Gun Control in Relation the Mental Illnesses

One thing that must be considered in the discussion of the gun control debate is the presence of mental instability in those who may be purchasing guns. Before the government can take action on the gun control case, the improvement of mental health care treatment must first be improved. Although it is not fair to say that anyone with a mental health disorder is restricted from purchasing a gun, certain types of mental illnesses that may hinder decision making must be taken into account. Guns are incredibly deadly, especially in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable. 

Guns should not be taken away entirely, because they are a crucial self defense weapon and imperative for the military. The Constitution also allows us “the right to bear arms,” and that right cannot be taken away from us. However, the government must acknowledge that a person with a mental disease such as PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) can be very unstable, especially if they are coming from the military. The example of the death of Chris Kyle exemplifies this instability. Another example would be the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy. The shooter, officials said, was likely to be suffering from a personality disorder after being bullied by his peers for so long. Bullying, a common occurrence, opens the door to developing mental disorders that can cause such a tragedy. 

Guns allow individuals to fight opponents that would typically be much stronger than them. The guns are not the problem, however, it is the people who are being allowed to buy guns. Background checks and mental health checks should be instituted without question. It should be obvious that a man with schizophrenia should probably not have the possession of a gun, being that his reality could be distorted.

Although people suffering from such diseases still fall under the second amendment of the Constitution and deserve their rights, it is for the common good and safety of the people to restrict the use of guns from people who fall under certain categories. Therefore, it seems reasonable solutions would be not to rid of guns entirely, but to screen those who purchase guns thoroughly, and to make an effort to improve the treatment of those suffering from mental illnesses.

Can Ads Win the Election?

 

This year we have been learning about the presidential election and the process of electing our nations leaders. By using videos to either promote them or negatively campaign against other candidates affects the nomination greatly. I learned in this unit that negative campaigns can be just as affective as positive campaigns. The reason that candidates use campaigns is to change the viewpoints of the public. Negative campaigns show people the faults and wrong doings of other candidates whereas positive campaigns show the accomplishments and best attributes of the candidate. Campaigns are the fastest way to get ideas out to the voters.

In this section I learned that fast and simple campaign ads can be the most affective. One of the most affective and well known campaign ads is an ad from 1964 called “Peace Little Girl” that was one of LBJ’s adds. The ad was about a little girl counting to 10 out of order. Then a voice counts down from 10 and a bomb goes off. Then it says vote for Johnson or we could be bombed. The short and simple clip helped LBJ get elected into office. Another popular ad is the Obama “Yes We Can” ad. The idea of the ad is simple but the ad is effective. It shows people of all different races and ages saying, “Yes we can.” It is effective because it is appealing to everyone who watches it. I learned in government that the ad must be appealing and show emotion to get recognition.

I think that learning about campaign ads is essential for learning the process of presidential elections. By seeing these commercials and ads on candidates people can really get to know a candidate. Learning about political advertisements helps younger people who cannot vote be introduced to future leaders of the United States of America. Therefore it is a very good topic to learn about not only for the current voters of America but the younger ineligible citizens as well.

Many ads can be viewed at http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

Confinements of Elections

Recently in government class we have studied the structures and organizations that compose our great Democracy. Among these organizations and structures are political parties, election events, congress, and the presidency. During our studies, I took a keen interest in the study of elections and more specifically the media’s effect on the candidates in the form of Campaign Commercials.

Before we learned about the structure of campaign commercials, I paid no attention to the messages that were being delivered to the audience. Most campaign commercial vary greatly from one another in the sense that some can promote positive messages and others can be negative attacks directed to harm the opposing candidates reputation. Negative messages have been the most prominent form of campaign commercials circulating in the media during the 2012 elections. One example of a negative campaign commercial would be, “Selling Access” an approved message by Ron Paul, which serves as a perfect example of a negative attack directed toward Newt Gingrich. According to cbsnews.com Gingrich promised to run a positive campaign early in the election process and even quoted, “We will run a positive campaign focused on our country’s future.” Unfortunately Gingrich had no other choice but to defend himself when the attacks struck him first. Gingrich began approving videos such as “The French Connection” to strike back against the offensive videos directed at him. This constant flow of attacks from candidate to candidate can do more than just shift the perspective of the audience, they can also create a system that excludes any candidate without the ability to produce and defend a media attack.

