This blog is a forum for students enrolled in HIS 115A to discuss their research. Research questions will be introduced with a blog post and you can use the navigation at left to access those questions and related discussions. Reference Librarian Trish McPherson will respond to your comments with suggestions for additional resources and search strategies. It's hoped that this blog will foster an ongoing dialogue about your research.
Research Question One
"Find contemporary reflections on and interpretations of the Declaration of Independence in American culture. Summarize what you find and post your reflection to the blog and be sure to comment on at least one other post by a student in the class."
The importance the Declaration of Independence still has today is shown in a Washington Blog post, containing a video about the excessive power the government is taking. It begins by people saying the government has become too powerful and is becoming a tyranny. The video continues, by flashing back to times when the US government tried to trick the people going into war and says that today is like that because the government did not remove the troops from Afghanistan quick enough. There are clips of marines that are quitting because the government is forcing them to follow their lies instead of doing what they feel is right. There are many veterans fighting against the war claiming that the government is working for their institution not for the people. The people interviewed in this video are angry and say that Americans need to take their rights given to them by the Declaration of Independence and to work together to overthrow the government. “Resistance of tyranny” is the main point of this video showing that the claims of the Declaration of Independence are still prominent today.
This video was vey eye-opening. It is crazy to see the amount of veterans who are against the war. It makes you question what is really going on over there, who we can believe, and if we should start to pay attention to the conspiracy theories that come from the war and other government based events.
I think this video ties back to ideas from the Declaration of Independence, especially when the narrator states that we must resist tyranny and revolt against our oppressors. Those claims clearly tie back to the Declaration of Independence.
This video gave me a new perspective on the United States government. The part that stuck out to me was that our government supposedly staged fake attacks on U.S. civilians to turn the United States against Cuba. This brings the amount of power the government has into question. According to the declaration of independence the government should be run by the people, for the people.
The blog that I found shares some rather disturbing evidence. It brings up a case in Florida, where a man named Abbie Schoenwetter who was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for shipping lobsters in a plastic container rather than a cardboard one. However the importance behind this story isn't the details surrounding his arrest but rather the US government's, "unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life". The video and blog share a very concerning question, that the government today is controlling more and more aspects of our everyday lives. The government is working its way to a revolt, which is stated in the Declaration as an "unalienable right" for the people of the United States. At the end of the blog the author states five possible ways to "rebuild a constitutional self-government". I encourage all to take a look at this video and blog post that goes along with it. It shines light on a lot of very disturbing realities that we as a generation are being faced with.
I really liked this piece. It made me put things into perspective and see how sometimes although you don't realize it, the government is basically in control of just about everything you do and they see every move you make. like the video shows, we could end up being "One nation under arrest" if things do not change. It seems as if the government could nail anyone for anything if they really wanted to. I agree with what you said about the five ways to "rebuild a constitutional self-government", they are eye-opening and everyone should read them.
I found a blog written on the two hundred and forty second birthday of the United States (2010). The blogger makes many valid and good point in his piece. He takes an ethical approach to this article and really digs down and finds some things that many Americans do not know about the Declaration of Independence, some things that I do not know and I feel as though I am a pretty loyal American who knows a decent amount about his country. Additionally, he takes a look at the revolutionary idea of the text, Jefferson's purpose, the Declaration in American history, and the Declaration now. The evolution of this document really amazed me and showed me how things really do change and how one of the most meaningful documents can change so much over the years to mean something totally different 240 years later. But still, to this day, Americans have no idea what the document meant when it was written, and still today, most Americans have no idea what it even means today. The ideas discussed in this blog showed me how people viewed this document when it was written, 100 years ago and now. It showed me something i never thought could happen to such a valuable piece.
The article that you picked was very interesting to me. It showed me how Documents as big as the Declaration of Independence can change over time. Even though certain documents are written and signed in agreements that doesn't mean they won't evolve into something new over time. Some of the ideas they used in 1776 may be completely different then what we see them as now.
