Blog Stage Three - Editorial Critique

Re: Gun Games in the Senate

The New York Times is notable for its high-minded approach at all issues written in editorials. Its target audience of liberal city-dwellers forces subjects to lose a certain amount of objectivity in the name of slight sensationalism for issues such as gun control.
The article seems to be siphon for personal rage at the negligence of the Senate for not passing a bill through fast enough, and then the bill ultimately being blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). There is not much in the way of an argument, and the little that is presented is unclear of what the writer wants to accomplish. The most tangible thesis that can be gleaned from this is that the writer believes that actions should be taken to speed up the process of bills passing through Congress. Luckily enough, to compensate for the lack solid argument, the writer does not waste the reader's time by trying to manipulate any group of people in particular to change their minds to match the writer's own beliefs. Solid facts are used to support the writer’s cause for rant. Nothing is specifically quoted, but substantial piece of evidence are brought forward to prove that the editorial is justified.
The conclusion seems to have put together an idea that a new law should be created every time a new travesty towards your fellow man is committed. The law that was so callously brought down by Sen. Coburn was to eliminate the loophole in gun control laws that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to purchase the guns he used in the Virginia Tech Massacre. The root of the argument there is that Cho was not included on the list of citizens not allowed to purchase firearms due to mental instability because he was under outpatient mental treatment rather than in-patient.
There is no doubt in my mind that stricter measures should be taken about who should and should not own a gun, but I will always oppose a law that was created and rushed to ease the troubled minds and souls who turn to the government for all of their answers. Knee-jerk, reactionary legislation is how Americans wound up with the Patriot Act, and if even another month was spent on that "miracle" of Congress my fellow countrymen would not have to worry about who was listening to the other end of their phone call.

New Blog - comin' up

So for my Stage Three Blog Assignment I am to do the following:

Substantial commentary or criticism #1 (Due: October 3, 2007)
Write a substantial (250-500 words) commentary or critical analysis of an article (news, editorial, or commentary) about U.S. national government from one of the Suggested Sources. Post your commentary or criticism to your blog.

Well... I am not a fan of critical analysis, because I'm a live-and-let-live, you-do -your-thing-I'll-do-mine sort of person. I'll rant about the stuff I care about, but I don't wanna sit around and tear apart someone else's philosophy. The most I'll get into is "That's dumb" or "How can you think that?" but I can't bring myself to going further.
...also... critical thinking hurts... oh, the wrinkles in my brain are flattening! Just kidding.

Either way, my point for this was warning:
My next blog is me doing a Devil's Advocate thing. Some of it I'm into, but not all of it. I still encourage people to comment and let me know what they think. I like to hear about what is on your mind.