Another Shooting in a High School...

Yet again, gun control is an issue that has reoccurred in our country. This time, based on what this article says, "Jared Padgett, a student at the school, shot and killed another student before taking his own life," on Tuesday in a public high school located in Oregon. President Obama's response to this tragedy is "The country has to do some soul-searching about this. This is becoming the norm, and we take it for granted, in ways that, as a parent, are terrifying to me." Although I understand where Obama is coming from, I believe that gun control will not solve any problems. Even if guns were to be illegal in Oregon or any other state for that matter, I have no doubts that the shooter wouldn't be able to find a gun. Besides, if the kid wanted to kill, he could have done it with a simple knife. Not trying to be pessimistic but if gun control laws should be implemented, any object that is considered to be a weapon should be controlled as well. But then again, that would mean a lot of infringing on the freedom of people because of the fact that kitchen knives would be banned along with other common household objects. It is a controversy indeed.

Should marijuana be legalized?

According to this article, public opinion on marijuana has changed.  The newer generation is more open to changes socially and economically than older generations in America.  Justice John Paul Stevens, although from the older generation and age 94, believes that marijuana should be legalized by the federal government.  Justice John Paul Stevens is retired now, but said that, "There isn't much difference between marijuana and alcoholic beverages."  Many people are starting to compare marijuana in its illegal state to alcohol during the 20th century in the "dry" or prohibition era.  According to this article, from 1920 to 1933 when alcohol was illegal, Will Rogers said, "Prohibition is better than no liquor at all."  Will Rogers knew that even during the period where alcohol was supposed to be illegal, he could always get a drink somewhere.  I believe that marijuana should be legalized so that laws can be set regulating it.  For example, alcohol has laws about not being able to drink and drive, not being able to buy or drink alcohol under the age of 21, etc.  If weed were to be legalized, there would be so many standards on it that it would be more difficult for adolescents to get their hands on it.  This would mean that more responsible young adults would be consuming or smoking marijuana.  With weed being illegal right now, it makes it easier for young adults and teenagers to gain access of it.

Protecting the Unborn

According to this article, women will not be able to receive an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  This bill will be signed by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant who is looking forward to signing the bill that will ban the abortion of a half term pregnancy.  Bryant says, "This measure represents a great effort to protect the unborn in Mississippi."  I agree with this statement completely.  I am pro choice to a certain point.  Yes, I would rather see someone go through with a pregnancy, but I do know that there are many reasons why women would not be able to have a child due to financial issues, age, timing, etc.  However, I don't think that it is right for women to have an abortion after 20 weeks.  As the length of the pregnancy increases, the riskier that the procedure becomes.  The bills exceptions would be that abortion would still be an option after 20 weeks if the woman would face death or permanent injury due to the pregnancy, or severe fetal abnormality.  In order for the clinic to determine the fetal age, the woman would undergo a sonogram.  Senator Deborah Dawkins argues that this bill would affect poor women.  "..Those who have money and want an abortion could still travel out of state to get one."  Sen. Dawkins argues that this bill will be unfair to poor women because they would not be able to afford to travel out of state.  However, this bill just puts limits on when women are allowed to receive abortions, not completely outlawing them.  Women would have 20 weeks to make a decision, so this bill should not pose a threat or seem as if they are targeting women, or specifically poor women.  Senator Angela Hill voted for the bill and said, "This is not about the women's body.  This is about the life of an unborn 20-week baby."  This bill is meant to protect someone who is incapable of protecting themselves.

Gun Control Violating Second Amendment?

According to this article, a new law has been passed by Burlington's voters about gun control.  This law passed on March 4th states to enact stiffer gun laws.  "By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home. "  The people in Burlington need to realize that if the bad people in this world are what cause tragedies such as the movie theater shooting, or Sandy Hook.  The murders in this world will find a way to get their hands on a gun, no matter how strict the rules are.  If they want to commit a crime of that nature that badly, they will do whatever it takes to get their hands on a weapon such as a gun.  Then who will protect the citizens who obey the gun laws?  Gun owners will not have enough time to fiddle around with putting a key in a lock if there is someone already standing in their house aiming to shoot at them, and the same goes with domestic violence calls.  Officers have no idea if the person in the house is simply using their fists or if they have a fully loaded gun, but if the officer walks in there unarmed, they have no way of protecting the good people in the house or themselves.  ""It's astonishing that people are so cavalier about violating the Second Amendment," Mack said. "Burlington City Council sounds like they are just following the trend to do things that are entirely unconstitutional and go around sheriffs, and go around the laws, or subvert the laws, or disobey the laws.""  People either just don't realize that this law is wrong, or they just don't care.  Either way, it is unconstitutional and should not be enforced.  Police officers are the good guys, they are on our side.  We should not take the rights of them having a gun away from then, because that just hurts our safety even more.  Like I said before, if someone really wants to get a gun to shoot down people, they will find a way no matter what.  They might even just go to a sporting store and rob the hunting section; you never know.  "In Saratoga Springs, N.Y., citizens publicly protested the state's new SAFE Act last week by burning a thousand gun registration forms."  Here is what the SAFE Act is supposed to be used for, ""The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchases, increases penalties for people who use illegal guns, mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns."