The article that I chose is from the Ny Times. The name of the article is "Is Our Patriotism Moral," and is written by Gary Gutting. This article starts off by stating that the United States of America treats the July,4 as a day for partying. As a nation we no longer think of this great day, as the day we gained freedom and independence from England. gary Gutting then begins to talk about how as a nation we don't follow the laws of the Declaration of Independence but we live off of morals. In our country we may do the right or wrong thing even if the wrong thing is the legal thing to do. An example that Gary Gutting gives is that id the United States of America threatens Canada with nuclear bombs just to get a better deal on a trade. Another point gary Gutting makes is that the Declaration of Independence was meant to create Independence for our new nation, yet it is impossible to flourish as a country without the expense of another country. The next reason Gary Gutting talks about is the idea of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He says that as a nation we failed to follow this law because our history does not show these three things being followed. The nation will grow from historical roots even if some of those roots are the wrong ones. He also states how it is hard to break old habits of a country.
This is the article I used: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/is-our-patriotism-moral/?ref=declarationofindependenceus
I found a cartoon titled “Stand Your Ground” law and then a blog post on human rights, both of which have ties to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence argued that all property owning white men were born with natural rights and equality. However, newer interpretations of the document helped to propel the civil rights and women's suffrage movements. Now, the document is utilized for a new humans rights movement, those who support LGBTQ rights. Hate crimes, which are crimes that target a person because of a specific part of their background, have roots to the Declaration of Independence. In order to discuss hate crimes and their parallels to the document, it is easier to pick a specific example. Since the one year anniversary of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin is swiftly approaching. A quick summary of that would go as follows: Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old African-American was walking around a gated community at night with a bag of skittles and an iced tea, when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was defending himself, under the Stand your Ground laws, but the evidence seems to suggest that this was a hate crime, because it does not appear that Martin attacked Zimmerman. When the trial comes up, the Declaration of Independence will be brought into question, because there are two clear interpretations of it. Zimmerman will probably argue that he has the "Right to Bear Arms," as illustrated in the comic. Those who argue for Martin will note his "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." This has also been a major problem with gun-control legislation, because the very thought of losing any right to weapons makes, as usual, about half the nation upset, and the other half ecstatic. The Declaration of Independence, which was originally written to protect the rights of white men, might tip the trial in Martin's favor this April. This is definitely a contemporary view of it.
The article that you found really shows how the declaration of independence is in effect. Although the declaration of independence was created to benefit white men it is still hold s in affect for many people today and many people misuse that right just as Zimmerman did when he killed Trayvon Martin for no apparent reason.
The declaration of independence still holds to take affect today as it did 200 years ago. In the case of the ex-solder Christopher Dorner, it seems as if the statement “the pursuit of happiness” is his only argument as to why he is attacking the Los Angeles Sate Police. According to Dorner he is a victim of injustice within the police forces and part of his claim is that he is an unhappy person because he was accused unjustly by LAPD. His actions were done as a way to make LAPD see how unjust their action of firing him was. Although murdering 3 people to make his point more palpable he is still using the Declaration of independence in an indirect way to help justify his actions just as the original colonist used to revolt against the crown. In the document, Brian Levin, a psychologist of criminal justice says “We’re talking about someone who basically perceives that a tremendous injustice has been done to him that took his life and identity”. Dorner in a way resembles the colonist because they too had done many crimes in order to fight against a higher power in order to prove that they were right. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman
This guy must have had some serious issues. He took the whole "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" to an extreme... I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers meant by that statement. Was he trying to argue that his rights were being taken advantage of by being fired? I don't know if it was the Declaration or some PTSD that made this guy do that- Very sad.
I agree that Dorner must have some psychological issues. He chose to take the Declaration way too literally by killing 3 people to make a point. I can sort of see how he would relate to a colonist fighting against the crown but that does not validate the fact that he murdered innocent people because he feels he was unjustly fired. Also, the colonists ended up fighting a war and it was not just a single person who went out and decided to kill others because they felt like it. Hopefully they find this man before he can kill more innocent Americans.
