Blog number seven

I am going to write my commentary about the U.S. Government’s response to a recent no fly zone China established. The no fly zone was put in place over some disputed islands located in the East China Sea.  Immediately after the no fly zone was established the U.S. Government flew two unarmed B-2 bomber planes through the disputed area.

It’s a complicated situation because China’s motives aren’t all that clear. It’s thought that a combination of factors have led to China doing this now. The China defense minister believes China has the right to control its air space. However, Japan disagrees with this assertion.

The U.S. Government has made it clear it will not recognize this newly declared air space. Most U.S. officials look at this newly declared air space as a rhetorical statement.  Not only will the United States not recognize the air space, but the U.S. will stand behind its allies in the region.

Blog Stage six

                                                                                                                                                                                   I am going to write my “stage six” blog in response to Noah Fleming’s blog post. I picked his blog because it is quick to the point and easy to read. I agree with some of what he wrote and disagree with other things he wrote. This paper will contain both “editorial or commentary” and “reasoned criticism”.

                                                                                                                                                                                   He stated, “Shouldn’t saving American lives be a higher priority instead of maintaining a large global military.” He’s alluding to the idea that a large global military doesn’t save lives here at home. In order to understand how important maintaing a large military is to American interest you have to look abroad. A lot of countries are very unstable and could quickly become a threat to U.S. interest abroad.

                                                                                                                                                                                   On the other hand, I do agree with changing the American immigration policy. I look it that more as a human rights issue then any else. However, whenever the author states, “We could spend the money we save from defending our borders.” I think he’s suggesting a completely unprotected border and that’s a bad idea.  If we had less border protection more drugs would make it out of Mexico, and into the largest consumer of the Mexican drug trade. All of the "extra" drug money would fuel even more violence in Mexico and likely affect parts of South America.

That concludes my blog stage six.

Original Editorial

My editorial is going to focus on U.S. federal gun laws. Particularly, how critical Obama has been toward gun ownership in America. Obama tried to pass a bill that was part of a package of measures he promised to put the full weight of his office behind. The bill was intended to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. According to CNN.com, this legislation was set in motion around the time “20 first-graders and six educators were killed last December in a mass shooting at an elementary school.”  Other incidents similar to this one have happened while Obama has been in office. Every time an incident similar to the one I have previously mentioned is in the media Obama tries to push for stricter gun laws.  According to Rense.com, Obama was pushing to ban the following weapons: assault rifles, “Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles), a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds,” and shot-guns with a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds.    

In my opinion, the shooting at the elementary school in New Town, Connecticut was what pushed Obama to try and make the new laws I previously mentioned.  However, an elementary school is a gun free zone in accordance with the Gun Free-school zone Act of 1990. The federal law supersedes state law therefore, even if a citizen  has a license to carry a concealed hand gun he or she is committing a serious offense by caring the gun on school property, but of course the nut job that shot all of those people didn’t care to much about that. My point is that stricter federal gun laws aren’t going to prevent people who are for whatever reason a threat to society from accessing means to hurt people. It’s my opinion; the stricter gun laws prevent law abiding citizens from having accesses to means to defend themselves more than the gun laws protect us.

There is one exception to what I just wrote. In Texas (state law), under the current gun laws it’s legal for a citizen to sell another citizen a firearm, basically no questions asked. The citizen doing the selling must be turning over his or her “personal gun collection”, and that is a tricky part of the law to for the ATF to enforce. I think there should be federal legislation put in place that would mandate private gun sells be done thru a licensed firearm dealer.  The gun dealer could run the person purchasing the gun to make sure he or she isn’t a criminal, and record the seller’s name and address.  

I think Obama is putting his focus on the wrong part of the issue. I know it sounds cliché but guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The people using these guns to do these things need to be in some way dealt with or “helped”. It looks to me like stricter gun laws will just hurt an American citizens chances should he or she needs to defend him or herself. That’s my perspective on the issue.