and are most likely using a fist or the palm of your hand.

Is the NFL handling these situations correctly? I think that the NFL could handle these different. I don’t think that it is right for these players to be suspended before they go to court and are found guilty of child abuse. These players should be allowed to play until found guilty. I also believe that even if these players are found guilty that the NFL has no right to suspend or fire them.  Football isn’t just a game to these guys it is a job. I don’t think it would be right for any other company to fire a person for abusing a child.

Many kids have been disciplined to an extent of which you could call in abuse but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t discipline your children. It means that you need to be reasonable when doing it. I have no problem with people disciplining their children in fact I encourage it. But then again that is my opinion.

Abraham Lincoln is viewed as a great president who got us through the Civil War and abolished slavery, but how do you classify someone as a great president? Is it by their accomplishments while in office? Is it by how they deal with the issues they face or is it how they follow the Constitution as they promised when sworn into office? Many believe that Abraham Lincoln abused his powers during the Civil War while others believe that he did not and did what he had to do to preserve the United States.

Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16^th president of the United States on November 6^th, 1860. He served during one of the most brutal times that America has ever seen. Many see him as a great American leader because of his ability to get us through the Civil War and to keep the United States united. He is also considered great because he abolished slavery by issuing the Emancipation proclamation and leading the charge to pass the 13^th amendment. The argument is that he abused his powers and went against the Constitution when doing so. I believe that this may be true but when doing so was the reason he abused those powers a good enough reason to justify his actions? I believe that everything that Lincoln did he did for what he believed to be the best for the people and the country. He was fighting to keep the nation together because he knew that together as one the north and south had strength.

Lincoln also led the campaign to free the slaves. Many believe that Lincoln freed the slaves just to weaken the south so that he could win the war. Lincoln wanted the slaves to be free because he believed that every man was considered equal. In the movie “Lincoln” there is a scene where he is talking about freeing the slaves. He says that he feels that if he takes the slaves from the south then that can be looked at as if the North was seizing the South’s property. By doing that is he saying that those people are property and not human beings. Because of this I believe many people don’t see how hard it must have been for him to make the decision and ridicule him for abusing powers but I believe that what he used his powers for were for the good.

Many people today believe that our current president Barak Obama also abuses his powers. I personally feel that Obama abuses his powers. The majority of the executive orders that Obama has passed deal with gun control. The thought that more gun control leads to a safer country. I believe that that’s false. It doesn’t matter if guns are outlawed or not criminals will get guns.  

I think the big difference between Lincoln abusing his powers and Obama is right vs wrong. When Lincoln abolished slavery he was following the Constitution to a sense because it says in the constitution that everyone is created equal and deserves the same rights. Obama is trying to pass gun laws that allows the government to regulate our guns when it is clearly stated in the second amendment that it is our right to keep and bear arms. This is why I believe Lincoln’s reasoning  was for the better while Obama’s  is for the worst.

Presidents abusing their powers have been an issue since the beginning of this country but just because they abuse their power doesn’t mean they are a bad president. I believe that it depends on what they are trying to accomplish when doing so.