Skyler
October 21, 2013
Interview with President Obama
President Obama uses emotional, character, and logical appeals to gain the trust of his audience, the American people. He uses these appeals by being very specific and relating to people in any way he can. By being specific and giving many examples he shows that he knows what the people want and need. This is something that every politician must gain a skill in being able to do so. In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep about Obama Care, President Obama uses rhetorical appeals to communicate very effectively with his audience.President Obama will often try to communicate with people emotionally. This is probably the most effective because it shows that he knows how the American people feel. When asked about the government shut down Obama says, "People understand that when a government is shut down, not only is that hurting small businesses that aren't getting loans or rural families who can't get a loan for a house..." (1). He is showing that he understands that families or even small businesses who support families that need loans can't get them and is willing to help solve this issue. He also talks about Obama care when he says, "The individual mandate is the only way that you can assure that people with pre-existing conditions are able to get health care like everybody else" (2). He says this because he's trying to explain that all he wants to do is help people so that they may all be treated equally when they want to buy health care insurance.
Another way Obama appeals to people is through character. An example of him doing so is when he answers a question about where government money is invested and says, "I have said consistently that I am always happy to talk to Republicans and Democrats about how we shape a budget that is investing in things like early childhood education" (2). He shows that he will take the time to explain and communicate with both sides and character types. This is a very good trait that he is willing to listen and share his opinion with both sides even though he may not agree with both sides. In the end everyone just wants the same thing, and that is to help the American people and make sure the government runs as smoothly as it can. He also shows that he has good character traits himself. He admits that there will be problems and glitches in his idea saying, "In the first week, first month, first three months, I would suspect that there will be glitches" (5). This is a very good way to gain the American people's trust because it shows he is humble.
The final rhetorical appeal that Obama uses is logic. This is very important because some people only look at the facts of things. Steve talks about how many American citizens cannot afford health insurance and Obama responds by saying, "There are millions of Americans right now who do not have health insurance. And they are finally, after decades, going to be in a position where they can get affordable health care, just like everybody else." (2). There is no reason that people shouldn't be able to buy health insurance. Obama has finally found a way to make it possible for everyone who wants insurance to have it. Later on Steve Inskeep asks about how republicans and democrats in congress negotiate and Obama states that "No one is going to accomplish those things if one party to this conversation says that the only way the come to the table is if they get 100 percent of what they want, and if they don't, they threaten to burn down the house. That's not negotiation" (2). He is right. This is common logic that to negotiate both sides may have to give up a few things in order to get the most important part of their agreements to more greatly achieve the common goal. These are very good logical points that Obama uses to communicate effectively with the American people.
Every great politician must be able to communicate through rhetorical appeals so that they can earn the trust of their audiences. President Obama does this very well. He uses many examples to show that he understands what the American people are dealing with in their lives. He also shows that he is doing the best he can and is trying to help out the majority of the population. Obama gains the support and trust of his audience through emotional, character, and logical appeals.
Rhetorical Analysis Reflection
Taking the time to read and analyze President Obama's interview really helped me become aware of the information around us. Politicians such as the president use words to their advantage all the time by appealing to their audiences. Now I have started to listen closer to what people say around me. Some people purposely use rhetoric to sway the opinions of their audiences and others don't do this intentionally.
Gun Ownership
Gun ownership should never be restricted to everyone. If the government were to take guns out of the hand of people then the USA would end up like Mexico. Mexico has a ban on guns and it only took the guns out of good people's hands because the criminals will always find a way to get what they want no matter what. Now Mexico citizens have no way to defend themselves from criminals and this is why the drug cartels pretty much run the entire country. If we do not want our country ending up the same way then we should be against restricting or regulating gun ownership. Once the government gets their hands on that law all they will want to do is become more controlling until it is illegal to even own a gun.
