The hidden meaning of gun ownership.

Jonathan Zimmerman, LA Times writer of Like Prohibition, the fight over guns is about something else, writes an interesting article of symbolic meaning to bare arms. Please a read into it, if this topic interests you.

He first introduces the reader about how Prohibition isn’t just about alcohol by using Joseph Gusfield’s book, Symbolic Crusade, as helpful reference. This supported his main statement to inform us Just to inform us what direction he is going. The reason I thought it was helpful to add was because like Prohibition, there is also an amendment about guns.

When Zimmerman talks about gun controversy he uses evidence multiply of examples about guns on campus, “Oct. 1 shooting at Umpqua Community College….” But the evidence that stood out for me was about Texas, who has passed a law in June 2015 that all licenses gun owners can bring guns in and on campus grounds for the future of August 2016.

“So whatever the June law is about, it surely isn't about keeping Texas' students, faculty and staff "safe" from gun attacks”- Zimmerman

I agree when Zimmerman’s tone is giving a vibe of the reasoning of guns is not for safety reasons. Its true Texas campuses haven’t had a gun problem in their campuses in a huge expand of time, why should they allow guns to be available on campus grounds? Why bring the problem to the campus?

“[T]he concealed-weapons law allows its advocates to reclaim a kind of rough-hewn individualism that they think America has lost.” - Zimmerman

I think it’s harder to tell a gun owner that they can’t have a gun on hand because this law isn’t unconstitutional. The second Amendment states that we have the right to bare arms. So what Zimmerman is getting at is that Americans want to have a gun because it makes them feel more in power, more in control on their environment. But this causes issues and makes people feel discomfort. Not surprise that those that are concern about are people who don’t own guns, i.e.: Daniel S. Hamermesh, a resigned professor who left “out of self-protection.”

I wish for the best turn out for the future students in Texas Campuses, I hope that they don’t need to a reason to buy a gun is because the next guy has one.


      

Did Hillary really triumph at the debate?

On October 13, 2015, the presidential debate took place for the Democrats. Doyle MacManus, LA Times writer of Democratic debate a talking-point triumph for Hillary Clinton, expresses his thoughts on the winner that the press has all agree on. Although, MacManus made it clear in the title on whom he was wanting to write about, please read the article to see if it sways your thought about the winner of the debate. 

It's clear that Clinton, “embraced a role as partisan warrior, as if she were already — or again — the Democrats' presumptive nominee.” She was more polish and quick responsive because of her experience of being on the debate floor. Although, should I blame the questionnaires of giving her questions like “What enemies are you’re proud of?” Or should I just be irritated on her responses.

Majority of MacManus's article is evidence, providing a long list of debated questions with Clinton’s responses. When I read the questions that MacManus choose, there was really not enough questions on her own plans, as in about ISIS, Putin, and or Benghazi. From the highlights of the answers that Clinton provided being a women with experience and progressive. Sure there was a question about her opinion about Bernie Sander’s idea for banks, but it wasn’t appealing to me about her short response. Where is this triumph that the press is talking about?

In fact, MacManus does provide his own commentary about Bernie Sanders, another well-known Democratic Runner. My first assumption was that he was using Bernie’s points to compare to Clintons, but it was just Bernie’s commentary that I saw a poor use of evidence.

I think that whoever saw the debate could bias about who was truly the winner depending on what side they are on. All over you see the press point that Hillary Clinton was the winner but there are some online public opinion polls that state otherwise. So my opinion didn’t change on who I thought who won the debate, and this is coming from someone who is not even a Democrat supporter.

“Was the audience applauding Sanders, Clinton or both? It's hard to say.” – Doyle MacMancus.