Cureent History PortfolioJoin now to read essay Cureent History PortfolioCurrent History PortfolioArticle # 1Titled: Yes: There are Limits to the right to bear armsSource: Union Tribune or SignonsandiegoDate: Dec. 21 2007By: Kristen RandSummary/Analysis :This article discusses the amendment about gun control specifically the right to bear arms. But it isn’t discussing it on the U.S. mainland but instead on the District of Columbia. The Controversy is whether or not the District is bound to the same laws and amendments that the rest of the United States is. The Current law in Columbia is there is a universal ban on guns. So should the U.S. Supreme Court vote to allow citizens to bear arms or should the 30-year-old ban be erased. This article briefly discusses the current rights of mainland American citizens and their rights to bearing arms. Although its an amendment for a citizen of the United States to bear arms most people today probably won’t ever need to or have to. With that being said though gun control in the U.S. is still a problem year in and year out.
I believe that yes we do have a problem with gun control within the United States. And my first thoughts about this issue raised in the article are that the Supreme Court should continue to ban weapons within the District of Columbia. Because if the court votes to o.k. Guns it won’t make the country any better it will just make it self more vulnerable for violent crimes with weapons to take place. Now some might argue that if the United States should impose the same laws on Columbia as it does on its states to make it fair for everyone but I don’t believe that’s the best thing to do in every case. I really don’t see to how not continuing to ban guns within the district of Columbia will make it a better place.
The NRA is not opposed to guns in America. I do not think that they are a good thing or a bad thing to impose on an entire nation. However, given the right and the political will given by the NRA to support such restriction. We need to move as much as we can to allow gun ownership, protect our constitutional rights, and make sure that every family can access safe, lawful and affordable handgun access.
The NRA does not support mass shootings. The following are my positions for the U.S. President – the NRA in particular:
•• Yes, I believe gun laws in the United States should be reauthorized.
•• Yes, I believe that a nation can make a difference in this area.
•• Yes, I believe that gun control in our country is the best thing to do in an effort to prevent mass shootings.
The NRA believes that every group involved in our country should be able to enjoy the same opportunity, but those groups may not be able to enjoy the same opportunities as the gun control movement and the NRA thinks a national gun registry should be required that means everyone may have a gun.
The NRA values the right to choose. For example, the NRA values that every NRA and all of our elected representatives represent the entire nation in which we live. It seems to me that those who have supported the NRA and supported the NRA have held the same beliefs when it comes to gun safety that they hold when it comes to mass shootings, but their views have changed drastically for some time. As it stands now it seems reasonable that the NRA believes that mass shooting is too soon to fix all of the problems that are out there. We need to do more to bring these problems to an end so that each of us have a better chance of defeating the problems that are out there when it comes to gun safety. This includes providing federal, state, local officials with tools to track and help law enforcement get their hands on firearms, training law enforcement and law enforcement agencies to work together to solve the problems when it comes to mass shootings. It should also be possible to provide federal and state partners with training, information and tools. The NRA believes that the same can be said for firearm safety. It supports the right to own a pistol and any other firearm without the need of a qualification or registration. It does not believe that guns should be used in any capacity without having a license or registration. The NRA believes that the right to buy and possess a firearm makes no sense if you are legally transporting in any way other than concealed and that means that an individual who wants to hold a license or a handgun will be able to do so if necessary. As a matter of fact the majority of Congress, the President, our President and
The NRA is not opposed to guns in America. I do not think that they are a good thing or a bad thing to impose on an entire nation. However, given the right and the political will given by the NRA to support such restriction. We need to move as much as we can to allow gun ownership, protect our constitutional rights, and make sure that every family can access safe, lawful and affordable handgun access.
The NRA does not support mass shootings. The following are my positions for the U.S. President – the NRA in particular:
•• Yes, I believe gun laws in the United States should be reauthorized.
•• Yes, I believe that a nation can make a difference in this area.
•• Yes, I believe that gun control in our country is the best thing to do in an effort to prevent mass shootings.
The NRA believes that every group involved in our country should be able to enjoy the same opportunity, but those groups may not be able to enjoy the same opportunities as the gun control movement and the NRA thinks a national gun registry should be required that means everyone may have a gun.
The NRA values the right to choose. For example, the NRA values that every NRA and all of our elected representatives represent the entire nation in which we live. It seems to me that those who have supported the NRA and supported the NRA have held the same beliefs when it comes to gun safety that they hold when it comes to mass shootings, but their views have changed drastically for some time. As it stands now it seems reasonable that the NRA believes that mass shooting is too soon to fix all of the problems that are out there. We need to do more to bring these problems to an end so that each of us have a better chance of defeating the problems that are out there when it comes to gun safety. This includes providing federal, state, local officials with tools to track and help law enforcement get their hands on firearms, training law enforcement and law enforcement agencies to work together to solve the problems when it comes to mass shootings. It should also be possible to provide federal and state partners with training, information and tools. The NRA believes that the same can be said for firearm safety. It supports the right to own a pistol and any other firearm without the need of a qualification or registration. It does not believe that guns should be used in any capacity without having a license or registration. The NRA believes that the right to buy and possess a firearm makes no sense if you are legally transporting in any way other than concealed and that means that an individual who wants to hold a license or a handgun will be able to do so if necessary. As a matter of fact the majority of Congress, the President, our President and
Article # 2Titled: Political Cartoonists Impact Presidential RacesSource: U.S. News & World ReportDate Feb. 28, 2008By: Dan GilgoffSummary/ Analysis:This article really caught my attention and my eye. This article is very historical and has facts within it that date back to the 1700’s. The article talks about how political cartoons play a part with an election. Specifically the presidential elections and how each and every year cartoonist depicts the candidates as a some sort of superhuman. I believe that this article gives people some background on political cartoons and how they have helped play a part within the U.S. government. The article talks about numerous presidents and how during their respective elections the cartoonist would have they way depicting them as frat boys, drunks, ruthless strongman, and teddy bears are a few to name. Each and every year cartoonist and comic artists have their field day making fun of potential political figures. Over the years this art of comedy and fun has developed along with technology. First came color then came TV and now we have computers along with the Internet. So in Today’s world you could pull up a cartoon comedy of George Bush on You Tube. That is just one of many examples of how the media has grown over the years.
Article # 3Titled: McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries about whether that Rules Him Out.Source: The New York TimesDate: Feb. 28, 2008By. Carl HulseSummary / Analysis:Just by reading the title of the article some may not know what is going to be discussed. But it fact this article talks about something very critical about the up coming election. What’s that you might ask. The Answer is the requirements to being a U.S. President. A natural born citizen, which has come up numerous occasion through our history. Although this issue has popped up before it has never been really tested or argued. What if we had a legitimate candidate for president but he was born in France or London does that make him any less qualified to be a American President I don’t see why not. I believe that it should matter if you are naturally born in the United States. The issue, which came up with Senator John McCain was that, he was born in military installations in the Canal Zone of Panama. Why you might ask was he born there and the answer to that is that his father