Some may say that if guns are banned or restricted then there will be less violence. This is completely wrong. The whole reason the US government wants to restrict guns is so that criminals will not be able to get them. The fact is that most criminals will still get their hands on them if they really want to or even get other weapons equally or more harmful. Take the school shootings for example. No one had any idea that those people who did the shootings would ever do that. By restricting guns this wouldn't have stopped this shooting because these people had no reason that they shouldn't have had the privilege of owning those guns until after the shooting.
This is a very important issues because we have a lot of stupid people in head government positions. They all assume that they're right but if they were to do a little more researching on their issues then they would know that they too can be wrong occasionally. Guns should never be restricted because it gives the American people a way to defend themselves and their families should they ever need to. Also the world doesn't need another Mexico rising up because the criminals still found a way to get guns even though they're banned. Everyone would be far better off if the government just left our right to bear arms alone.
November 20, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
"Attitudes On Abortion And Firearms Control." American Bar Association Journal 65.11 (1979): 1634. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
The American Bar Association Journal compiled statistics on the views of the American people. The results vary on gun control depending on what type of gun is being discussed. The majority of people in the polls are supportive of gun regulations on handguns and believe it will reduce handgun related crimes. On the other hand, in another pole the majority doesn't believe in strict regulations on rifles and shotguns. In the polls, handguns are viewed as the typical homicide weapon of the American people. This results in the support and consideration of laws that may regulate who may own a handgun.
Brooks, Peter. "Law And Humanities: Two Attempts." Boston University Law Review93.4 (2013): 1437-1468. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Peter Brooks shows how the second amendment of the constitution can be deconstructed and broken apart. He tells of examples of people who do this trying to find loop holes in the law. Many people actually make very valid arguments as to what this right means. Then Brooks states that this is just the eighteenth century writing and is out dated. The people who the constitution never mean't for there to be multiple meanings to this right to bear arms. Peter concludes by saying that if this were written in the twenty first century it would be clarified to fit the time period.
Casteen, John. "Ditching The Rubric On Gun Control." Virginia Quarterly Review 80.4 (2004): 210-221. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
John Casteen says that there are two extreme views about gun control. There are the right-wing-gun-nuts and the million marching moms. Both of which are correct in their views and opinions but there will never be laws that are as extreme as these two main groups of this topic. John states that their extreme views blind them from the big picture. This big picture being the government trying to do what is best for the country. Over all firearm bans will never exist says Casteen. The constitution would never allow such a thing. He goes to explain that there will always be two extreme groups to this controversial topic and neither will ever prevail because of their one track mind.
"Gun Control In The United States: A Comparative Survey Of State Firearm Laws."Spectrum: Journal Of State Government 73.4 (2000): 16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Gun control in the United States is based mostly on state laws and fairly little country wide laws. Gun violence can be reduced by gun regulation but there are many factors that go into researching this violence. A few factors are poverty percentage, densely populated urban areas, alcohol or drug abuse rate, unemployment, and organized crime. Many states have almost no regulations on gun possession and sales. What complicates things is that every state has different regulations on firearms. If gun violence were to be decreased, individual states would have to devise more detailed regulations based on statistics in the area.
Huemer, Michael. "Is There A Right To Own A Gun?." Social Theory & Practice 29.2 (2003): 297-324. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Michael Huemer shows both views of the argument about whether or not gun control will reduce violence. Michael states that the right to own a handgun has far more benefits that outweigh the danger of owning one. Michael also states that the dangers of owning a gun would have to far outweigh the benefits of owning a gun to put a ban on them. Another view that is taken into account is that it is trivial for a person to want to own a gun rather than decrease gun violence. He says that his argument is to show that these people are wrong and Americans have the right to protect their rights to bear arms. He concludes his research by saying that many factors have to be taken into account for a law on gun control to be considered in certain areas.
