English Composition Essay

[Good_Steward]

My nephew is a Freshman in college this year. He began summer classes earlier this month to get a head start on his degree. One of his classes is English Composition, and he had an assignment of an essay. There were several topics he could have picked, but chose a "wild card" essay that ties back to one of the Chapter One reading assignments. He chose to tie his back to "Why People Don't Help In A Crisis". I thought I would share what he has turned in:

"Gun Control Does Not Work

“Gun Control Works” is an oxymoron. While federal and local governments legislate law abiding citizens into extinction, people with criminal intent feel free to attack with no fear of retaliation or worry of the victim being capable of lethally defending themselves. This is evidenced by the fact that California has the most stringent gun control laws in the United States, yet has 10 cities ranked in the top 70 U.S. cities in violent crime rates per capita. Americans, as a people, do not come to the aid of our brothers and sisters in distress³; we cannot even depend on police protection in case of attack or fear for your life. These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we are responsible for our own safety and well being. Our defense from those who would do us harm should include practicing our constitutionally protected right to bear arms, and our God given right to self-preservation.

“Shall Issue” Does Work

Washington D.C. has one of the highest murder rates in the entire United States. In the two years since the District of Columbia v Heller decision, the murder rate in Washington D.C. fell by a staggering 25%, versus a 7% nationwide reduction. The opposite is true of Chicago, as the murder rate increased exponentially after the 1982 gun ban, reaching as high as 17 murders per one hundred thousand people in 2009. Even criminals admit that gun control works. Criminals interviewed in prison say that they refrained from committing a crime because they believed the potential victim may have been armed and had guns used against them. It’s hard to imagine a stronger endorsement of “Shall Issue” concealed carry laws than having a criminal admit to fear of retaliation that could harm or kill him. Attackers, robbers, rapists, and criminals in general seek out the easiest target, the path of least resistance, if you will, to insure that they get what they want with no harm coming to them. An armed citizen is not the path of least resistance. This, this is why “Shall Issue” carry laws work, and gun control does not.

Gun Control and Proponents Throughout History

The agenda of gun control has been around for more than a century. It has been proven time and time again that gun control does not reduce crime rates, but actually increases them. So, why would anyone continue to pursue the idea that an unarmed populace is the way to crime reduction and general harmony among the people of the United States? It’s because no one believes it. Throughout history, gun control has been used to control the populations of countries, to make them defenseless to the tyranny of an oppressive government. Gun control has nothing to do with crime rates, and everything to do with power. Some of the most devout proponents of gun control have also been some of the most horrific people that the planet has ever known. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung were firm believers in gun control, and it was not for crime reduction. On April 11^th, 1942, speaking to dinner guests, Adolf Hitler made the statement:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

This is the mindset behind the gun control agenda. We the People can’t be trusted with firearms in a situation where an oppressive government wants to exert full control. An oppressive government like Hitler’s was, and is, afraid of rebellion. Because of gun control established in Germany in 1938, 13 million Jews who were unable to defend themselves were subjected to the most horrific tortures ever imagined and slaughtered. Had the 13 million Jews been armed people, they would be the largest military force the world has ever seen. That’s a military as large as the top 19 largest militaries in the world currently, and certainly capable of defending themselves from a Nazi Germany military force of 400,000 soldiers.

Joseph Stalin implemented gun control in the Soviet Union in 1929. In a statement made in 1929, Stalin said “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” Thanks to gun control in the Soviet Union approximately 20 million political dissidents from 1929 through 1953, approximately 20 million political dissidents, unable to lethally defend themselves, were rounded up and murdered. Mao Tse Tung, the founding father of the Peoples Republic of China, had this to say in a 1938 statement: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” This was the thinking of the communist party. With no one able to forcefully retaliate against their aggression, they were able to run roughshod over whomever they wished. This is evidenced by the fact that from 1948 to 1952 over 10 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were murdered. By 1987 over 35 million murders were carried out under the Communists.

Gun Rights and the Foundation of the United States of America

Throughout history, gun control has never been about protecting people from violent crimes or accidental shootings. Gun control has historically been about power changing place from the people of a country to the governing body of that country. A citizen that has no rights to self defense or defense from a tyrannical government or dictator is not a citizen, they are subjects. Our founding fathers realized this, and put into place safeguards that would prevent the free people, the citizens of the United States of America, from being subjects of a tyrannical ruling class again. One of these safeguards is the 2^nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ratified on December 15^th, 1791, the 2^nd Amendment reads: “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.” Our founding fathers knew what it meant to be subjects, and knew that if we were not able to defend ourselves, our country, and our Constitution, that we would end up subjects again. These men had strong opinions about the ownership of guns. Thomas Jefferson said: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. George Washington added, “A free people ought to be armed.” Richard Henry Lee was the initiator of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the first congress; the congress that passed the Bill of Rights.

His opinion on guns was “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

The Forebearers of this country were adamant that a free people should be armed to protect their life and liberty. The United States of America now have legislators who think they understand better than the people who founded this country what is best for America. These elected officials should be messengers of the voice of the citizens, but have deemed themselves to be a ruling class rather than servants. These men and women want to take away the freedoms than so many people have fought and died for. The freedoms that America’s sons and daughters fight bravely for still today in service of our country, to prevent the horrors of a Nazi Germany, Communist China, or the Stalinism of the Soviet Union here in the United States of America. Now is the time to remind our elected officials that We the People elected them to be subservient to America; America is not subservient to them!

It is time for America to take back her freedoms paid for by the blood of patriots!"

