Critique: I'm a Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.

   I’m a Republican. I Appreciate AssaultWeapons. And I Support a Ban is an opinion article published in The New York Times by Brian Mast. Brian Mast is a Republican Congressman for the State of Florida and also a veteran of the Afghanistan War. I think that the intended audience for this article would be adult people with a high level of education in order for them to be able to have a critical view of what they are about to read.

   I believe this is an interesting article to read regarding Assault Weapons regulation because despite being a Republican and a National Rifle Association member, he gives good reasons on why to ban these types of weapons and also some suggestions to regulate what is already in effect. Furthermore the fact that he was in the army for many years and using an AR-15 as his primary weapon makes him competent to have a valid opinion on the matter.

   His first suggestion is that we should have a clear definition of what an “assault or tactical firearm” is to be able to stop people from purchasing such weapons. I agree that this is a good place to start. Such definition is necessary to define what people should be able and not able to purchase. I believe that it could also be useful to expand the list of weapons that cannot be held by general public (semi automatic weapons; weapons exclusively designed for mass killing).

   When it comes to the Second Amendment I disagree with his opinion that it should be unimpeachable. I believe that it should be analyzed within the present context and therefore actualized to the modern era in which there is no threat of invasion as there was when this amendment was first created.

   He also mentions how background checks should be a elemental requisite when for a person acquiring a firearm. In my opinion they should not only be a requisite, but they should be broader and more detailed. People with mental illness should be closely treated and excluded from the list of people that can own a weapon.

   When it comes to the sale of accessories and add-ons I agree that they should be banned on automatic firearms. Nevertheless I don’t believe that “increasing the ages at which individuals can purchase various categories of firearms” would a helpful change. It is a fact that these massacres not only occur at schools and by young people but they happen in many different scenarios and people from many different backgrounds and ages perform these massive shootings. A good example would be the most recent and deadliest shooting in Las Vegas executed by 64-year-old Stephen Paddock or the Sutherland Springs church shooting by a 26-year-old.

   In conclusion, I believe that he has some good arguments on changing some of the current regulations for purchasing and selling firearms, however some of them are just suggestions on how to change some of the existing laws to make it harder to purchase an assault weapon rather than banning them completely from the general public.

EPA's Scott Pruitt asks whether global warming 'necessarily a bad thing'

   “EPA’s Scott Pruitt asks whether global warming ‘necessarily is a bad thing’” is an article published in The Washington Post written by Dino Grandoni, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney. The article talks about Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and how he questions if ‘the rising levels of carbon dioxide from human-fueled activity’ are really a hazard to the planet.

   The article also describes how this comes as no surprise because ‘not long after taking office last February, Pruitt seemed to reject the established science of climate change’. Also how this goes in hand with President Trump’s opinions about the global warming being a hoax.

   I believe this is an important article to read and analyze because it is a fact that planet Earth has existed for millions of years and in less than a hundred years we have seen dramatic climate changes due to the effect of human activity in the planet so in my opinion it is disturbing that the head of the EPA gives this kind of declarations based in assumptions and with not scientific background. This statement is unacceptable to make for a person in his position because he is supposed to be in charge of protecting the environment not only in the US territory, but in the whole world. It seems that he doesn’t understand that every consequence on the global environment is also a consequence in the US. It is his responsibility to be informed and fully consider scientific data and proof rather than making statements based on his own opinions.