As I was searching the state newspapers for interesting article that would catch my attention I came across an article that terrifies me, the article talks about the possibility of individuals being able to bring concealed weapons into schools, bars, and even churches. When did it become okay to even consider bringing a gun into a church the place that is sacred. Wayne Slater tells us about the reasons behind why Texas law makers would consider on passing the law. In the article it mentions the shooting of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords, he mentions the fear that Texas Government officials have about going to certain places and being in the open, but would it make a difference if they had a gun, or would having a gun make the bad situation worse?
The article mentions that citizens that want this "privilege" of carrying a concealed hand gun would only have to take a class that is all but 10 hours and pass a background check. These measures don’t really prevent someone who is mentally unstable but hasn’t shown signs of being unstable from passing the course and the background check, there are so many scenarios to what could happen and as i see the Texas officials are only thinking about themselves. The article depicts the reasoning as to why they have considered it at all and as far as i can see the reasons are only for their protection, they don’t mention anything about the citizens’ protection with these laws. Wayne Slater presents a good article for the purpose it was meant for but he should have talked about the bill and restrictions the bill has. I feel that he hasn’t fully explained how this law would work but in the end the article was mainly to talk about the why the law makers would consider passing it, if you care to read more about it you can read it at Dallas Morning News and its titled Measure would let Texas legislators carry concealed weapons into bars, churches, schools by Wayne Slater.
On April 5, 2011, the "One for all and all for Texas" blog posted up and article titled "Danger, Danger" by lupita89, also known as Sandra Rangel. The blog talks about how Texas lawmakers are considering passing a law allowing people to carry a concealed handgun inside school, bars, and churches. It talks about how it seems that lawmakers are only looking out for themselves since they use what happened to Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford as a scare tactic. Rangel also talks about how bill is shocking since it even considers allowing people to take a firearm to church, which is a very sacred place to many people.
ReplyDeleteRangel's intended audience are all of the people in Texas since everybody will be affected if this law is passed. She seems very credible since she states what the requirements will be to carry a concealed weapon and even goes into detail about how these requirements are flawed. She makes a claim about how it seems that the author is not thinking about your every day people since the article does not mention how a citizen will be protected with this new bill or about any restrictions this bill will have.
I agree with Ms. Rangel's arguments since I think this bill would end up doing more damage than good. Considering this bill will allow people to carry a handgun into a bar, where people often drink pass their limit, worries me greatly. A place of worship should never be compromised with a weapon so it honestly disgusts me that it might be legal in the future. I think the lawmakers should really think long and hard about the negative outcomes this bill will have if passed.
Great blog. Thanks for giving me a great read. I look forward to reading more of your work.
ReplyDeleteWay back when on April 5th, one of my fellow colleagues, Ms. Sandra Rangel, wrote a short editorial on an article she found in the Dallas Morning News.
ReplyDeleteThe article details the effects of a new bill that was currently under consideration from the House, and Ms. Rangel does an excellent job of quickly summarizing what the article was about, and notes the important people. What was the best part about her editorial however, is as soon as she introduces a new part of the article, she immediately follows it up with her own opinion, and this really does a great job to help connect us the readers, to her, and get an idea on how she feels about every aspect of the bill. She feels very true and honest throughout this entire piece, and manages to conjure up some humor with some obvious sarcasm. She also did a great job of pointing out what she felt was a little weak in the article “Wayne Slater presents a good article for the purpose it was meant for but he should have talked about the bill and restrictions the bill has.”
However, despite her well written format and information, there is one notable part to it that I was really turned off after immediately reading, and that was the fact that she never used a hyperlink to allow the reader to directly connect to the article in discussion. While she did provide more than enough information for the reader to find the article themselves, including the newspaper that published it, and the title of the article, as well as who it was written by. A hyperlink somewhere in either the beginning or the end of her piece would have simplified the effort for the reader, which I feel you would always like to appeal to being a blogger.
In the end, great work Ms. Rangel, and good luck to you in the future.