I can't believe this man is justifying the use of the declaration of independence to kill someone because of his "pursuit of happiness," when in the same line in the declaration it says that the people he murdered had the right to "life." I can't comprehend it.
I found an article that Chuck Norris had written regarding gun control and violence in the U.S and how the Declaration of Independence has a big role in it. I know this is Chuck Norris we are talking about here, and I’m not sure whether he has the credibility to preach about violence, but this is what he said: First he began by talking about the gun violence that has been going on lately in the United States and how the government wants to enforce stricter gun laws. He says that this will result in a back fire (no pun intended) – people would be more upset about that, and it isn’t even the real problem. He references to the Declaration which states equality for men, and respect for your fellow man, but he points out, there is none of that anymore! This is more of a sociological issue rather than a gun issue. Norris also quotes our second president when he says that we are aiming for equality for all men of all religions, but to get there, we need to shape the character of man, and society. He explains how America has forgotten about what was REALLY said in the Declaration including Locke’s view of the perfect State of Nature. By pointing out all these pieces of evidence, Norris states that we Americans need to remind ourselves of what our Declaration stands for, and how it will help us fix what has been destroyed over the past two centuries. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2013/02/05/chuck-norris-column-reducing-violent-crime-us-inside-out
I found an article on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence as it pertains to modern day gun control. The author, Fred Bucheit, argues that Americans are being denied their unalienable right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” every day because they are killed by an American with a gun. He believes that we need to demand our rights and use the families of innocent people who have been killed by being shot to petition to legislators and judges about stricter gun control. He argues against the use of guns by stating that “in the last ten years we have lost more civilians to the bullet than American soldiers killed in every war since the second world war.” He doesn’t provide a source so it is unknown whether that statement is entirely true or not. Bucheit also thinks that these unalienable rights are the most important rights we have as Americans and every other right is pointless and meaningless if we are not granted these basic rights. That is why he believes that gun control laws should be changed and that is it our responsibility to try to change it: so we can have our unalienable rights restored.
This is a great example of how people are contorting and abusing the declaration so that it holds a meaning that suits their argument. His lack of a source for his information is unprofessional so I dont think that he should be taken extremely seriously, however, i do agree that we do need better gun control.
I found this article very interesting, especially in the light of Sandy Hook. I think this argument is a great example as to what the people are using the Declaration of Independence for today. I fear that people only know the phrase "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and I think that in cases like these people need to realize that we do have those rights, but they are vague. In one case, the liberty of one person might have to be taken away to allow liberty for another person. I feel like this a problem in this case because in order to instill liberty for the kids to live, the liberty of owning a gun may be taken away. Great article, I found it very interesting!!
This article was very interesting to me in the way that this is a prime example of how people take advantage of the words from the Declaration of Independence. People are twisting the words of the document and not obeying the rules as they are meant to be used. I think that the we need to be more aware of the gun control and who are allowed to receive licenses for guns.
I found an article written by T.J. O'Hara, the third party presidential candidate for the last election. He talks about how the government keeps being given more and more responsibility and authority over its people. He says this keeps happening because we keep electing candidates that are too caught up in their political affiliation instead of what needs to be done. He talks about how the government is only responsible for guaranteeing our pursuit of happiness, which is written in the declaration of Independence, and not our actual happiness. If the government says it has the responsibility for our happiness, then they will start to define it. Doing this will actually take away another one of our unalienable rights, “Liberty.” He talks about how if the government pays for our education, then it can also tell us what education and where to get it. If we let the government pay for our houses then they will tell us in what size of home we can live in. And if we let the government pay for healthcare, then they will choose who will get treated and who won’t.
