Response to blog "NRA Takes Its Safety Off" by Shannon - Time For Change

Obama is known to the public as being a supporter for stricter gun laws as well as being a supporter to stop U.S. citizen from owning fire arms for personal protection. It is no surprise to hear about anti gun supporters trying to link the violent drug war in Mexico to the lack of reinstating a ban on U.S. citizen from owning assault riffles. Obama recently stated to Mexico’s president that he is backing away from his pledge to reinstate the 1994 ban on assault guns, but he will make all efforts to stop the flow of guns across boards. This was an obvious political move by Mr. Obama in an effort to save his political career. Since it is so early in his 4 year term and the subject has already been brought up on several occasions, this will not be the last attempt to gain more support for tighter gun control in the U.S. in order to pass his legislation.

The link between the U.S. gun laws and the exportation of U.S. guns is a real issue. Recently the owner of a gun shop called X Caliber Guns in Phoenix Arizona was arrested along with 2 others, for knowingly selling guns to the drug cartel and money laundering scheme, according to the New York Times and A.T.F. Current U.S. law does not require reporting the sell of assault riffles to the government. This makes it an easy target for the drug cartel to illegally obtain assault riffles through citizen with a clean criminal record, that’s until that person gets caught such as Mr. George Iknadosian, the owner of X Caliber Guns.

I do not agree with renewing the US ban on assault riffles on US citizens, but I do agree with the NRA in having a stricter gun law in regards to smuggling and the punishment for the crime to be stiffer. Since the weapons were smuggled across the boarder in support of a violent drug related purpose, the offender should be tried as an international criminal and should be treated as a member of the cartel. A jail sentence of any number of years does not seem to be enough to get the point across that this crime is not tolerated in the US. International crimes should apply which is equivalent to treason, large scale drug trafficking, black marketing, and aggravated kidnapping which all are occurring with the support of those who smuggle weaponry to the drug cartel. These crimes should be punishable by the death penalty. There should be no leniency in this matter since it pertains to not only US national security but to international security between boarders. Our government needs to be stern and just to those who violate such high crimes on humanity. The solution is not to ban US citizen from owning assault riffle but to punish those to partake in trafficking guns that were in their possession.

Switzerland is a great example of a country that has proven that gun control laws and ownership of riffles are not the main source to crimes. In Switzerland, there are over 2 million personally owned weapons which the government also supports even woman ownership, as a means of national security protection. It gives all its citizens the responsibility to protect their own country. The idea is pretty vague to see happen in other countries due to the fact that all Swiss men have to serve in the military and after being discharge to continue periodic training. Switzerland also has very harsh punishments for those who use a gun in the act of violence.

The best method to resolving the issues in Mexico is not only removing corrupted officials, but to have harsher punishments to those who use weapons in the act of violence. In the US, our government should have harsher punishments as well, for those who support an international crime and any gun related crimes. Also our government should start requiring a sales report of riffles as a temporary solution. To try and place a ban on US citizen from owning an assault riffle, in response to the violence in Mexico, is an unjust cause and I strong disapprove of this action.







Referenced Links

Newsmax.com report on Obama’s administration to reinstate 1994 US Band on Assault riffles.
BBC report on Switzerland low gun related crimes.
Foxnews.com report on Obama’s recent talk with Mexican Government in regards to the drug cartel.
NRA report on Anti gun laws and Governments attempt to blame US citizens for Mexico drug violence.
Crimes related to Capital Punishment

Voting Rights Act: Section 5 Needs To Be Amended

Voting rights has long been a scrutinized process in our nation’s history of voting, since America gained it’s independence from Britain. Our country has come a long way since then, with many revisions to how voting practices are conducted. The main concern of voting rights is discrimination towards race, gender, and minority groups. With the passage of the Voting Right Act of 1965, a milestone against a long history of discrimination, requires a periodic reinstatement of the Act by congress and signed off by the current president of the United States. Over 40 years have passed since the Act was first approved which brings up many questions to some previsions in the Voting Rights Act, such as section 5. Is it unconstitutional that congress can require a “pre-clearance” on certain jurisdictions that have had a history of voting discrimination? I believe that section 5 is constitutional, but it should apply to all states not just those who showed to be discriminative in the 1960’s.

Gerrymandering is a clear reason why section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is so important to remain in effect, even though gerrymandering is technically covered by section 2, “Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, jurisdictions covered by the Act’s special provisions must obtain preclearance of any redistricting plan prior to implementation.” Gerrymandering is a term used to describe a political party who redistricts its states boundaries to benefit that party in which it discriminates against race, color, and non English speaking groups. Texas had the most recent controversy with the Republican Party trying to gain the advantage for the 2004 mid term election. Texas is seen as being a Republican controlled state, but the fact is, democrats have dominated congress for 130 years. Gerrymandering had allowed the democrats to dominate for so long. Texas is not the only state to have issues with redistricting Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, North Carolina, and Rhode Island all have been under the spotlight in recent years.

Section 5 points out only nine states that are covered by this provision which is grossly unequal and unfair as a nation of fifty states. All states should be evaluated by the Attorney General every decade or as often as redistricting is being considered in that state. Discrimination these days are more technical and based off of good reasoning, it can be done legally. This is a problem that seems to lack the attention of the American public. What people fail to realize is how well developed our government tactics have become in order to gain control. Discrimination must be watched very closely, not only by law, but by the people who these laws it effect. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should remain constitutional and with all fifty states being included in this provision, it will continue the principle of the constitutional checks and balances.


1965 Voting Rights Act under question by the Supreme Court.
Bail out of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions
Voting Right Act: Section 5
Gerrymandering
Section 5 redistricting provision
Redistricting analysis
Texas Redistricting Controversy