Gun Rights Groups Say Georgia Home Invasion Proves Their Point

The topic of gun control in the United States, is a very touchy subject. With recent traumas, people can lead to conclusions that no citizen should have right to bear arms. I disagree. Although I understand that in the wrong hands guns are extremely dangerous, I also see the safety in having the right to own them. This story I watched about the mother in Georgia really shows exactly that. For a brief summery, A mother and her three kids were home when a burglar broke into their home with a crowbar in the daytime. In response to the invasion she took the .38 revolver (that her and her husband kept in a safe in the house) and escaped with her children to the attic. While in hiding she called her husband who instructed him to shoot the intruder if he opened the door to the attic. That is exactly what Melinda Herman did. This heroic story of a Mother protecting her children brings up two very popular augments. The people who are against gun rights can argue topics such as "what if the child were to bring the gun to school?" or other topics mentioned in this article such as owning a gun and not knowing how to use it properly. However, Donnie Herman had taken his wife weeks before to instruct her how to shoot it. Also, I would like to point out again that the handgun was kept in a safe in the house, one can infer that the children did not know the combination to. It is true that people can use their possession of guns for tragic opportunities such as suicide and homicide; but my argument is if someone has the means to kill that is what they will do. I do not believe that Melinda Herman would have been able to protect her family without that handgun. Of course we do not know for sure what  the intruder would have done if he had found the mother and children. However, I still believe Melinda did the right thing. Do you? Do you believe in The Second Amendment?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

-Janelle Franklin
G Block

United States backing terrorism in Syria?

Syria has accused a number of countries supporting the Syrian rebels as supporting terrorism. These countries include the US, France, Turkey Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The reason for this accusation was the fact that the US is giving monetary aid to the rebels. Bottom line is that the US and others are aiding "Terrorism." This is ironic because at the moment I believe we are currently fighting "A war on Terror."The foreign minister of Syria said that "What is worst of all is to see permanent members of the Security Council...now supporting terrorism in my country" The US is not trying to support terrorism but democracy. I'm not sure if the US is an ally or enemy of Syria but either way, I do think it is time for "President" Asad to step down. The problem is that people are unhappy with Asad and he refuses to relieve power. Therefore, he has lost legitimacy and should no longer rule. I support the aid for the terrorists so that they don't have to use terrorist (more like guerilla) strategies (IEDs, ambushes) to win. 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19788780

Attack on US Consulate in Libya Kills Four Americans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/protests-spread-across-middle-east-as-anger-over-video-mounts/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-subside-in-middle-east.html?_r=1

Setup: On the anniversary of September 11, a group of extremists attacked the US Consulate in Libya, killing four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens.  It was initially believed that this was in response to a video on the Web, created by an American, which insulted Prophet Mohammed.  However, it is now believed that though a small portion of the mob could have been reacting to the video, the Libyan attack was much more likely to be premeditated and executed by a group affiliated with al Qaeda.  Concurrent with the Libyan attack, there were protests in other countries, such as Egypt and Yemen, which were in response to the video.  The protests then spread to 20+ countries, but are now calming.

Analysis:  The Libyan attack was a horrible act of violence.  In my opinion, a subset of the mob must have been affiliated with al Qaeda.  Why else would the attack fall on the anniversary of September 11?
Why did al Qaeda do this?  Since the US succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, their leader, were they trying to prove that they are still a strong and dangerous presence in the world?  Who was their "target audience?"  I believe they were trying to: a) remind America that they are still a powerful force, and b) get extremist Muslims on their side.  After all, the timing of the attack, correlated with the anti-American protests, was very appropriate.

As far as the protests go, I believe they were/are overreactions to the anti-Islam video.  Why take out anger on all of America when the video was posted by one out of 350 million people?  This has been an unnecessary source of tension for the world.  This, in my opinion, was not and is not the appropriate response to one person's prejudiced comments.  However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the protesters only represent just the extreme elements of the Muslim population.  This is important, as otherwise, we would be succumbing to the fallacy of generalization.  Where will this go from here?  No one knows.  Hopefully, these anti-American feelings will not elevate to the point of more extreme violence on the part of growing terrorist groups like al Qaeda.