Phil, I enjoyed reading the article you posted as it brought up many interesting points. I, too, am not a fan of our country being dominated by two large parties, with little ground given to Independents and other smaller party candidates. T.J. O'Hara said in his article, "Once the Government begins to define “Happiness” for you, it will begin to erode your “Liberty” to define it for yourself." I found this line to be a fantastic way to get the reader to think about the power the government has, and if let run free, the control it can have over the people. He also talks bad about the concept of voting now-a-days, since many of our citizens are ill-informed and subject themselves to following main party guidelines and not actually voting for the best possible person for the job, but instead vote within their party. I actually almost wrote my summary on this article, then realized that you had already done so, but great choice in article Phil, very interesting.
The blog I found was doing a 30 personal challenge. On day 7 the challenge was to write a letter to a historical event and this person chose the signing of the declaration of independence. This person's blog completely undermines the importance of the declaration and only commends it for is "cookouts and fireworks". I think that even though this person is doing a personal challenge, the fact that they show little effort in their own assignment shows how little the person truly cared about the signing of the declaration of independence. This post is an example of our generation's apathy toward history and important events of the past.
I read an article written by Mackenzie Maxwell for CBS news, that related to the subject of California possibly banning same-sex marriage. She uses our countries founding document to support the fight against the banning of same-sex marriage. Namely the well-known paragraph of "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." As it does not, in any way, exclude gays from being able to enjoy the rights that were endowed to all men by this document. She also uses the document for her argument dealing with their "Pursuit of happiness." Who's to say that they are not allowed to bind themselves legally by marriage? This directly infringes upon the rights and values that our country was built on - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The article I read debates whether or not the Declaration of Independence has become obsolete. An argument that is important to this debate is whether or not the Declaration is to be interpreted or to be taken as it is written. Later in his article Matthew Spalding shows both sides of the argument through quotes given by historians, and closes with a statement saying "On Independence Day – and every day – Americans should remember and celebrate the Declaration’s timeless expression of our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and recall all those – past, present, and future – who pledge their lives, liberty, and sacred honor to upholding these truths."
I think that the article you found is very interesting. It discusses wether or not the Declaration of Independence is still relevant. Its funny that this has been going on for over a hundred years. I think that it should be used as a reminder of what we thought was fair at the birth of the country but not treated like law. The constitution and other laws can be amended and changed over time but we have no means to do that to the Declaration of Independence which can inhibit progress as times change. One of the most valued ideas that the founding fathers put forward was that the laws should be malleable.
This article focussed on a modern interpretation of the Declaration. It puts an emphases on, "We believe in the right to Life; the right to Liberty; and the right to pursue our own happiness". I found this article very easy to understand because it uses words that we use today, and language that is commonly understood. This author gets right to the point when he expresses his interpretation about the Declaration and what certain things mean. He shows the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence in a way that people today can understand it with out questioning what things mean.
http://www.history.com/news/is-the-declaration-of-independence-illegal This article is about a modern reflection on the Declaration of Independence. It discusses a debate between British and American lawyers arguing whether it was legal or not. The British say that their "are no legal principals granting a group of people the right to establish their own laws" and the grievances were not severe enough to warent such an extreme response. I think that these two reasons weaken each other because they are contradictory. The Americans claim the colonists were given the right through British Common Law. They also point out that other countries have been recognized as independent by the international community since then. I think that it is not really an issue of if it was legal or not the Americans mostly wrote it so that the rest of the world would understand why they seceded and sympathize with them. It is now water under the bridge anyways I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omIDRo0gNRk This is a video of a man speaking about the revolution but he is simply looking at the revolution from the colonists point of view but from the mind of 2013. The speaker does not look at what was actually occurring during the time of the revolution but instead is looking at it in a twisted way, this twisted view also has the speaker attacking the current government using the revolution and declaration as a example and reason why it is ok to attack the government.
