The Blaze is a conservative news network. It is available on radio, television, and via internet. The network, which was founded in 2011, has become extremely popular in informing the people of the United States of ongoing political current events. There is an extreme broadness of topics ranging from kneeling during the Star Spangled Banner to who/what to blame for mass killings in America.
One of the topics that caught my eye was that of kneeling during the Star Spangled Banner. With the issue recently arising, there has been a lot of controversy that has come with it. This specific article caught my eye because U.S. Representative Keith Ellison said he would boycott the NFL games this season because of the new kneeling ban. He even went as far as calling the ban “idiotic”. The new ban states that no NFL player will kneel on the sidelines without a consequence. If a player decides to kneel during the Star Spangled Banner then that team will be presented with a fine. However, any player who choses not to stand during the national anthem is given the choice to stay in the locker room with no consequence to the team. When it comes to expressing opinion, Ellison is very open. He is known for posting tweets and making videos mocking the United States President, Donald Trump. As a person of color myself, I understand what these NFL players are thinking and trying to achieve. However, I do not stand with Representative Ellison. I believe that his statements are too unprofessional compared to the peaceful protest that the NFL players are practicing. I once read an article that the idea of kneeling was given to Colin Kaepernick by U.S. Army veteran Nate Boyer. Boyer convinced Kaepernick to kneel during the national anthem rather than sit. Even when Kaepernick was sitting the protest was peaceful and respectful. On the other hand, Ellison is using these peaceful protests as a platform to rage. In the end, Ellison is getting an informal audience with many that have little respect for him. He is not helping the protest, but hurting it.
In addition to that, players are already coming up with new ways to protest without the consequence of a fine placed on their team. Many of the players, who weren’t planning to kneel, now plan on protesting in spite of the NFL. Initially the NFL kneeling ban was supposed to please all of its fans, but it is doing the exact opposite. Many fans are now refusing to even watch/attend games saying that the NFL is not worthy of their money. A petition has even been started for big companies such as Nike and Ford to drop their sponsorships. Since the announcement of the ban the petition has received more than 5,000 signatures and is rising in popularity quickly. When the kneeling protests being in the 2017 season both Nike and Under Armour released statements supporting the athletes and their right to kneel. It is uncertain how the protest will affect the sponsorships today.
Another widely controversial topic in the United States is that of gun control. With all of the recent mass shootings there has been a push for harsher gun laws nationwide. Many blame the easy access to guns as the problem. While others might blame mental illness as the cause of the mass killings. The Blaze has a few articles talking about the effect that these mass killings has had on many of the states. For example, California along with some other states now can file a restraining order to get guns taken away from somebody that has shown signs of being unstable or untrustworthy of owning a gun. However, that only allows for close members of the individual to file a restraining order. Recently, California pushed to expand that bill so that other people such as teachers, employers, and co-workers would be able to do the same. According to ACLU though, the bill goes to far. ACLU is concerned that the bill might make it too easy for people who are biased about a certain individual because of their race, sexuality, etc. I can see where this could be a problem, but I also see the point of the sponsor of the bill. The sponsor said that once you are old enough to buy a gun you usually don’t see your family as much. You spend 8+ hours a day with those at work. Therefore, a co-worker or employer is more qualified to file a restraining order than a family member that the individual never sees.
On the other hand, some blame the mass killings on mental illness and prescription pills. According to NRA President, Oliver North, these mass killings originate from exposure to violence at a young age and the use of psychiatric pills. According to a study done by the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights, there is link between school shootings and the use of psychiatric drugs. Dating back to 1988, 36 of the school shootings were committed by people that were taking or had previously taking psychiatric drugs. North believes that limiting gun rights of individuals is not the answer. He believes that the answer is security in schools. I agree with North. Why fight to take away somebody’s constitutional right when the solution is so much easier? Walking into schools in the United States is incredibly easy. A few months back, North Summit classes were ongoing when students reported a strange man walking around the school. The school was baffled as to how a strange man even got into the school. The answer was clear, however. Minimum security was being used. The only security being used were cameras. Yet, what good do security cameras do when nobody is watching? Not only does my local school have this problem, but also the majority of schools in the United States. Looking back at school shootings, the shooter never has a problem entering the school. He/she simply walks in and then the rampage begins. This proves how easy it is to gain access to school grounds. Something must be done.
I find that the link between psychiatric drugs and mass killings was really interesting. I find it fascinating that something that is supposed to help somebody can be so deadly. Psychiatric drugs are usually given to an individual to save their life. Yet, the drug can be so deadly. Today, it often ends with the death of many sometimes including the individual that drug was supposed to save. So why was the information about the link between mass killings and psychiatric drugs kept private? Why are we still fighting the constitution? Even with harsher gun laws, people would find access to weapons. If a person plans a mass killing their worry is not necessarily on getting an illegal weapon. Security is what we really need and security does not start with taking away the second amendment rights of others. The NRA has since started a program called School Shield”. “School Shield” provides security for schools at no price. I find it interesting that more schools aren’t jumping on board with this program when there is no cost to the school itself or to taxpayers. I enjoyed researching the articles on this website about gun control. What I enjoyed most was the broadness of the opinions in the articles. For example, articles on gun control ranged from articles on an event itself to politicians to authors and show hosts. The website gave a platform to people that had little to no voice at all. Overall, the website was incredibly organized and helpful in understanding different views on a diverse number of topics.