This first website http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/ focuses on the right to bear arms, and it displays a rather open mindedness about the subject. Refusing to be biased, this site shows both sides of the argument.
One particular part I found interesting, was the mention of the Columbine incident in April 1999. The event certainly highlighted the negative effects on upholding such an amendment, which has been reflected again in the April 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
This is an extremely analytical source highlighting the problems faced by members of government in dealing with the Gun Control vs. Gun Rights issue.
I think that the significance of guns in America is not healthy for the nation, however I feel it would be difficult to alter such a strongly defended amendment.
My second website http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/ discusses the problems faced with America’s freedom of speech, as laws on the workplace have been integrated.
The section on ‘What kinds of speech harassment law suppresses’ is particularly interesting as it states that people’s right of speech and religious freedom are being impeached, as more laws are implicated to cut down personal opinion being expressed in public.
I myself feel that the laws on harassment are sometimes too biased toward one person’s views. Therefore, I agree with the publisher that these laws are sometimes too strict.
I found both these sites useful. I hope you do too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I do like these websites Maxine, its nice to see different views on the first two points in the bill of rights.
However, although you seem to see the website about the gun control to be unbiased; if you read it very closely you can see that the writer is in fact deeming the gun holders to be holding power in congress purely because of the amount of money the put into congress. It states that both President Bush and Sen. John Kelly held guns and supported the campaign, yet neither of the two pushed congress into changing laws and making it easier to own guns.
Also, by opening the article with a reference to Columbine can not be condoning guns to be a constitutional right and therefore being pro guns.
I do think that the view of the writer is very diplomatic and does project both sides yet is seemingly siding towards one.
I do like the latter website however. Its nice to see such a built up reference for constriction on freedom of speech. Its funny to see that a country that provides itself on encouraging the individual can also make sure that no one says what they truly want too. Although in some cases censorship and the right to be in a safe working environment is a basic human right; there is a fine line in what is politically incorrect and what is seen as just a joke. Websites like this seem to make a mockery of the first amendment and pushes people into to believing further that there is a heavy censorship on what can or cannot be said in today's society, which is really quite sad.
Thanks Maxine for providing such diverse and interesting websites!
I think both of these site are very interesting and clear, they have good knowledge of what they are talking about which makes it interesting to read.
The first web site i agree with Rachel it is very unbiased as the man writing it was the gun owner and should have written the article in such a unbiased way.
The second web site is my favorite as it argues with the courts about freedom of speech, everyone has a different meaning of freedom of speech for example you cant say you dont like black thats racist but it is also freedom of speech so it shows all different aspects of it.
Sarah
I liked maxxines post here as these are two of the bill of rights laws that are most openly contested.
The right to bear arms is so strongly argued for, and against, that it is difficult to see how the argument will ever be resolved. The argument that they need protection can only carry pro gun lobbyists so far because if you look ar disasters like those maxxine has highlighted and also the level of gun crime in America then there can be no contestation as to what should be done.
The freedom of speech argument is trickey because censorship is a difficult business. You don'talways know what will offend and what wont, what some see as art and some see as harrasment. Artists argue against censorship but with people such as Abu Hamza (the muslim with a hook hand) and the BNP spreading racist slurs of hate and getting away with lots of it you have to argue that lots of criminals know their rights better than their wrongs. Freedom of speech is inportant for progression but care must be taken to avoid conflict, potentially inficting a recession on society.
The websites where very informative and intresting. The website that focused on the gun laws and gun allience groups was intresting as it gave both perspectives, the amount spent on campaining was fornomimal. £14million as a reward to goverment, which was basically a bribe. The cash for Peers scandel in Britain is simlier to this.
It also struck me how important gun laws are when it comes to choosing the president, in the campaign Kerry said he supported the non renewal of the handgun ban, Even though he is the more liberal from the two I wonder whether this desition was just due to gaining votes.
The second website was quite long, but intresting and in some cases quite funny. Some laws about what can be offensive are so ridiculas, for example: there is a law stateing that there can be no nude painting in work places incase it offends that sex. On one hand it seems rediculus that there are these laws, as everyone knows what offens and what doesn't but on the other hand as the website states that if we have conflicting laws of freedom to's and freedom froms then there is a vagueness, this could lead to laws being swayed and people taking advantage. I feel this is true but some laws just seem to extreame.
Alice
Post a Comment