Kates Jr., Don B. "Gun Control Versus Gun Prohibition." American Bar Association Journal 68.9 (1982): 1052. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
In this piece of literature Kates states the difference between gun control and gun prohibition. Gun prohibition is the total ban of guns where as gun control only controls who can and can't own a gun. He tells that these are commonly mistaken for the same thing and that is why people have such extreme feelings towards both subjects. The Department of Justice in 1978 allotted $275,000 to Massachusetts University's James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, who frankly started out as believers in moderate gun regulation. After three years of research they were unable to justify gun regulation to reduce homicide. They found that the people who would directly be affected by these laws are not typical murderers. The people who typically commit homicide are drug or alcohol dependent and driven and that these people would still find a way to attain or possess a firearm. In conclusion they found that the general public are bitterly opposed to gun laws and when enacted, are nullified by massive disobedience.
Kleinig, John, and Hugh Lafollette. "Gun Control." Criminal Justice Ethics 20.1 (2001): 17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Hugh says, "Although most of us assume that we must either oppose or support gun control, the issue is far more complex: we must decide who can own which guns under what condition." He also explains that to have a ban on guns there would have to be a substantial amount of evidence of the benefits of banning guns. There are many people that feel it is their fundamental right to own a gun. Hugh argues that everyone has the right to noninterference. This is essentially the right for people to live their lives as they choose as long as they are not harming others. He concludes by saying owning a gun is a very risky action and that as long as people are willing to take responsibility for their risky actions there is no need for a ban on firearms.
Mehalko, Laura. "This Is Gun Country: The International Implications Of U.S. Gun Control Policy." Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 35.1 (2012): 297-330. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
The United States has fairly lenient gun laws compared to Mexico states Laura Mehalko. Drug cartels in Mexico use this to their advantage. It is calculated that 90% of the cartels firearms originated in the United States. Many of these weapons were purchased by the cartels along the states bordering Mexico such as California, Texas, and Arizona. The United States has tried to regulate these sales but it has just caused more conflicts. These conflicts include increased kidnappings and murders domestically as well as over 40,000 deaths in Mexico since 2006. So far there hasn't been a significant reduction of the number of firearms that are illegally smuggled into the country of Mexico.
Singh, Robert. "Gun Control In America." Political Quarterly 69.3 (1998): 288. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Robert Singh relates guns to the American people's pride and heritage. With a sense of humor he says without guns they all lose their sense of pride. Almost 38,000 people in the United States in every year during the 1990s were killed in firearm related causes. During President Clintons time in office there were laws passed so that there was a waiting time before a gun could be purchased so that background checks could be run. Another law that was passed was the ban of nineteen types of semiautomatic guns. This was later ruled unconstitutional and abolished.
Softness, Benjamin S. "Preserving Judicial Supremacy Come Heller High Water."University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 161.2 (2013): 623-652. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Benjamin explains his topic on gun control and the judicial system of the United States. A key point to his argument is how the court system must maintain their credibility. When this comes to gun laws and regulations the court system will often times answer questions with a somewhat open ended answer so that they may not be caught up in controversial topics. By doing this they are able to keep their credibility and avoid getting too much involved with public views on such topics. Court systems are also often times questioned on how the second amendment of the constitution, or the right to bear arms, is defined. The judicial system tries very hard to steer clear of these types of questions to avoid turmoil that may jeopardize their credibility.
Stell, Lance K. "The Production Of Criminal Violence In America: Is Strict Gun Control The Solution." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32.1 (2004): 38-46. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Lance K. Stell clarifies strict gun control as an array of legal sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population. Stell expresses his views and research by tell of how it is not only criminals who cause gun violence but also the general public. He says that all criminals start out as law abiding citizens. So to reduce gun violence everyone must be regulated on firearm possession. 70% of American homicides are committed by firearms. Stell wraps things up by telling how to reduce these numbers by slowly implementing gun laws so that there are not overwhelming laws that American citizens will reject.
Tonso, William R. "How Sociology Texts Address Gun Control." Academic Questions17.2 (2004): 67-79. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
William R. Tonso explains why the need and right of owning a gun came along in the first place. In America's earlier history people needed guns for protection and hunt. He says that we no longer need guns in modern society. Tonso states that our country has outgrown the need for firearms and they only contribute to firearm violence more than they help. Efforts on gun control though ended about forty years ago with the wars. Public opinion polls, and argument goes, tell us that most Americans support stricter gun controls of the sort responsible for lower violence rates in other modern nations, but efforts to enact them here have been thwarted by the self-serving and irresponsible, but powerful, National Rifle Association.
