My Verbosity

The United States Constitution clearly outlines the use of guns. This is a statement that is not tainted or wilted by age, but has been solid since the day the Constitution was signed and should ring true through centuries to come. To quote the Second Amendment of the US Constitution: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. In an effort to clear this up a bit, militia is defined as soldiers who are also civilians.

History of guns
Guns have been around as far back as 1326. The first recollection of a gun, called Vaso, was created by Walter de Millemete. This was one of the earliest guns ever documented.

Responsibility
At no point in history has a gun ever killed anyone. A gun does not simply fire at its own will. That being said, the finger behind the trigger is the responsible party for every firing of the gun. It is up to the gun owners to seek training in proper use, storage, safety and handling.

Longevity of guns
When considering why we shouldn’t ban handguns, it’s simple. Guns have been around for centuries and will continue to do so. If guns are banned in one country other countries still have access to them. Guns will be smuggled into the country that has banned guns. This makes one huge safety issue. If guns are banned and law abiding citizens adhere to the ban, then answer me this, who now has guns? Guns will always be accessible; it’s a matter of who will have access to them.

Limiting and controlling ammunition
A semi-solution of controlling ammunition was offered when the handgun bans met much resistance. The same problem arises. Since ammunition is easier to come by, due to people being able to concoct bullets on their own, who will have access to bullets if they are banned?

Banning means no education
When something is banned, there are no opportunities to educate people on it. If it’s banned, why educate people. People will smuggle the items in and have no education to back up the use of them. This makes for a very reckless society.

Weakened and vulnerable
If guns such as the Ak-47 are banned in this great country, we will be seen as unarmed and weak. This makes us completely vulnerable against any outside force. We will be completely unprepared and unprotected. We will have no way of defending ourselves against weaponry.

Solution
Instead of taking power away from the people, educate them. Gun Control will not work. Banning will not work. The gun is not the evil here, folks. Get to the root of the problem. If you are worried about safety of a gun being in the home, then start there with educations and safety regulations. If you are concerned about violence being enacted due to handguns being easily concealed, then created tougher penalties for violent crimes. If you are concerned about a nation rising up with arms, then make changes to suit a nation, not changes to suit one man in power.

Grants for moms are now highly sought after by women who heard President Obama's "Moms return to school" speech. Unfortunately, it was just a speech and there are no special grants just for women or mothers who are trying to go back to school.

The Obama school grants speech was just another motivational speech made by Obama like all presidents do. They all want to seem like they are very involved with furthering our education system and in the end, nothing seems to get done. You can look at all the education speeches made by Obama and the presidents before them and wonder why we have a school system that seems to be getting worse every year.

There are Pell grants available that you can get which will help you out with your tuition but they are nothing new and have been available for many years. The amount that can be paid out for 2010 has gone up slightly but not really much more than inflation. Therefore in terms of education, Obama has yet to do anything spectacular.

The one thing he has done is to pass a student loans reform bill which will eventually take school loans away from private industry.  True to form, his position is that the government can do a better job of giving out loans at lower rates than private companies can. Additionally, they will be easier to pay back and students should benefit all around, he says.

Obama's student loans bill will not take effect right away and it will surely be challenged in court somewhere down the line. If it does become law, it will be interesting to see if students really do benefit from the new bill or whether it is another case of the government doing a poorer job than the private sector can.