- Governor Andrew Cuomo"  I believe that this law means no harm, but as a law abiding citizen, I do not want it to become tougher and tougher for me to receive my pistol permit which I plan on applying for as soon as I am old enough to do so.  My parents are friends with many people in law enforcement including police officers, and they all say that you better try and get your guns as soon as you can, because it's becoming constantly more difficult to get your gun permit.  My parents are also trying to become eligible to own and use guns, but they were told by their friends in law enforcement that they would most likely have to write down one of the police officers names in order for their application to be accepted and not turned away.  

Possible Cutdown on Deportations?

According to this article, Mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, said "President Obama should cut deportations of migrants and focus resources on the 2 million people in the U.S. who are eligible to become citizens."  Why are these people who snuck into the country even worthy of being accepted into our country officially?  If they broke the laws to get here, who is to say that they will not continue to break laws when they become citizens?  Garcetti believes that he agrees with Obama's plan for immigration, however he believes that by deporting nearly 2 million illegal immigrants is not fair because then you are splitting up families and communities.  Well, how is it fair that people who came to the United States legally or were born here now have to compete for a job with that illegal person?  That does not seem fair at all.  The United States does not need more people coming into the country and making it a free-for-all.  If these illegal aliens really wanted to make positive contributions to our country, they would enter the United States of America legally and without question.  "Some Americans are concerned about violence in Mexico, but Garcetti said he has no trouble encouraging Angelinos to go to Baja California, where the U.S. State Department says Americans should "exercise great caution, particularly at night."  Garcetti does not make me feel very comfortable and safe about the situation.  If other people are telling me to take caution, I am not going to believe one person over the U.S. State Department that this place is safe.  Clearly there is a reason why they are telling me to use caution, and he is trying to paint a picture that it is safe there because he wants a tight connection with Mexico.  Which brings me to my next point, there has been an increase in "Cartel-like kidnappings" in the U.S. where people are being kidnapped and then loved ones of the victim are being contacted and asking for an outrageous amount of money.  I believe that these crimes are being committed due to the ridiculous amount of illegal aliens coming up from Mexico.

Lawmakers Moving to Ban Use of Welfare Money at Pot Dispensaries

According to this article, republican lawmakers plan to introduce a legislation to prevent the misuse of welfare money to purchase marijuana.  I completely agree with this article.  Welfare money is provided through the hard-working, taxpaying citizens of the United States.  Their hard-earned money should not be being spent on their pleasures.  Welfare is provided to people who do not have an income large enough to sustain their basic needs.  Marijuana has been passed for both medical and recreational use.  Medically prescribed marijuana would not require welfare money to buy the medical marijuana.  This means that welfare money would be used to buy recreational marijuana.  "Last year, Colorado lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting access to welfare benefits at casinos, gun shops, bars, and liquor stores."  Due to the fact that welfare is not able to be used to purchase other recreational items, welfare money should not be used on recreational marijuana use either.  According to KDVR.com, at least 19 different dispensaries allowed electronic benefits withdrawals inside their pot shops in within one week in January alone.  With pot shops still becoming a new thing, this number will continue to increase as more and more customers start to experiment with recreational marijuana.  This could mean more people on welfare using their benefits money to purchase pot.  This needs to stop before it becomes any worse.

Sex-Change Operations Now Covered by Insurance?

I can't even wrap my head around this article.  Mayor Vincent Gray said people with gender identity disorder, "should not have to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses for medically necessary treatment."  Since when are trans-gender operations necessary?  I believe that insurance companies should not be forced to give coverage to people requesting a sex change.  This would be like insurance companies being not being able to resist allowing people to get various plastic surgery procedures.  That would be completely ridiculous for insurance companies to provide coverage for someone who wants a nose job.  People who wish to receive Botox have to come up with the extra money to get their procedures done, so why would people wishing to get plastic surgery to get a sex change receive special treatment?  I think that the government is becoming to involved in the lives of citizens.  They should not dictate the insurance companies and whether or not they provide compensation for people wishing to receive transgender surgeries.  The idea of healthcare is being blown out of the water.  Wanting a gender change is not an emergency medical disease.  This is just simply a want.  I think the government should have little say as to what the insurance companies have and don't have to cover, but transgender surgeries should not be one of them.  The government should be making more of a case for insurance companies to cover cancer treatments, not sex changes.