Skyler
December 4, 2013
Firearm Laws: Regulation or Control?
Imagine a life without guns and violence. Is this possible? How effective would it be? Take Mexico for example. Mexico has very strict gun laws that only allow certain individuals to possess a firearm. Even then, most calibers are reserved for military use. These laws take the firearms out of the hands of good citizens and criminals still find ways to obtain them. Although most Mexican citizens abide by the laws, some do not. Mexico is known well for their organized crime and drug cartel violence. Mexico drug trafficking organizations are the largest provider of illicit drugs in the United States. Mexican drug cartels rely on advanced military grade weaponry to maintain control of drug trafficking corridors. The United States government estimates that about ninety percent of all guns used by the cartels originated in the United States. Firearms possessed by cartels are often obtained illegally.
The United States has very lenient gun laws and many calibers of firearms are available to the general public. Some say that the United States will become like Mexico if strict firearm laws and regulations are put into place. Others say it will reduce crime rates and benefit society. A very common third opinion is that there should be gun regulations but not the complete restriction of ownership. There are many things to take into account though. Arguments commonly made are whether or not firearm regulation is efficient or effective, whether or not enforcement of possible future firearm laws will meet expectations, and the interpretation of the second amendment or our right to bear arms. I will argue that regulatory firearm laws will benefit the United States.
Firearm regulation often puts the judicial system in a tight spot. In an academic journal Benjamin S. Softness says, "In certain 'hot button' cases when the court is required to make a controversial legal determination, it does so on nervous grounds in order to preserve institutional power. This reduces law efficiency by neither supporting or going against them." Some of these cases include decisions involving firearm laws. These kinds of decisions range from state to state across the United States. Having these various laws on a state level makes enforcing them more difficult. If a person really wanted a firearm all they would have to do is drive to a neighboring state with less strict firearm regulations to obtain them. This also applies to neighboring countries. Peter Brooks states, "The U.S. government estimates that nearly ninety percent of all weapons used in the Mexican drug war originated in the United States." With Mexico having strict gun laws it causes criminals to enter the U.S. to purchase firearms. This is not only illegal but also very dangerous for gun salesmen. Sometimes when a criminal from Mexico wants to purchase a weapon and the arms dealer denies them, they retaliate violently. Enforcement of firearm laws in the U.S. is thus an important factor.
Enforcement of gun laws in the United States are very lenient compared to other countries. Peter Brooks says, "Laws are not being enforced sufficiently. The United States is likely the most prevalent source of weapons for the increasingly violent cartels." This shows how neighboring countries take advantage of our poor law enforcement involving firearm possession. This not only applies to other nearby countries but also neighboring states within the United States. Some say, "Permissive laws in one state can undermine strict gun laws in adjacent states. When adjacent institutions have different levels of gun control the weaker law becomes the common standard." Gun laws do not have to be extremely strict and outlaw gun ownership. Lance K. Stell says "I define strict gun control as an array of legally sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population." Gun laws should only decide who can own a gun based on a persons background, criminal history (if any), and mental stability.
Occasionally people try to reinterpret the meaning of the second amendment. They do this by applying the way it's phrased to modern times. This is often done in court cases discussing new firearm regulation laws. Benjamin S. Softness says, "So when the Supreme Court was asked, first in 2008 and again in 2010, to define the scope of the second amendment, it confronted an issue of frequent cultural and political clash." The American population is accustomed to having firearms as a part of their culture. The U.S. government wants to change this. They do so by trying to reinterpret the second amendment. Peter Brooks says, "The object of interpretive scrutiny here is of course the famously vexing language of the second amendment." The argument is often made that the right to bear arms was established for a public militia which is also included in the second amendment. Now some say that there is no longer a need for the right to bear arms since the United States has made a militia unnecessary by having a military. Benjamin S. Softness actually says, "In order to address the law's validity, the court found it necessary to answer the 'long judicially unresolved' question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms or rather a collective right to bear arms in connection with state militia service." It was then ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding American citizen to own a firearm as long as they are responsible.
