Friday, April 19, 2013

What is an Assault Weapon? (It's Already Banned)

by Zach Moore
from The Voice's "Political Perspectives" published on April 18, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/4/18/political-perspectives.html

In the aftermath of many disastrous events, there is an ever increasing pressure on legislatures to create a ban on what has been characterized as “assault weapons.” Speaking directly on emotion rather than reason, many citizens of the United States fall victim to the propaganda released by the pundits in favor of gun control legislation. Throughout this ongoing debate, it is clear that many gun control advocates enjoy the abuse and exploitation of the word “assault weapon.” In reality, while speaking on facts, Dr. Edward Ezell, a preeminent expert in the firearms field, along side the United States Defense Department, stated “a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must of the capability of full automatic fire.” Even with these type of statements, it is evident that a mischaracterization of these weapons has been presented to the American people. Factually speaking, and assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, which is already banned by the Gun Control Act of 1968. If legislatures and political pundits would like to limit the availability of these weapons, well, their battle has already been fought, and they accomplished this many years ago. Sadly however, it is evident that the American people have been manipulated into believing a false image of the weapons that are both legal and illegal in this country today. Based on this, it is entirely fair to say that we as Americans need to have a better understanding of the sanctions being implemented on our constitution by gun control advocates today.

For the purpose of this piece and for the better understanding and knowledge of the readers, it is responsible of both sides to begin referring to these proposed banned weapons as semi-automatic rifles rather than the abused and false term of “assault weapons.” As this misconception of the public has been revealed, it is time to dig into the policies that have been proposed, as well as the ones that have failed. In the heat of emotion and lack of understanding, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was implemented. Ten years later, it failed. Through this 10 year time period, 14 mass shootings took place which included, the notorious 1999 Columbine High School shooting. While the American people were victims to a pointless ban, it is shown through statistics that the ’94 ban was avoidable. As a matter of fact, Gallup and the U.S Justice Department have reported that crime began to fall prior to the ’94 ban, and continued to fall while it was in place. Even more importantly, this downward trend is still evident today as there is a consistent decrease in violent crimes taking place. It also evident that these type of policies are entirely unnecessary, as violent crimes committed with these weapons are truly minimal. This is supported through many statistics, one being presented by the Borough of Justice Statistics, when reported that “violent criminals only carry or use a military-type gun in about one percent of crimes nationwide.” In addition to that, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8,583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6,220 of them were committed by handguns while only 323 were committed by rifles. This goes to show that the bans proposed are targeting absolutely the wrong groups of weapons, and it is only a matter of time that the failures of previous bans repeat themselves.
 
One of the most respected members of society, and a group that is consistently in the line of fire, and should be the epitome of gun control, is in strong opposition of the proposed bans. A survey conducted by PoliceOne.com in 2013 shows that officers are overwhelmingly against the proposed legislation. When asked if a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazine would reduce violent crime, 95.7% of the respondents replied with the answer “no.” The people who are facing violent, destructive criminals on a daily basis, overwhelmingly agree that these types of bans simply do not work.
 
Out of all arguments by gun control advocates, probably the most disturbing is that the constitution does not protect citizens from obtaining semi-automatic rifles. Sadly, they are entirely mistaken and false in stating this. The second amendment states “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun control advocates say that bearing arms is only allowed for a well-regulated militia, mistakenly believing citizens are not citizens permitted to exercise this right. This is incorrect, as stated by the U.S Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, “militia” was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, which said that it included every free adult male in the United States. Moreover, in Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated “the Militia, comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” As Americans, we need to view such debate based off facts, and speak, decide, and primarily vote on facts, rather than emotion. Do not succumb to the overwhelming pressure and commotion to act, created by gun control supporters. Rather, analyze the facts and act based on what has proven to work, rather what has proven to fail.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Freedom of Speech: Are We Being Heard?

by Zach Moore
originally published by The Voice on April 3, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/4/3/freedom-of-speech-are-we-being-heard.html

in response to "Politics: The New Blame Game" originally published by The Voice on March 14, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/3/14/politics-the-new-blame-game.html


Through large amounts of political pressure, there is an ever-increasing manipulation implemented on the rights each citizen of the United States holds. One of the most respected rights that citizens obtain is their ability to have freedom of speech.

Through the stances of opposing political sides, it is evident in many ways that the individual’s right to freedom of speech is dwindling. These limitations are seen on different scales, beginning with newspaper editors and ending with the Obama administration.
Sadly, in today’s society it is seen as “disgraceful” to question the policies of a certain president or political party. In order to defend President Obama’s catastrophic policies and below 50 percent approval rating, some view that the opposition needs to keep quiet in order to hide the atrocious policies that the president has implemented.

Interestingly, what you did not see is the left’s insolence of the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror’ being labeled and published as a “lack of respect for his or her president.” Regardless, in the context presented by previous editorials, it would be disrespectful for President Obama to attack the War on Terror.

