guncity.jpeg

Gun Control is

any law, policy, practice, or proposal that restricts or limits the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, or use of firearms by private citizens. Most commonly are handguns and long guns. It's highly controversial, and basically states that police have the right to bare arms, while you don't. No self defense and no hunting (changed in 2008 and 2010). The possibility of you experiencing murder, rape, burglary/theft and genocide are that much higher. I picked this topic mainly because, in my book, people don't really talk about these matters. Even after the occurrence of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it's still one of the the most looked past topics in our school.
MY GOAL: To open the eyes of my classmates, and show them gun control is wrong.

Blog #2

latimes.jpegI was reading online and I found an article on AB 144 in the L.A. Times. It would prohibit the carrying of visible firearms in Californian cities. It came up when gun-rights advocates showing up last year at Starbucks shops with their own guns showing. Legal when unloaded.
But if California bans the "open carry," the state will probably have to make standards for people that have permits to carry concealed weapons a little easier. In Cali, owners can only carry a concealed firearm, loaded or unloaded, with a permit. In more major cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, "concealed carry" permits are hard to get. If AB 144 becomes law it'll be a little too hard. How does banning open carry open the door for concealed carry laws? It starts with the Supreme Court's decision two years ago, District of Columbia vs. Heller, that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms. The decision basically only involved only guns kept in the home, most 2nd Amendmenters think court will eventually say the Constitution also makes the right to have a gun in public. As the court explained, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right to "bear," or carry, arms. Truth is that only a few owners are willing to walk their guns around openly. Not only does it scare neighbors, it also often leads to confrontations with police because officers are allowed to inspect openly displayed guns to ensure they're not loaded. Gun owners would much prefer to conceal their firearms when out, and although gun-rights groups officially opposed to the AB 144 ban, some gun owners must be quietly hoping that the California Senate passes it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/24/opinion/la-oe-winkler-guns-20110524


Blog #3

skeletal-debate.jpgLooking again I found this other site. It's kind of an article but it's not. The page is more of a debate then anything. Pros, cons and all that other junk. It makes the first point saying the only function of a gun is to kill. The more guns removed then injury and death can slowly be pulled away from our society. But then instantly.. you got yourself a counter point. Saying.
Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in the USA where gun ownership is a popular aspect of society. Banning guns wouldn't make them disappear. It's a right of citizens to bear arms so they can protect themselves, family, and property. One for example, a farmer needs a gun in order to protect their stock and crops. If you ask me, the counters are better. The other point is accidental deaths. It states that people with registered guns are robbed for their weapons, yea sounds stupid. It is. The counter point blew them out of the water. Take a look if you don't believe me.
http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-limit-right-bear-arms

Blog #4

gun_controlllllll.jpgI was doing more research and I found this website with views not for gun control. It's got a lot of valid points but the school blocks it. It's tagged as having an "opinion" and "weapons". This website doesn't go for the whole "reduced guns, reduced crime" thing... it's actually the opposite. Well of "reduced guns". If we were to do away with guns, it would make us that much more vulnerable. Did you know there's over 500 million firearms that exist? Anyways it's said that one of the easiest ways you control people is to make them defenseless first. Communists, fascists and other totalitarians worldwide made theirs subjects defenseless as the first step. Then they could imprison and murder millions. Another fun fact is that 99.8% of polled rapists say they prefer you unarmed. Not only them but politicians and Godfathers who want people to depend on them too. Racists who wish to exterminate, genocide is easier to go about when the victims are unarmed. Just ask Adolf. He took all weapons from the Jews and then he seized them and distributed them among concentration camps. It also brings up the point of being unarmed and how it guarantees having to live at the mercy of others.
www.a-human-right.com/guncontrol.html

Blog #5

Looking through the Internets I found this, the actual bill that was described as gun control. Well not the actually one, but info on it. It was really a Obama backed U.N. treaty. Twelve Democrats joined 45 Republicans in haste to stop the effort. Like stated before it could bring international gun control into the U.S. and give America's gun owners strict restrictions. Another letter signed by 11 other Democrats, urged the president to set some changes in the treaty. Their concern was domestic production, possession, and if the sales of firearms and ammo will be included, practically giving international authority to the right of regulating arms sales that're already protected. A Republican letter circulated by Sen. Jerry Moran, has 45 signatures. 57 senators have said they would vote against the treaty. In the letter he wrote, "Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable." This resistance comes right as the president is trying to deal with fall from the liberals, upset that he opened the U.S. to major changes in Medicare and Soc.Security to seal the debt crisis. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which Bush had opposed, would regulate with the international trade of arms. It would cover the trading of conventional firearms likes those used by collectors and sportsmen/women.images.jpeg
The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing with the trading guns and ammo. The United States is the world's largest arms exporter.
Tester's letter concludes and states, "As members of the Senate, it is our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the ratification of the United Nation's Arms Trade Treaty. Before we could support ratification, we must have assurances that our concerns are adequately addressed and that the Treaty will not in any way impede upon the Constitutional rights of American gun owners. Anything short of this commitment would be unacceptable."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty

Blog #6

index.jpegI looked on Google, again. But this time instead of just typing the same old thing "Gun Control" I put down "people against gun control." I found a program, well it looks to be more of a campaign or a movement. Yeah it's a campaign. It's called the Brady Campaign, they're all against the guns being around. Right now there's a petition for "Not arming dangerous people". It's a statement saying who you wouldn't sell to. I agree with that, but the other stuff I don't get. Anyways, Brady is campaign dedicated to non-gun violence on this beautiful American soil we got here. Mark Borinsky, who was robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974. Pete Shields became Chairman in 78' and after the murder of his son, Nick the organization was renamed Handgun Control, Inc. So far they've put a ban on assault rifles, like AK-47's and M16's. They've managed to keep the "Stand your Ground" policy at a halt in Florida. They're constantly criticized, like most of these groups. It's hard when you got a campaign that's against constitution. They're doing a good job if you ask me, things can be taken to far though. Right now it's fine, but I feel as though problems are just below the surface. I highly doubt it, but they could change the U.S.


Blog #7

I haven't seen much of the NRA so far in my research. Just kidding. Found another article in the L.A. Times. In an interview with CNN, Wayne LaPierre Vice-president of the NRA accused the White House of trying to pull a "political maneuver" aimed to weaken the Constitution's Second Amendment. "What's happening is very transparent. The president's base, the anti-Second Amendment political base, is screeching. And he's trying to appease them," said LaPierre. NRA is suing the federal government, forcing the Justice Department to invite officials with gun lobbies through their attorneys. The disputes will also include backers of gun control legislation. LaPierre insisted the meetings weren't worth it. "Why should I go sit down with a bunch of people that have spent their lives trying to destroy the Second Amendment? I understand what's going on," LaPierre said. A top advocate in Congress, New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy calls LaPierre's antics "foolish." She introduced legislation in the House on Tuesday that would require an instant background check for all gun buyers, including those who purchase firearms at gun shows. "If you want to look at any poll the majority of Americans, the majority of gun owners, all feel people should go through background checks,..." McCarthy said. The poll also finds 86% of Americans support background checks for all gun buyers, an indication of strong backing for closing the so-called "gun show loophole." McCarthy's legislation also reinforces penalties for states that fail to forward criminal, mental health and other records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The nation's dumb background-check system allowed Jared Lee Loughner, the suspect in January's mass shooting that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer despite any indications. His background check came back clean. LaPierre opposes any attempt to close the "gun show loophole," saying it wasn't a factor.
But the NRA's top advocate indicated that they may just give support for strengthening the record keeping in the system. Just don't expect him to sit down at the Justice Department to express those views.


Blog #8