The United States would benefit greatly from regulatory firearm laws. Controversial turmoil could be avoided by taking precautions to avoid second amendment reinterpretation, discussing the efficiency and effectiveness with the American people, and explaining how these laws may be enforced. Also by slowly implementing laws that would only regulate who can own a gun based on mental stability, criminal records, and personal background would also reduce opposition. Firearm laws should never be controlling and outlaw guns. These laws would also keep neighboring countries, such as Mexico, from illegally purchasing firearms from U.S. firearm dealers. In conclusion, the United States should have regulatory firearm laws.
Reflection
While researching I found a lot of evidence to help support my position on the issue of gun control. Without the research I would be left to write a paper on something I have only heard little about. Having access to more sources though I was able to find papers or academic journals that also told more about my topic that I used to support my argument in a more credited way. A lot of my research told about both sides of the presented argument. By using both sides to compare and contrast I was able to make a better argument and sway the favors towards me. I did this by pointing out the flaws and advantages of both sides and weighing them in a sense to show which side was better.
To effectively defend my position on an issue I look at both sides of an argument. Then I choose the side that will be easier to agree with and find more supporting evidence. Then I compare and contrast both views and show the disadvantages and advantages of both sides. Then from there I give more examples of why my position is better to convince the audience.
The revision process helps find mistakes or flaws in a paper. By taking the time to reread and find these errors it makes a much better paper and it doesn't take much effort to do so. While revising it is good to not only read it yourself but to have a peer edit it as well and make marks for potential changes. This way you also learn from your mistakes and learn to not make them anymore or as often.
I have learned a lot from this class. I have not only learned the process of writing but also many things about the topics that we had to research. It is now much easier to do proper research and write better papers now that I have learned a more correct way of doing so. It also taught me that I don't have to do everything at once. If you put things into steps you are able to spend more time on certain components of a paper and can make changes before it is done to make it better.
Skyler
December 4, 2013
Firearm Laws: Regulation or Control?
Imagine a life without guns and violence. Is this possible? How effective would it be? Take Mexico for example. Mexico has very strict gun laws that only allow certain individuals to possess a firearm. Even then, most calibers are reserved for military use. These laws take the firearms out of the hands of good citizens and criminals still find ways to obtain them. Although most Mexican citizens abide by the laws, some do not. Mexico is known well for their organized crime and drug cartel violence. Mexico drug trafficking organizations are the largest provider of illicit drugs in the United States. Mexican drug cartels rely on advanced military grade weaponry to maintain control of drug trafficking corridors. The United States government estimates that about ninety percent of all guns used by the cartels originated in the United States. Firearms possessed by cartels are often obtained illegally.
The United States has very lenient gun laws and many calibers of firearms are available to the general public. Some say that the United States will become like Mexico if strict firearm laws and regulations are put into place. Others say it will reduce crime rates and benefit society. A very common third opinion is that there should be gun regulations but not the complete restriction of ownership. There are many things to take into account though. Arguments commonly made are whether or not firearm regulation is efficient or effective, whether or not enforcement of possible future firearm laws will meet expectations, and the interpretation of the second amendment or our right to bear arms. I will argue that regulatory firearm laws will benefit the United States.
Firearm regulation often puts the judicial system in a tight spot. In an academic journal Benjamin S. Softness says, "In certain 'hot button' cases when the court is required to make a controversial legal determination, it does so on nervous grounds in order to preserve institutional power. This reduces law efficiency by neither supporting or going against them." Some of these cases include decisions involving firearm laws. These kinds of decisions range from state to state across the United States. Having these various laws on a state level makes enforcing them more difficult. If a person really wanted a firearm all they would have to do is drive to a neighboring state with less strict firearm regulations to obtain them. This also applies to neighboring countries. Peter Brooks states, "The U.S. government estimates that nearly ninety percent of all weapons used in the Mexican drug war originated in the United States." With Mexico having strict gun laws it causes criminals to enter the U.S. to purchase firearms. This is not only illegal but also very dangerous for gun salesmen. Sometimes when a criminal from Mexico wants to purchase a weapon and the arms dealer denies them, they retaliate violently. Enforcement of firearm laws in the U.S. is thus an important factor.