Moreover, this would also mean President Obama is disrespecting the 2,996 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11, who would support bringing the people who terrorized this country to justice. Unfortunately, this is the way in which the left has characterized disapproval of a particular political candidate or policy, and ultimately the expression of freedom of speech. As a student, and more importantly a citizen of the United States, I value my right to express my opinion and to utilize my freedom of speech, without my political affiliation being considered disgraceful.
These restrictions and limitations of freedom of speech are also evident in the Obama Administration. The distaste President Obama has for individuals who oppose his policies is seen in Vice President Joe Biden as well. For example, one of the largest activist groups against the Obama administration is the Tea Party.

In the recent debt-ceiling discussions, the Tea Party’s expression of freedom of speech towards the White House policies led to Vice President Biden and other democratic representatives to characterize the Tea Party as “terrorists.” Inappropriately, this is how your very own Vice President views individuals and organizations that exercise their freedom of speech in this country.
Recently, when the United States rolled over the automatic spending cuts, also known as the sequester, in order to avoid the questioning of the press, President Obama forced the press out of the room ironically during the “press” conference. This is not the first time the president has denied the press of their freedom of speech in questioning him.

According to abcnews.com, President Obama has only engaged in question and answer with the press 94 times. This is a nominal number compared to George W. Bush’s 307 question and answer sessions, as well as Bill Clinton’s 493. The president takes the lead in scripted, non-confrontational interviews with the press.

Students of Bloomsburg and citizens of the United States need to understand the value their words hold and the reasons why they were provides with the right to freedom of speech by our Founding Fathers. This right shall not be infringed upon, nor should our distrust and lack of approval for a president to be considered disgraceful or disrespectful.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Misdiagnosed "Gun Violence"

by Dan Lacca

As the country tries to heal from the horrifying event that occurred in Newtown, CT, lawmakers at the national, state, and local levels have been searching for ways to prevent yet another tragedy from occurring. However, a massive gun-control hysteria has hit the nation by storm, forcing at least the Maryland state legislature to delay the search for a solution to school shootings, and focus their efforts on stopping school officials from abusing students due to a national fire arm phobia. An unprecedented amount of harsh school disciplining begs one to ask the question: “what happened to common sense in the United States?”

Pop Tart "gun"
According to the Huffington Post and Daily Caller, second grade student Josh Welch, was suspended for two days after his teacher noticed his pop-tart took the shape of a gun after little Josh bit it. Josh suffers from ADHD and struggles academically, however he excels in art. Josh admitted to shaping his pop-tart, but a gun was not what he had envisioned. He was trying to make a mountain. To justify the suspension, the school claimed that Josh threatened other students by pointing his half eaten breakfast at them saying “Bang Bang”, which Josh denied in press interviews. “I didn’t say bang, bang. I just pointed it at the ceiling.” The school sent home a letters home with students, asking parents to discuss the incident with their children in a manner they feel appropriate and that the school councilor would be available for anyone who feels they are in some way traumatized by Josh’s behavior. The incident has forced Maryland State Senator JB Jennings to propose the Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013, commonly referred to by the media as “The Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act.”  The act restricts what actions can be taken to discipline students that make innocent gestures that an over sensitive school official may deem offensive. Jennings reasoned that “These suspensions are going on their (the students) permanent records and could have lasting effects on their education.”

Little Josh is not the only victim of unnecessarily harsh school discipline. In early March this year, Hunter Fountain was celebrating his ninth birthday in Michigan in the traditional way that many children have done for generations in this country. The Fountains baked cupcakes for young Hunter to generously share with his class and decorated the top of each treat with World War II Army men. A classic American tradition and a classic American child’s toy, is there a better mix? Apparently the principle of Hunter’s school believed so. According to multiple news outlets such as, FOX, Yahoo news, The Daily Caller, and other sources the Principle of Schall Elementary School deemed the cupcakes “insensitive” in the wake of Sandy Hook and confiscated the desserts until Hunter’s mother told the school to just take the toy soldiers off and serve the cupcakes without them. Hunter’s Father stated in an interview with FOX News “It disgusted me. It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Minimum Wage Brings Unexpected Increases

by Grant Murrow

originally published by The Voice on March 14, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/3/14/minumum-wage-brings-unexpected-increases.html

During his State of the Union address in February, President Obama announced his plan to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour. He claims that this raise would lead to a “raise in the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.” However, this is not the case.

His claim of having more money in your pocket may be true in cases of employees of conglomerate employers, such as Wal-Mart or Target, but smaller businesses cannot afford to pay that much to their employees. If a company can save on labor, they will. Cutting into profits of a business by forcing a raise in wages will eventually cause them to raise their own prices in an effort to soften the impact. If it does not come in a raise in prices, it will likely come in a form that hurts the company’s employees such as, reduced hours, reduction of fringe benefits, installing machinery to take the place of workers, and even more detrimental-the higher likelihood of hiring illegal immigrants. All of which, in turn, hurt the American economy and people.

