Black Man Arrested for Assaulting a Disabled White Man As Revenge For Slavery

     

Black Man Arrested for Assaulting a Disabled White Man As Revenge For Slavery

     

     An article has been published by the free republic blog page on 18^th Oct 2017 . this article is about an African American man who attacked and assaulted a homeless man in Washington D.C. the article was originally published by MRC TV website and has been republished by the free republic blog. I believe that the way this article been worded was to target the white population emotions and to widening the gap between whites and blacks. It’s clear in the article that the African American man was guilty and he might faces up to 30 years in the prison for a hate crime, however, this article could be published in different language where it’s about a bad guy whom attacked a homeless old man, but instead the author decides to mention the race of the victim and the attacker with no evidence or witness statements. instead the author used the race as a factor and a reason for the attack. I believe that the media could be a great way for us to be united and to be closer to each other but instead some media sources actively become a gap to separate us and push us to hate each other. In this article, the author makes it sounds like all black people attacked all white people for a very race – related purpose. 

Repeal the second amendment

Repeal the second amendment

       In his editorial, Bret Stephens argues that the second amendment should be repealed. Mr. Stephens based his argument on three major points as listed below:

1-      The number of the innocent people who have been killed by guns compared to the numbers of what’s called “justified kills” such as self-defense and properties protection.

2-      The types of guns in the markets that are deadlier than the guns that were out in the market back when the second amendment been written.

3-       He argues that an armed citizenry is not going to protect the nation from any foreign threats such as North Korea and Russia.

        Mr. Stephens didn’t make a lot of sense with the argument that gun owners will not protect the nation from foreign threats. I believe that a lot of gun owners have some sort of military background or at least have some knowledge on how to operate the guns they have. So, a trained and armed citizen could actually fight for his or her country if that service was needed when facing any type of conflict or threat.  

        I have reviewed some leaked pictures of the Las Vegas attacker’s hotel room with the assault rifles all over the floor. The rifles he had and used in the attacks are deadlier than most of the rifles that I have ever seen in my military service. So, I agree with Mr. Stephens in his argument about how guns are way different from what’s been approved in the Second Amendment back in the past. However, in the editorial, Mr. Stephens didn’t represent a clear solution to control guns in a way where the citizens can still have their constitutional rights of bearing a firearm and not effecting the public safety at the same time.