The importance the Declaration of Independence still has today is shown in a Washington Blog post, containing a video about the excessive power the government is taking. It begins by people saying the government has become too powerful and is becoming a tyranny. The video continues, by flashing back to times when the US government tried to trick the people going into war and says that today is like that because the government did not remove the troops from Afghanistan quick enough. There are clips of marines that are quitting because the government is forcing them to follow their lies instead of doing what they feel is right. There are many veterans fighting against the war claiming that the government is working for their institution not for the people. The people interviewed in this video are angry and say that Americans need to take their rights given to them by the Declaration of Independence and to work together to overthrow the government. “Resistance of tyranny” is the main point of this video showing that the claims of the Declaration of Independence are still prominent today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/5-minute-video-declaration-of-independence-wasis-lawful-revolution-from-criminal-government.html
This video was vey eye-opening. It is crazy to see the amount of veterans who are against the war. It makes you question what is really going on over there, who we can believe, and if we should start to pay attention to the conspiracy theories that come from the war and other government based events.
DeleteI think this video ties back to ideas from the Declaration of Independence, especially when the narrator states that we must resist tyranny and revolt against our oppressors. Those claims clearly tie back to the Declaration of Independence.
DeleteThis video gave me a new perspective on the United States government. The part that stuck out to me was that our government supposedly staged fake attacks on U.S. civilians to turn the United States against Cuba. This brings the amount of power the government has into question. According to the declaration of independence the government should be run by the people, for the people.
DeleteThe blog that I found shares some rather disturbing evidence. It brings up a case in Florida, where a man named Abbie Schoenwetter who was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for shipping lobsters in a plastic container rather than a cardboard one. However the importance behind this story isn't the details surrounding his arrest but rather the US government's, "unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life". The video and blog share a very concerning question, that the government today is controlling more and more aspects of our everyday lives. The government is working its way to a revolt, which is stated in the Declaration as an "unalienable right" for the people of the United States. At the end of the blog the author states five possible ways to "rebuild a constitutional self-government". I encourage all to take a look at this video and blog post that goes along with it. It shines light on a lot of very disturbing realities that we as a generation are being faced with.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the blog:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/morning-bell-getting-a-meddling-government-out-of-our-lives/
I really liked this piece. It made me put things into perspective and see how sometimes although you don't realize it, the government is basically in control of just about everything you do and they see every move you make. like the video shows, we could end up being "One nation under arrest" if things do not change. It seems as if the government could nail anyone for anything if they really wanted to. I agree with what you said about the five ways to "rebuild a constitutional self-government", they are eye-opening and everyone should read them.
DeleteI found a blog written on the two hundred and forty second birthday of the United States (2010). The blogger makes many valid and good point in his piece. He takes an ethical approach to this article and really digs down and finds some things that many Americans do not know about the Declaration of Independence, some things that I do not know and I feel as though I am a pretty loyal American who knows a decent amount about his country. Additionally, he takes a look at the revolutionary idea of the text, Jefferson's purpose, the Declaration in American history, and the Declaration now. The evolution of this document really amazed me and showed me how things really do change and how one of the most meaningful documents can change so much over the years to mean something totally different 240 years later. But still, to this day, Americans have no idea what the document meant when it was written, and still today, most Americans have no idea what it even means today. The ideas discussed in this blog showed me how people viewed this document when it was written, 100 years ago and now. It showed me something i never thought could happen to such a valuable piece.
ReplyDeletehttp://leadingethicallyonly.blogspot.com/2010/07/declaration-of-independence-july-4-2010.html
The article that you picked was very interesting to me. It showed me how Documents as big as the Declaration of Independence can change over time. Even though certain documents are written and signed in agreements that doesn't mean they won't evolve into something new over time. Some of the ideas they used in 1776 may be completely different then what we see them as now.
DeleteThe article that I chose is from the Ny Times. The name of the article is "Is Our Patriotism Moral," and is written by Gary Gutting. This article starts off by stating that the United States of America treats the July,4 as a day for partying. As a nation we no longer think of this great day, as the day we gained freedom and independence from England. gary Gutting then begins to talk about how as a nation we don't follow the laws of the Declaration of Independence but we live off of morals. In our country we may do the right or wrong thing even if the wrong thing is the legal thing to do. An example that Gary Gutting gives is that id the United States of America threatens Canada with nuclear bombs just to get a better deal on a trade. Another point gary Gutting makes is that the Declaration of Independence was meant to create Independence for our new nation, yet it is impossible to flourish as a country without the expense of another country. The next reason Gary Gutting talks about is the idea of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He says that as a nation we failed to follow this law because our history does not show these three things being followed. The nation will grow from historical roots even if some of those roots are the wrong ones. He also states how it is hard to break old habits of a country.
