Good morning! I took a much needed week off because my fiancé was on spring break. I had been running out of good ideas for article topics and I felt like my articles were getting stale. My fiancé and I had a wonderfully relaxing break and we both are returning to our jobs today rejuvenated and excited for the next five weeks (how is it only five weeks until summer?!)!
Even though I didn't write during my break, I did keep up with the news. And I can't tell you how happy I am that I wasn't writing current news articles last week! Gun control, North Korea, and celebrity mishaps were hot topics. People were getting so fired up about everything and, on both sides, were polarizing issues.
Was it actually worse last week, or did it just seem that way, since I had removed myself from the fray?
I think the way our culture deals with news is fascinating. Everything goes so quickly that it feels like you have to be paying attention 24 hours a day and picking a side before that topic is no longer at the forefront of everyones' minds. For example, early last week, North Korea was making headlines every day. By Thursday, it wasn't even in the top news stories. Today, it's back on top because John Kerry is back from his visit there. Tomorrow, it'll be back in the second half of the hour's news, if at all.
How are we supposed to be informed citizens if we are bombarded with stories that freak us out, and then three days later, those stories are just gone and we have a bunch of new stories we're supposed to care deeply for and form very strong opinions about?
I am tired of seeing "political" articles that have no research behind them, surveys that don't actually give people all the options there actually are to choose from, and "debates" on television in which the minute someone says something that the host disagrees with, that person is cut off and the host tells us (again) what his opinion is.
This happens on both sides. I have done it. But we need to change. We need to decide that it's more important for our citizens to be informed than to choose a side. We need to decide that it's more important for us to make sure that everyone is safe (even if we don't know them and they live in a difference socioeconomic class than we do) than to keep a certain rating from a certain private corporation for our own "reputation" (wouldn't you rather have the reputation of helping people than the reputation of voting however the NRA wants you to vote so you have an "A" from them? I would.).
I guess the thing I took away the most from my week off is that I would rather be a well-informed citizen than have shallow (albeit loud) opinions. Sure, it's fun to get people all riled up and have arguments, but does anything really get accomplished with that? I'm not too sure. I think it's more important to help people understand (in a non-biased manner--yes, it's possible!) what's going on.
I have learned that just because I have strong convictions doesn't mean that they're always right. Just that last sentence alone shows growth on my part. I never would have said that even six months ago. This week, I am going to work on putting my hard and fast opinions aside and look at the big picture. I recommend that you do the same. It'll make all of us better for it.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
Not buying your 'unbiased' comments. Just because someone doesn't want their Senator or Representative to vote for the gun control law under consideration, doesn't make them uncaring or their rep. wanting to get a good rating from the NRA. I couldn't give a hoot about the NRA; I just want our government to enforce the laws we already have on the books(all states currently do background checks with various waiting periods) and to uphold the constitution as they are sworn to do. If the public and our leaders don't want guns available, then they should set up a constitutional convention and try to change it. None of the pending gun legislation would have stopped what happened in Newtown or in Colorado. Mentally ill people and criminals don't follow the law, anyway. We need to take a long hard look at how we deal with mental illness, the breakdown of the family and the cultural problems that have brought on violence in our society. Ill, sick, angry, frustrated, drug-taking, law-breaking people will find ways to lash out with/without guns. Witness the college knifing last week or the bombing today. I choose not to have a gun personally, but until the constitution is changed, I will stand up for the right of any citizen to have a gun.
ReplyDeleteI have said this and I will say it again: I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns. If you look at any of the legislation that was discussed in the immediate wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, none of it included taking away guns.
DeleteSemi-automatic weapons need to be banned from civilian access. No civilian needs one.
Magazines more than 5 or 6 or 10 bullets (take your pick) need to be banned. The only reason you need a 30 bullet clip is so you can go on a shooting spree.
And yes, you're right that states have background check laws. BUT, private sales and gun show sales do NOT require background checks. This loophole needs to be closed.
Keep standing up for the rights the Second Amendment give us. I do.
Hey Anonymous. If you want to help change "how we deal with mental illness," you could start by not saying this like "mentally ill people...don't follow the law, anyway." Kthnx,
Deletea mentally ill person who has managed to follow the law quite nicely most of her life
Sorry, Lindsey,--that was thoughtless of me. I was thinking of the 2 recent mass shootings by persons who were severely ill. As with all illness, there is a spectrum. I just don't want some government beaurocrat deciding who is 'too ill' to own a gun, if their agenda is to have less guns in citizens' hands. Is 'too ill' someone who takes an anti-depressant and functions perfectly well in society, like my husband? I don't think I want government to have access to my health records or the ability to take my rights just because I take a pill or have regular counseling. However, this may now be a moot point as Obamacare is forcing electronic medical records in which the government can access. I'm just so frustrated to see my rights, privileges and privacy being eroded with each new piece of legislation--especially when I see that we don't effectively enforce the laws we have. Let's face it, you simply can't protect everyone from everything if you want to live a free life. And as the other Anonymous pointed out, even in a totally 'unfree' place like prison--very dangerous because the criminals will always find a way around the rules.
DeleteI think the person commenting is concerned that the framer's original intent is being compromised. They intended that people have guns for hunting as well as to protect themselves from tyranny. A NATIONAL gun background check creates a national data base of all law abiding people who have guns. Plus there is also national data base of those with whom the government decides are mentally ill.
ReplyDeleteOn your 2nd pt. The criminals have the guns and among you discribe. If I'm limited to a little pistol -I have no way of protecting me and my children. I have a sister who teaches in Chicago's inner city-strictest laws in the county. All the gangs and druggies have automatic guns and the citizens are held hostage by the gun laws while the criminals know they have free reign.
Just a thought: prisons house prisoners, watch every move they make and regulate their every move. Still they are the most dangerous and violent places ever.
If you read the letters the framers wrote to each other, it's clear that their intent was for us to protect ourselves from tyranny. A national data base of gun owners is a violation of privacy and compromises our 2nd amendment rights.