Ban Military Type Fire Arms!

     How is it that the general public are still able to legally purchase fire arms that should be reserved for the purpose of the military or police force only. There seems to be a  large portion of the American public that are pushing for the right to bare unnecessary weapons and many government officials are backing it? A large majority of American citizens are willing to jeopardize the safety of the public in order to secure a law which was written over 200 years ago. When this law was put in place, the writers may not have condoned the right to bare fire arms to those with mental illnesses and such.

     The government really should really push for stricter rules and regulations for obtaining and owning firearms. It seems to be extremely easy to purchase a fire arm, regardless whether the individual has a mental illness or not. the public needs to wake up and realize that by allowing anyone to own assault riffles for instance is putting innocent peoples lives at risk on a daily basis. We as a society should be urging the government to implement stricter regulations on the purchase of any firearms, and a ban of any assault type weapons being sold to civilians. 

     

     After reading my fellow students blog, "Should we Fight Global Climate Change", by Jennifer Patel,  I am inclined to absolutely agree with her on this subject, and feel very strongly that it is an issue that must be taken more seriously. I too feel that there are too many people that disregard this issue and are unwilling to take the matter seriously. I don't suppose most of the non-believers of climate change will be willing to admit that their carbon footprint is having any effect on the warming of the earth, or their unwillingness to recycle their household waste is causing a bother for landfill. I am not entirely sure how this percent of the population can be persuaded otherwise, since we have scientific proof that global warming is a very serious issue indeed.
     It is shame that there are many people that are unaware of this issue, it leads us to believe that perhaps not enough media coverage is being allotted for the effects of climate change. Or, perhaps we could include the subject of global warming into school programs, so our children can be better educated and may be more willing to support the recycling efforts and lessen their carbon footprints. I assume that most of the people that dismiss the effects of global warming, because they are unwilling to accept that they are directly contributing to the problem and that they are unwilling to make adjustments to help the cause.

                               Should we Expand the House of Representatives?

     I have to be completely honest and admit that i know very little on this matter, however, after reading a number of different articles, it is evident to me that some adjustments are in order to ensure a fair number of members in the House to accommodate the citizens of the United States. I am led to believe that there were originally only 65 members, but that number of members was adequate for the total population for that time. The number of members increased for every decade thereafter. According to, Brian Frederick, in 1913 there were 435 members of the House and that number has been set in stone since 1929—although todays population is three time as large. 

     In one article I read, "Do We Need A Bigger House Of Representatives?" from the website, Outside The Beltway, the author, Doug Mataconis,  suggested that the optimum number of members to meet the needs of todays population should be 680, that would mean that this amount of members would provide representation for every district population of 460,000. And, although these numbers do not coincide with what was originally suggested in the early history of the United States, they represent a realistic number to suit the needs without causing too much of a bother to the system. Brian Fredercik, says that the general public has lost faith in Congress and feel that they are being let down and unheard. This has created a distaste for the our current system based around the century-old law. 

     I believe that it is important for the citizens to be fairly represented by adopting a system that allows the Untied States to progress forward, while creating a balance that ensures that the population has a say in what powers and regulations are enforced upon them. Informed citizens will always be skeptical of the political system while there is an unequal number of members per population. Although I can agree that there is a need for more member of the House, I don't think that adding more members will completely satisfy the entire population, as some will most probably feel that their tax is being wasted on the wage required for the increase of staff.