ReplyDeleteThis is the article I used:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/is-our-patriotism-moral/?ref=declarationofindependenceus
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/fighting-discrimination/hate-crimes-and-human-rights/
ReplyDeletehttp://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/109480/
I found a cartoon titled “Stand Your Ground” law and then a blog post on human rights, both of which have ties to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence argued that all property owning white men were born with natural rights and equality. However, newer interpretations of the document helped to propel the civil rights and women's suffrage movements. Now, the document is utilized for a new humans rights movement, those who support LGBTQ rights. Hate crimes, which are crimes that target a person because of a specific part of their background, have roots to the Declaration of Independence.
In order to discuss hate crimes and their parallels to the document, it is easier to pick a specific example. Since the one year anniversary of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin is swiftly approaching. A quick summary of that would go as follows: Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old African-American was walking around a gated community at night with a bag of skittles and an iced tea, when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was defending himself, under the Stand your Ground laws, but the evidence seems to suggest that this was a hate crime, because it does not appear that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
When the trial comes up, the Declaration of Independence will be brought into question, because there are two clear interpretations of it. Zimmerman will probably argue that he has the "Right to Bear Arms," as illustrated in the comic. Those who argue for Martin will note his "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." This has also been a major problem with gun-control legislation, because the very thought of losing any right to weapons makes, as usual, about half the nation upset, and the other half ecstatic.
The Declaration of Independence, which was originally written to protect the rights of white men, might tip the trial in Martin's favor this April. This is definitely a contemporary view of it.
The article that you found really shows how the declaration of independence is in effect. Although the declaration of independence was created to benefit white men it is still hold s in affect for many people today and many people misuse that right just as Zimmerman did when he killed Trayvon Martin for no apparent reason.
DeleteThe declaration of independence still holds to take affect today as it did 200 years ago. In the case of the ex-solder Christopher Dorner, it seems as if the statement “the pursuit of happiness” is his only argument as to why he is attacking the Los Angeles Sate Police. According to Dorner he is a victim of injustice within the police forces and part of his claim is that he is an unhappy person because he was accused unjustly by LAPD. His actions were done as a way to make LAPD see how unjust their action of firing him was. Although murdering 3 people to make his point more palpable he is still using the Declaration of independence in an indirect way to help justify his actions just as the original colonist used to revolt against the crown. In the document, Brian Levin, a psychologist of criminal justice says “We’re talking about someone who basically perceives that a tremendous injustice has been done to him that took his life and identity”. Dorner in a way resembles the colonist because they too had done many crimes in order to fight against a higher power in order to prove that they were right.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman
This guy must have had some serious issues. He took the whole "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" to an extreme... I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers meant by that statement. Was he trying to argue that his rights were being taken advantage of by being fired? I don't know if it was the Declaration or some PTSD that made this guy do that- Very sad.
DeleteI agree that Dorner must have some psychological issues. He chose to take the Declaration way too literally by killing 3 people to make a point. I can sort of see how he would relate to a colonist fighting against the crown but that does not validate the fact that he murdered innocent people because he feels he was unjustly fired. Also, the colonists ended up fighting a war and it was not just a single person who went out and decided to kill others because they felt like it. Hopefully they find this man before he can kill more innocent Americans.
DeleteI can't believe this man is justifying the use of the declaration of independence to kill someone because of his "pursuit of happiness," when in the same line in the declaration it says that the people he murdered had the right to "life." I can't comprehend it.