Enforcement of gun laws in the United States are very lenient compared to other countries. Peter Brooks says, "Laws are not being enforced sufficiently. The United States is likely the most prevalent source of weapons for the increasingly violent cartels." This shows how neighboring countries take advantage of our poor law enforcement involving firearm possession. This not only applies to other nearby countries but also neighboring states within the United States. Some say, "Permissive laws in one state can undermine strict gun laws in adjacent states. When adjacent institutions have different levels of gun control the weaker law becomes the common standard." Gun laws do not have to be extremely strict and outlaw gun ownership. Lance K. Stell says "I define strict gun control as an array of legally sanctioned restrictions designed to impose firearm scarcity on the general population." Gun laws should only decide who can own a gun based on a persons background, criminal history (if any), and mental stability.
Occasionally people try to reinterpret the meaning of the second amendment. They do this by applying the way it's phrased to modern times. This is often done in court cases discussing new firearm regulation laws. Benjamin S. Softness says, "So when the Supreme Court was asked, first in 2008 and again in 2010, to define the scope of the second amendment, it confronted an issue of frequent cultural and political clash." The American population is accustomed to having firearms as a part of their culture. The U.S. government wants to change this. They do so by trying to reinterpret the second amendment. Peter Brooks says, "The object of interpretive scrutiny here is of course the famously vexing language of the second amendment." The argument is often made that the right to bear arms was established for a public militia which is also included in the second amendment. Now some say that there is no longer a need for the right to bear arms since the United States has made a militia unnecessary by having a military. Benjamin S. Softness actually says, "In order to address the law's validity, the court found it necessary to answer the 'long judicially unresolved' question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms or rather a collective right to bear arms in connection with state militia service." It was then ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding American citizen to own a firearm as long as they are responsible.
The United States would benefit greatly from regulatory firearm laws. Controversial turmoil could be avoided by taking precautions to avoid second amendment reinterpretation, discussing the efficiency and effectiveness with the American people, and explaining how these laws may be enforced. Also by slowly implementing laws that would only regulate who can own a gun based on mental stability, criminal records, and personal background would also reduce opposition. Firearm laws should never be controlling and outlaw guns. These laws would also keep neighboring countries, such as Mexico, from illegally purchasing firearms from U.S. firearm dealers. In conclusion, the United States should have regulatory firearm laws.
Reflection
While researching I found a lot of evidence to help support my position on the issue of gun control. Without the research I would be left to write a paper on something I have only heard little about. Having access to more sources though I was able to find papers or academic journals that also told more about my topic that I used to support my argument in a more credited way. A lot of my research told about both sides of the presented argument. By using both sides to compare and contrast I was able to make a better argument and sway the favors towards me. I did this by pointing out the flaws and advantages of both sides and weighing them in a sense to show which side was better.
To effectively defend my position on an issue I look at both sides of an argument. Then I choose the side that will be easier to agree with and find more supporting evidence. Then I compare and contrast both views and show the disadvantages and advantages of both sides. Then from there I give more examples of why my position is better to convince the audience.
The revision process helps find mistakes or flaws in a paper. By taking the time to reread and find these errors it makes a much better paper and it doesn't take much effort to do so. While revising it is good to not only read it yourself but to have a peer edit it as well and make marks for potential changes. This way you also learn from your mistakes and learn to not make them anymore or as often.
I have learned a lot from this class. I have not only learned the process of writing but also many things about the topics that we had to research. It is now much easier to do proper research and write better papers now that I have learned a more correct way of doing so. It also taught me that I don't have to do everything at once. If you put things into steps you are able to spend more time on certain components of a paper and can make changes before it is done to make it better.
No comments:
Post a Comment