Gun Control: A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma Inside a Riddle with a side of Perplexity

Lately I've been thinking a lot about gun control. Yes I know pretty much everyone and there mother has too, but I've been trying to look at the issue from another perspective. Maybe gun violence is the result of some deeper problem. In the book :Better Angels of Our Nature" psychologist Steven Pinker points out that we currently live in the most peaceful time in all of human history. Now before you reach through your computer screen allow me to make my point.

There was a time about 100 years ago that seeing someone get mugged and stabbed was very common and forensics was limited to nothing because no one cared enough to investigate. In today's society we are constantly scared by the news we watch. Although the Aurora and Newton massacres were awful tragedies we need to understand that these were isolated events. In my own personal opinion we do not need any kind of legislation on gun's. I personally don't like guns, and I will probably never shoot a gun, but I also don't like sushi. Does that mean that we need new legislation on sushi, no. All joking aside if we look at other countries that allow their citizens to buy guns, we see that they have a lot less gun violence than our country. Why is this? I think that I may have an answer. Drugs. Now bear with me as I explain this thought.

 a large chunk of gun violence in America is directly related to gangs. What do gangs fight for? power? control of an area? while all of these are true, the biggest reason is to distribute drugs.  Think about this for a second in the 1920s America tried to ban alcohol. Many bars became havens for bootleggers that illegally made and distributed alcohol. It also brought about the classic era of gangsters like Al Capone. When the Prohibition Act was repealed the alcohol black market more or less vanished overnight. If we just made recreational drugs legal we could essentially make gangs a thing of the past. Back on the subject of gun control. Banning assault weapons may save some lives temporarily but it will inevitably create a black market that will end up spreading gang activity even further here in the states. Finally I know I've been defending gun owners throughout this but I feel I need to address one more thing to people who argue that assault weapons are alright for hunters to own. If you need AR-15 Assault rifle with a night vision scope and 100 round magazine in order to hunt, you're a shitty hunter. the deer doesn't shoot back.

Link to Mr.Pinker's website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Homework Due Monday, April 1, 2013

There is so much in the news media about the Supreme Court.  In order to make continued connections between what we are learning and what is really going in in politics and government, please spend some time reading about the Supreme Court on a credible and challenging news site.  Please choose two of the sites below and find one related article on each of the two sites:

• The Economist:  http://www.economist.com/
• National Public Radio:  http://www.npr.org/
• The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/
• PBS Newshour:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
• The Wall Street Journal:  http://online.wsj.com/home-page

Write a brief review of the two articles you find, including takeaways and critical questions.  Then, compare and contrast the information and bias/lack of bias you find in each of the articles.  What does your comparative analysis tell you about the similarities and differences between the two news sites you analyzed?  Post your links and analysis on the blog.  You will respond to each other's posts for homework later in the week.

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

For extra credit on your homework grade, respond to the article below.  Add your opinion and/or key takeaways.  I love how this article merges our study of public opinion back in the fall with our current study of the Supreme Court.  Government and politics in action!

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

Learning Log—Judicial branch

The courts are in place for justice. They punish people for their crimes and settle disputes between people or parties. The Supreme Court plays a major role in which laws we follow because they interpret the constitution and have the power of judicial review. (Judicial review- being able to strike down any laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional). The Framers decided that the courts will get their independence from other branches by giving federal judges lifetime terms. They did not touch on the issue of judicial review because they couldn't agree whether or not the Supreme Court should have that power, considering many wanted them to be the weakest branch. The only reason it gained power was because John Marshall became the chief Justice and a Mr. Marbury was cheated out of his job as a judge. Marbury took the case to court (Marbury v Madison). The Supreme Court thought that Marbury should get his job but they believed that if that was their decision, then the president would ignore their ruling and undermined them. They decided that Marbury deserved his commission but that they could not give him his job because that was unconstitutional. It was the first of many times that they declared something unconstitutional throughout the years and in the decision Marshall established their right to judicial review. What I don’t understand is why everyone listened to them and let them declare that they have the power to say if a law is unconstitutional, if they were supposed to be so weak and the constitution didn't touch on the power? It doesn't make sense; they won’t give Marbury his job because they fear the president will undermine them by ignoring the decision, and then they flat out declared something unconstitutional for the first time and gave themselves the power of judicial review.  Did they also declare that they had the final decision, and what they say goes, in Marbury v Madison?  If that rule was already put into place before the case then there would not be the issue of questioning if the president would honor their decision. The President may not like it and try to put it off but there would be no way around not giving Marbury his job.          

Helpful Link

Hey guys I was searching up supreme justices and I found this great website that lists all the justices in our U.S history and give quick details about them if you click on their name. Please check it out it will help you a lot on the homework!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

Senate Passes First Budget in 4 Years!

I woke up to this on the radio and in my email inbox.  It is BIG NEWS (even though the Senate and the House will most likely not be able to reconcile their budgets.)  They stayed up all night to do this.

If you are still making an effort to understand how Congress works, it is important that you read about Congress' current work.  Read this article, make connections to our study of Congress and comment below for extra credit.  

BREAKING NEWS Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:30 AM EDT

Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Its First in 4 Years After an all-night debate that ended close to 5 a.m., the Senate on Saturday adopted its first budget in four years, a $3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 that would fast-track passage of tax increases, trim spending gingerly and leave the government deeply in debt a decade from now. The 50-49 vote sets up contentious — and potentially fruitless — negotiations with the Republican-dominated House to reconcile two different visions for dealing with the nation’s economic and budgetary problems. No Republicans voted for the Senate plan, and four Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Max Baucus of Montana, also opposed it. All four are Red State Democrats up for re-election in 2014. In contrast, the House plan ostensibly brings the government’s taxes and spending into balance by 2023 with cuts to domestic spending even below levels the automatic “sequestration” levels roiling federal programs now, and it orders up significant changes to Medicare and the tax code. READ MORE » http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?emc=na

Get to Know the Filibuster In Real Time

Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky filibusters the Obama nomination of John O. Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Link to filibuster video:  http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Link to article:  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/

Questions to Consider:

1. What does this political update tell you about the roles and responsibilities of Senators?
2. According to the article, why does Senator Paul oppose the nomination of Brennan?
3. Using evidence from the article, identify what is noteworthy about this filibuster.

Share your answers in the comments below for extra homework/classwork credit.