DeleteI found an article that Chuck Norris had written regarding gun control and violence in the U.S and how the Declaration of Independence has a big role in it. I know this is Chuck Norris we are talking about here, and I’m not sure whether he has the credibility to preach about violence, but this is what he said:
ReplyDeleteFirst he began by talking about the gun violence that has been going on lately in the United States and how the government wants to enforce stricter gun laws. He says that this will result in a back fire (no pun intended) – people would be more upset about that, and it isn’t even the real problem. He references to the Declaration which states equality for men, and respect for your fellow man, but he points out, there is none of that anymore! This is more of a sociological issue rather than a gun issue. Norris also quotes our second president when he says that we are aiming for equality for all men of all religions, but to get there, we need to shape the character of man, and society. He explains how America has forgotten about what was REALLY said in the Declaration including Locke’s view of the perfect State of Nature. By pointing out all these pieces of evidence, Norris states that we Americans need to remind ourselves of what our Declaration stands for, and how it will help us fix what has been destroyed over the past two centuries.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2013/02/05/chuck-norris-column-reducing-violent-crime-us-inside-out
I found an article on the meaning of the Declaration of Independence as it pertains to modern day gun control. The author, Fred Bucheit, argues that Americans are being denied their unalienable right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” every day because they are killed by an American with a gun. He believes that we need to demand our rights and use the families of innocent people who have been killed by being shot to petition to legislators and judges about stricter gun control. He argues against the use of guns by stating that “in the last ten years we have lost more civilians to the bullet than American soldiers killed in every war since the second world war.” He doesn’t provide a source so it is unknown whether that statement is entirely true or not. Bucheit also thinks that these unalienable rights are the most important rights we have as Americans and every other right is pointless and meaningless if we are not granted these basic rights. That is why he believes that gun control laws should be changed and that is it our responsibility to try to change it: so we can have our unalienable rights restored.
ReplyDeletehttp://machoguns.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-declaration-of-independence-its.html
This is a great example of how people are contorting and abusing the declaration so that it holds a meaning that suits their argument. His lack of a source for his information is unprofessional so I dont think that he should be taken extremely seriously, however, i do agree that we do need better gun control.
DeleteI found this article very interesting, especially in the light of Sandy Hook. I think this argument is a great example as to what the people are using the Declaration of Independence for today. I fear that people only know the phrase "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and I think that in cases like these people need to realize that we do have those rights, but they are vague. In one case, the liberty of one person might have to be taken away to allow liberty for another person. I feel like this a problem in this case because in order to instill liberty for the kids to live, the liberty of owning a gun may be taken away. Great article, I found it very interesting!!
DeleteThis article was very interesting to me in the way that this is a prime example of how people take advantage of the words from the Declaration of Independence. People are twisting the words of the document and not obeying the rules as they are meant to be used. I think that the we need to be more aware of the gun control and who are allowed to receive licenses for guns.
DeleteI found an article written by T.J. O'Hara, the third party presidential candidate for the last election. He talks about how the government keeps being given more and more responsibility and authority over its people. He says this keeps happening because we keep electing candidates that are too caught up in their political affiliation instead of what needs to be done. He talks about how the government is only responsible for guaranteeing our pursuit of happiness, which is written in the declaration of Independence, and not our actual happiness. If the government says it has the responsibility for our happiness, then they will start to define it. Doing this will actually take away another one of our unalienable rights, “Liberty.” He talks about how if the government pays for our education, then it can also tell us what education and where to get it. If we let the government pay for our houses then they will tell us in what size of home we can live in. And if we let the government pay for healthcare, then they will choose who will get treated and who won’t.
ReplyDeletehttp://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/president-people/2012/jul/4/declaration-independence-circa-2012/
Phil, I enjoyed reading the article you posted as it brought up many interesting points. I, too, am not a fan of our country being dominated by two large parties, with little ground given to Independents and other smaller party candidates. T.J. O'Hara said in his article, "Once the Government begins to define “Happiness” for you, it will begin to erode your “Liberty” to define it for yourself." I found this line to be a fantastic way to get the reader to think about the power the government has, and if let run free, the control it can have over the people. He also talks bad about the concept of voting now-a-days, since many of our citizens are ill-informed and subject themselves to following main party guidelines and not actually voting for the best possible person for the job, but instead vote within their party. I actually almost wrote my summary on this article, then realized that you had already done so, but great choice in article Phil, very interesting.