Each campaign commercial is designed to deliver a message that either promotes a candidate or tears a candidate down. At what cost do these messages come? Candidates such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and even President Obama all have sufficient resources to produce and defend vicious media attacks. On the other hand, Rick Santorum was an underdog candidate who did not posses the wealth and financial resources like the other candidates, therefore he couldn’t compete in the media war-taking place between each candidate. Santorum’s inability to fight back against harsh criticism prevented him from getting the necessary votes to stay in the race. On April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race, turning over his support to Mitt Romney.

The Campaign Commercials are in essence weapons that the candidates can use in the fight for the presidency. I think candidates loose focus the kind’s of messages they are delivering to ordinary citizens. Campaign commercials aren’t movie trailers or video games so enough with the dreadful effects. We need clear messages that are truthful and meant to deliver positive messages and solutions to current problems. In my opinion, the commercials that have positive messages rather than negative messages usually have more of a lasting effect. All in all, I am so tired of all the political finger pointing that takes in the media when there are people ready and willing to solve the problems in this nation.

Media has become the entity capable of uniting every person around the world together for a common purpose. The media coverage of elections has opened up new doors that people can access for political information. Campaign Commercials are widely viewed and serve as an important assets to the success of an election. A little information delivered through a commercial can have a lasting impact on the audience. It is our responsibility to keep these messages positive and to ensure a better future for the presidency and the nation.

Congress: Understanding the Process

In Government class this trimester we examined the U.S. Congress, a topic I find interesting because it is the field I knew the least about when we started this unit. News and information about Congress do not draw much media attention, making it difficult for me to have a basis of knowledge coming into this unit. I felt this unit was especially important because I felt like it was my responsibility as a United States citizen to learn about the foundations of Congress.

The first subunit within the unit of congress was representation. Here, various styles of congressional representation were presented. They include: The Delegate Model of Representation, which is the perspective that the legislator should work to recognize the will of the people and act accordingly. I think that this is the worst way for congress to represent the people. Although the voters are responsible for putting the delegate in office, sometimes the public’s opinion cannot or is just wrong to pursue. The delegate is the political expert and he/she should be able to blend in their opinion in with the public’s opinion. The Trustee Model of Representation, which is the perspective that the legislators should listen to the needs of the people, but ultimately act in relationship to what is best for the nation. I think this style of representation is wrong because sometimes what is best for the nation can hurt the people. A balance needs to be found between helping the people and the nation rather than just acting in blindly in one direction. This Politico Model of Representation, which is the perspective that legislators should feel free to follow their own judgment on matters where the public remains silent. This viewpoint is basically the opposite of the Delegate Model of Representation. I think that it’s obviously wrong to completely disregard what the public’s stances are on policies and I think democracy has a way of getting rid of those types of candidates. The Conscience Model of Representation, which is the perspective that legislators should follow the will of the people unless they truly believe it is wrong to do so. Here is the best model of representation, in my opinion. In this model, there is a balance between the people’s views and the legislator’s views. Lastly, there is Symbolic Representation, which is legislators speaking on the behalf of groups they belong to, including their demographic group. I think it is important for people to speak out for groups they belong to. Though I don’t think this is the best model, being aware of the feelings and positions of other groups is vital to keeping peace within America.

The third subunit within the unit of congress was committees. Since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 was passed, every piece of legislation introduced for consideration in Congress must first be referred to a committee. Meaning that committees hold the true power within the U.S. Congress. In order to understand the roles of committees in congress, the class analyzed Woodrow Wilson’s “Congressional Government.” From this excerpt I learned that the true leaders of congress are those who are the chairmen of the principal standing committees. This is a problem because as Wilson states, “It is this multiplicity of leaders… [that] makes the organization of the House too complex to afford uninformed people and unskilled observers any easy clue to its methods of rule.” The problem is that the number of the heads of committees is too big for American citizens to keep up with. If there was a distinct and conspicuous figure in congress, people might have an easier time following the course of legislation without any confusion. Also, Wilson adds that, “Each Committee goes its own way at its own pace.” Though the committee method of leadership in legislature is organized it is disconnected and unsystematic. The key to progress is unification. It is sad to see “thousands of bills expire with the expiration of each Congress, not having been rejected, but having been simply neglected.” I completely agree with Wilson and think the committee leadership mechanism of congress should change. I know every bill cannot be looked at, but at least an attempt should be made to reshape the system.

Participating in this unit not only advanced my learning, but also made me feel stronger in the sense that I was fulfilling my duty as a citizen of the United States. Becoming knowledgeable of the democratic system is not only important for academic reasons, but for personal reasons too. In the near future, my classmates and I will actually BE apart of this system and hold the responsibility to vote. With the guidance from this course, I have gained a greater understanding of the process of government that will allow me to be a better citizen in the 21^st Century.