I rarely post two articles in a day this is a pretty controversial topic, but I felt that I needed to write about it. The Constitution is the document that created the United States of America and has shaped our policy and lives ever since. Yet, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago (226 to be exact) and is by any and all measures obsolete. There have been recent fights about gun control and the second amendment. Think about it. Do you think that the Founding Fathers could have ever envisioned semi-automatic weapons, deadly accurate bullets, and clips filled with 30 bullets, along with the ability to reload incredibly quickly. When the Constitution was written, muskets were predominantly used, and they could shoot off 3 or 4 rounds a minute, maximum. Now, a semi-automatic AR-15 can shoot off hundreds of bullets a minute. So, standing behind the second amendment and saying it protects all gun owners and their rights to own whatever weapon they want really should not happen. The Constitution was written in a time before electricity, cars, computers, the Internet, smartphones, and all the advancements we have experienced in the last two hundred years. The last amendment was made in 1971, before the Internet was even created. Obviously the Constitution is obsolete, and now some historians and professors are debating whether or not we should just get rid of the Constitution all together. Now, it should be replaced with something that ensures that we have many of the same rights as we had before. However, we should review certain parts of the Constitution, such as the Second Amendment, in order to make sure the Constitution, or some type of replacement, reflects the positions of the U.S. in the 21st century,
We have probably heard of the infighting within the Republican party. John Boehner, one of the most powerful Republicans as Speaker of the House could not even get enough votes from Republicans at first to raise taxes on people making over $1 million during the Fiscal Cliff debate. Now, Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist has started the Conservative Victory Fund, a "super PAC" that will attempt to field more moderate and electable candidates in senate races. After the Republican party lost a number of Senate races that they could have won because of candidates that ran too far to the right Karl Rove and the Establishment are hoping to bring the Republican party back closer to the center in order to win more races. Unfortunately, the effort that may have resulted in more compromising and bipartisanship has been denounced by members of the Tea Party. Sadly, the Republicans of today are not the Republicans of yesterday. Hopefully, Karl Rove's attempt to bring the Republican party back towards the center will be successful. Until then, we can only watch as the Republican party, now just a collection of warring factions, tears itself apart,
There has been a large debate about the use of drones in the United States to target terrorists. Many people do not think we should be targeting fellow Americans. Yet, we targeted people throughout the Middle East for years; what makes us so special? Although this may not sound very patriotic, but there is nothing special about being an American compared to being an Iranian or Iraqi or Pakistani. We are not more evolved or more advanced. We are not smarter, faster, funnier, or kinder than any of them. Families exist in both places and people still go to school and read and pray. Yet, it was fine to target terrorists over there but when we decide to start targeting terrorists over here everyone gets up in arms. Perhaps it is due to the stereotype that every person of Middle Eastern descent is a terrorist and everyone who is white is just and innocent victim. What people don't realize is that there are probably just as many, if not more, screwed up white people as there are people of Middle Eastern descent. So, there is perfect justification in using drones to target terrorists in the United States. It must be stated that there is a chance for collateral damage. One day, unfortunately, an innocent life will be lost. We will all rightfully grieve and there will be a major attack on the use of drones. On the other hand, think of how many innocent lives will be saved by stopping the terrorists. The trade off, while unfortunate, will be necessary. This does not mean I advocate for killing innocent Americans. I personally think drones should be used for surveillance until they become advanced enough that they can target one person and take that person out using a gun or something that has a lower chance of hitting innocent civilians than a missile. I also think we need to only use drones when we are absolutely sure someone is a terrorist. Until then, we can only hope that the government does not make a mistake, and once the drones are advanced enough we will be able to combat terrorism much more
|