It may also lead to an increase in general unemployment. For example, the minimum wage in the state of Washington is linked to inflation, which is currently $9.19, and the unemployment rate is 7.6%. This reflects the fact that an increased minimum wage will not help employment decrease, and may even have the opposite effect in some cases. Also, as a secondary result of unemployment, crime in the areas with higher unemployment will undoubtedly rise. However, the people most affected by an increase in minimum wages are teenagers and young adults.

The people who minimum wage most affects are teenagers, the unskilled, minorities, those involved in low wage industries, and those not unionized. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Census report, 18.063 million young Americans, 66% of Americans over the age of 18 whom do not have a degree, 32.28% of Americans whom are minorities, 3.6 million workers who are involved in low wage labor, and 95.8% of Americans ages 16 to 24 who are not unionized would all be affected by this increase. Clearly, this would alter the life styles of a lot of people in a very negative way. All of the groups previously listed could have to deal with reduced work hours, benefit cuts, and ultimately layoffs. Thus putting a negative mark on the economy as a whole, and put people like us at the bottom of the ladder.

An increase to minimum wage and dropping profits would leave less money to go around. People like the students here at Bloomsburg University are prime targets for these losses, as we haven’t yet had a chance to enter the job market and gain experience. So what can be done to save jobs for people like us who don’t yet have our degree? Firstly, after a formal bill or law is announced, write to our congressmen. Tell them your opinion on the matter and ask them to act on your behalf in congress. Secondly, make yourself indispensable at your job. Take the time to learn your job and become the best you can at it, and make sure that your boss sees your potential. Lastly, study, and study hard. Your degree may be the difference between feeling the effects of the minimum wage increase or getting ahead.

Monday, April 8, 2013

A Jobless Economy: Obama's Polices are Damaging

by Zach Moore

originally published by The Voice on February 21, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/2/20/a-jobless-economy-obamas-policies-are-damaging.html

While graduation from higher education is supposed to be a colossal leap to an affluent future, a sluggish labor market awaits the average college student’s resume. With unemployment soaring nation-wide, there is an alarming level of unemployment of college graduates ages 25 and younger. According to the Department of Labor Statistics, 53 percent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed, and the diminutive amount of employed graduates is earning a median salary of a mere $27,000. This figure is a depreciated $3,000 less than students who earned a degree before the year 2007.
 
Moreover, out of the college graduates under the age of 25 who were working in 2011, 37.8 percent were working in a job that did not require a college degree, according to bls.gov. As these statistics develop, it is seen that there has been a serious decline over the last four years in which students have spent working extremely hard to ensure a prosperous future. Note that in 2007, around the time that Bloomsburg seniors were beginning the journey of a college education, the unemployment rate of recent college graduates was 5.7 percent. Through this, the question of who is to blame arises.
 
Over the last four years, President Obama has made a tremendous dent in the economy in which we reside. Students have been victims to the president’s detrimental policies already. This is seen through many aspects of a young American’s life, an example being tuition rates, which have gone up 25 percent under the president, according to bls.gov. All this while a landmark one trillion total student debt has accumulated. Through this we see that not only has President Obama made it increasingly harder for college students to find a job, but once they do accomplish this near impossible task, they will have a larger debt than any other graduates in history. If this is not bad enough, once graduates begin to dig themselves out of this bottomless pit of debt, they will have a very hard time doing so because of the falling median income under President Obama.
 
It is very simple for the eye to see a distinct downfall marked by the start of Barack Obama’s presidency. When President George W. Bush left office, the unemployment rate of young American’s 25 and younger was an astonishing 5.4 percent as reported on bls.gov. Sadly, four years later we see an unemployment rate of the same group of American’s hovering just below nine percent. These disturbing figures are a direct reflection of President Obama’s damaging economic policies. Until the president stops implementing policies that hurt American businesses, employers will continue to not hire. Even if they do choose to employ a graduate, an exponentially smaller figure of capital will be put into your pocket.
 
President Obama has raised taxes on employers to the highest in recent history. The results of this are obvious: when employers have less money, they are no longer investing, no longer hiring, and most importantly no longer growing fiscally. Until President Obama does more to create economic growth, such as financially encouraging employers to hire young, educated Americans, underemployment and unemployment will continue to rise.
 
The “investment” of higher education will continue to diminish as President Obama’s disastrous economic policies continue, and the true value of a degree will no longer exist. Please examine this simple equation of economics: high unemployment, combined with record setting landmarks of student debt, equals a slow and distraught economy, which our generation is now pioneering. If we, the young Americans, the future of the United States, cannot prosper, who possibly can?