DeleteThe blog I found was doing a 30 personal challenge. On day 7 the challenge was to write a letter to a historical event and this person chose the signing of the declaration of independence. This person's blog completely undermines the importance of the declaration and only commends it for is "cookouts and fireworks". I think that even though this person is doing a personal challenge, the fact that they show little effort in their own assignment shows how little the person truly cared about the signing of the declaration of independence. This post is an example of our generation's apathy toward history and important events of the past.
ReplyDeletehttp://writewingleftwing.tumblr.com/post/42050019037/day-7-a-letter-to-a-historical-event#notes
I read an article written by Mackenzie Maxwell for CBS news, that related to the subject of California possibly banning same-sex marriage. She uses our countries founding document to support the fight against the banning of same-sex marriage. Namely the well-known paragraph of "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." As it does not, in any way, exclude gays from being able to enjoy the rights that were endowed to all men by this document. She also uses the document for her argument dealing with their "Pursuit of happiness." Who's to say that they are not allowed to bind themselves legally by marriage? This directly infringes upon the rights and values that our country was built on - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/2100-502323_162-4594910.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article I read debates whether or not the Declaration of Independence has become obsolete. An argument that is important to this debate is whether or not the Declaration is to be interpreted or to be taken as it is written. Later in his article Matthew Spalding shows both sides of the argument through quotes given by historians, and closes with a statement saying "On Independence Day – and every day – Americans should remember and celebrate the Declaration’s timeless expression of our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and recall all those – past, present, and future – who pledge their lives, liberty, and sacred honor to upholding these truths."
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/04/morning-bell-does-the-declaration-of-independence-still-matter/
I think that the article you found is very interesting. It discusses wether or not the Declaration of Independence is still relevant. Its funny that this has been going on for over a hundred years. I think that it should be used as a reminder of what we thought was fair at the birth of the country but not treated like law. The constitution and other laws can be amended and changed over time but we have no means to do that to the Declaration of Independence which can inhibit progress as times change. One of the most valued ideas that the founding fathers put forward was that the laws should be malleable.
Deletehttp://www.independencedayfun.com/267/the-declaration-of-independence-in-modern-english/
ReplyDeleteThis article focussed on a modern interpretation of the Declaration. It puts an emphases on, "We believe in the right to Life; the right to Liberty; and the right to pursue our own happiness". I found this article very easy to understand because it uses words that we use today, and language that is commonly understood. This author gets right to the point when he expresses his interpretation about the Declaration and what certain things mean. He shows the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence in a way that people today can understand it with out questioning what things mean.
http://www.history.com/news/is-the-declaration-of-independence-illegal
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a modern reflection on the Declaration of Independence. It discusses a debate between British and American lawyers arguing whether it was legal or not.
The British say that their "are no legal principals granting a group of people the right to establish their own laws" and the grievances were not severe enough to warent such an extreme response. I think that these two reasons weaken each other because they are contradictory.
The Americans claim the colonists were given the right through British Common Law. They also point out that other countries have been recognized as independent by the international community since then.
I think that it is not really an issue of if it was legal or not the Americans mostly wrote it so that the rest of the world would understand why they seceded and sympathize with them. It is now water under the bridge anyways I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omIDRo0gNRk
ReplyDeleteThis is a video of a man speaking about the revolution but he is simply looking at the revolution from the colonists point of view but from the mind of 2013. The speaker does not look at what was actually occurring during the time of the revolution but instead is looking at it in a twisted way, this twisted view also has the speaker attacking the current government using the revolution and declaration as a example and reason why it is ok to attack the government.