Of course, there is a works cited page if anyone is interested, and the formatting is not quite the same as it is on the word doc (MLA). I thought it was a good read, especially for a 17 year old young man.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Good_Steward

[Armed Aviator]

Thanks for sharing. Great read.

AA

[Guest bkelm18]

Good paper. Lets just hope the professor agrees with his viewpoint though.

[Defender]

Good paper. Lets just hope the professor agrees with his viewpoint though.

I'd be really surprised if he does. Seems like they just try their best to indoctrinate the students to their point of view rather than letting them have their own opinion. A paper should be graded on the merits of the research and how well it's presented, not on whether the teacher agrees.

Edited July 1, 2011 by barewoolf

[Guest bkelm18]

I'd be really surprised if he does. Seems like they just try their best to indoctrinate the students to their point of view rather than letting them have their own opinion. A paper should be graded on the merits of the research and how well it's presented, noyt on whether the teacher agrees.

Oh I totally agree, but we all know that's not how it works. I've had two professors say that the best way to increase your odds of getting a good grade on a paper is to make sure your viewpoints and opinions match those of the professor's.

[ls3_kid]

I wish I would of saved my speech from sophomore year about Crime in areas with strict gun laws vs. less strict gun laws. Such as Chicago, IL vs. Kennesaw, GA (Kennesaw requires you to own a weapon in your home).

[BigPoppa]

. A paper should be graded on the merits of the research and how well it's presented, noyt on whether the teacher agrees.

should. many times, isn't.

[tnhawk]

I'd be really surprised if he does. Seems like they just try their best to indoctrinate the students to their point of view rather than letting them have their own opinion. A paper should be graded on the merits of the research and how well it's presented, noyt on whether the teacher agrees.

I received an education in a Government class, from a liberal "teacher" many years ago at San Jacinto College in Pasadena, TX. The grades were highly influenced by the instructor's personal political beliefs. I learned to do my research before signing up for a class, not after.

[7dogguy]

Nicely done so kudos to your Nephew; always great to see a young person using their noodle!

[Guest lostpass]

A good professor will give that an "A" a bad professor or TA that disagrees will let their personal opinions influence the grade.

It is smartly written, doesn't fall into any obvious logical fallacies and defendable.

I've been on both sides of this thing. I've written stuff that disagreed with the prof (or TA) and been given A's. I've also written stuff that got the big old F- when presented to the prof even when they agreed.

It is always going to be easier to get a good grade if your point happens to agree with the prof, that is human nature. You can argue that it should be some weird objective thing but that is impossible. If I were to write a paper for gun control, and I could write a pretty good one, most everyone here would give me an F without even reading the argument.

Why? You have already read all the arguments and come to your conclusions. College profs are the same way but a good prof will appreciate the argument and reward it.

It comes down to how much they read. If they read the paper he'll be fine if they skim it, fine. If they go off the title, well, dead in the water.

[Jasongar8]

Tell him to expect the professor or TA to look at him or treat him differently for the rest of the semester. College professors are some of the most libtarded, closed minded people I have ever met. And the more letters they have after their name the worse they seem to be.

[Guest lostpass]

Tell him to expect the professor or TA to look at him or treat him differently for the rest of the semester. College professors are some of the most libtarded, closed minded people I have ever met. And the more letters they have after their name the worse they seem to be.

Do tell, this thread needs some examples!

[zgunbear]

Phone messed up while trying to post

Edited July 1, 2011 by zgunbear

[zgunbear]

Personal example I took a constituional law class that was a requirement. However it was taught by a marxist maoisy communist.The prof was extremely biased and anti American. He was a libtard from the peoples republic of Commiefornia.I don't believe he was fair or objective. If you disagreed with him you were ridiculed and treated with derision. The prof was tenured so he was untouchable and arrogant as hell

Edited July 1, 2011 by zgunbear

[peejman]

Nice essay.

Like others, I had a similar experience in college with a very liberal American history professor. I didn't buy into his spin on history which created some good debates through the semester. The debates remained generally civil and he was a good sport about having a student challenge him in class. I think I got a B in his class, which was fine with me. I also found out during the semester that I went to high school with his son whom I honestly thought was a real weirdo. After this history class, I fully understood why I'd thought his son so strange.

[Good_Steward]

We shall find out soon enough what his English Prof thinks about it. I'll report back any grades or comments (with Hayden's permission, of course). I honestly didn't think about the uber-liberal aspect of it, mostly because he is attending the same U I did back in the '90's, and honestly, I never truly had an over-the-top type instructor except for one Sociology prof (goes with the class, I guess).

All in all, I thought it was a very well thought out, well written essay. Regardless of viewpoints, his point is very well argued.

[Good_Steward]

He was given a 9.5 out of 10 points for the assignment, with the knocks for punctuation and 1 misspelled word. She was very complimentary of his essay.

Some of the comments: On the Hitler/Stalin/Tung quotes "This is powerful. Your argument gains major persuasive ability when you use these historical figures the way that you do in this section. This section of the paper is on point with logically and ethically persuading readers of your argument—very VERY good idea to use such emotionally charged figures’ names and the histories behind those names in order to show that those who side with gun control side with figures like Adolf Hitler—not only do you argue against gun control simply with these historical facts, but you also target those readers of your work who haven’t yet decided to agree with you at this point in your paper—they’re definitely considering you more critically here because WHO WANTS TO BE LIKE HITLER!!!?—You should submit something to this effect as the extra credit assignment where I asked everyone to write a satire, parody, or ironic piece…you’ve done just what Twain would do. Clever."

On this sentence: It is time for America to take back her freedoms paid for by the blood of patriots! "Wow."

Edited July 5, 2011 by Good_Steward