Not sure about that

In response to a colleague calling for stricter gun control...

I would have to agree with only one part of your provided solution. Yes there needs to be an educational class given to all citizens who wish to purchase a firearm, as well as a basic training course. However I do not agree that a past history of emotional discomfort (depression or anxiety) should restrict someone’s right to purchase a firearm. Many people have overcome those problems or simply went through a hard time. Someone could become depressed when a parent dies and seek help, therefore having a record of depression. I could see a psychological evaluation looking for anti-social personality traits or difficulties with impulse control as a viable alternative though. In my opinion this would be the best option to satisfy a majority of both parties.

Why do we let this happen?

While the topic of the immigrant caravan has been beaten incessantly, the recent actions by the border patrol need to be discussed. I have said before that a group as large as 7-10,000 people coming all at once could pose serious risks, but this time it was only 500-1000. Even though the group was brash in there attempt at getting through, the border patrols response seems to be that of a self control problem. I would wager that a loud speaker encouraging the immigrants to approach in a civil manner and telling them they would be screened in an orderly fashion would have worked better than tear gas grenades. By having such a response to a few immigrants throwing rocks it sends a message of nervousness and weakness to other countries. Our team of people on the ground, along with their leaders, did not have the nerve to handle the situation in a calm manner. I hope our country does not become one of those constantly on the brink of mass murdering immigrants out of fear, we know how that looks from World War II and we’re not proud of it. Only time will tell what is to come.

Responding to a Colleague

With the way the current voting laws are there are many people who are left out. While certain law makers are moving toward loosening tbese voter restrictions the goal they have set seems to be one for several years in the future. Meanwhile millions of people are left wondering when their voices will be heard due to past mistakes. I know several people who have had their right to vote revoked due to being felons, and I myself was once in that boat. Part of me believes the government would rather leave the decision making to the wealthier side of the population to keep their interests in alignment with the laws. Some may consider that to be a tin-foil way of thinking, but the question remains as to why any citizen would have their right to vote removed for any reason other than treason in the first place.

Potential for Great Tragedy

It has been made known that a rather large group of Hispanic refugees are currently on their way to the Texas/Mexico border in search of asylum; estimated walking speed puts their arrival time in mid-December. While many politicians have had differing views on the situation Trump has made clear his intentions by sending US troops the border to stop the caravan by any means necessary. However, the fourteenth amendment clearly states that these people seeking asylum from their dangerous homeland should be met with appropriate aid and support by the US government. While I do believe that taking in several thousand refugees from Central America all at once without appropriate screening is downright foolish, executing them on the spot without provocation seems like something that would be considered a war crime. Granted the fear is well deserved because, like it or not, there are several dangerous groups that wish to do harm to our country who could be hidden within the caravan. What this ultimately boils down to is a lazy approach to a slow-moving problem. Resources can be put in place at the border to properly handle screening massive amounts of people in an expedited fashion, but the government is flat-out terrible at executing these solutions due to under spending. Hopefully we do not see a mass execution event come December but instead an example of human kindness and decency.

Danger or Paranoia?

In the opinion piece listed below by Gen. Anthony J. Tata we hear his views on possible upcoming threats to the country. As a general he does have quite a bit of credibility when addressing possible threats to the country, but how far fetched does it have to be to call it paranoia? He compares the attack on US and Afgan officials Thursday to the "growing threat" in our country. Stating that with the people opposing Trump within his own administration and the violent protests occurring the country could be witness to more violence in the near future. Clearly this is directed toward people who are already of the paranoid type who share similar feelings of impending doom, many of which are commonly referred to as "preppers". My personal opinion is that this sounds more like an overactive imagination.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/will-america-survive-the-growing-insider-threat-in-our-homeland-today

The dangers of middle of the road politics

In the article listed below lays out the struggle that Joe Donnelly of Indiana is experiencing in his move from the Democratic party to a more middle of the road state of view, supporting certain views from both sides. Donnelly is being criticized by Democrats for straying away from the typical leftist views such as socialized health care and is receiving flak for doing so, even though he is still opposing some conservative ideas such as Trump's tax laws. This article clearly highlights some of the problems with today's politics and why we are going to be stuck with a clear two party system for some time. It shows that any attempt to blur the lines is met with scrutiny and criticism, scaring most away from even trying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/joe-donnelly-indiana-braun-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

Anna Coulter, an author and political commentator frequently seen on Fox News, talks briefly about the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh concerning inappropriate behavior towards women. Obviously meant to be read by the right-leaning public who are simply seeking to be told what they are already thinking. She essentially berates the left for presumably calling wolf by using a handful of women to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. By pointing out holes and inconsistencies in the accusers’ stories such as a lack of information or evidence other than their own word Coulter goes on to refer to the women as crazy ladies. Also pointing out either a history of disturbing behavior or a life in which is inconsistent with that portrayed by the accusers adds to her argument. This takes up a large portion of her writing in which she goes on to take apart the second accuser by stating that she (Juilie Swetnik) has not only had a restraining order put against her but was sued to inappropriate behavior and falsely accusing coworkers. In the end of her argument Coulter belittles the democrats for trying to attack Kavanaugh for everything, even drinking beer in high school. So the question stands, are her harsh words any better than the left’s?

Article in question: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-03.html#read_more