Your Eyes

The shimmer and sway of candle light,
the thin thread of fire that dances on wick,
the starlit night sparkling overhead,
the sunshine on the first day of summer,

pale in comparison to the glow in your eyes.
For your’s contain the brilliance and beauty
of all the lights on earth. They are
electrifying, entrancing and exciting.

They strike me at my core,
the catalyst to the warmth I feel
every time our separate glances meet
and I cannot look away.

How inhumane the moment feels
when we must part our gaze.
my impassioned mind yearns for you
until we see each other again.


Living in America

I tried living in America,
the home of the free,
but the people there were greedy
And the government didn’t work for me.

I couldn’t go to college,
I didn’t have the cash.
The wealthy called me lazy
as they increased their stash.

And the churches on the street,
they tried to pull me in,
I expected a warm reception,
but all I got was sin.

When I asked them what was wrong
I received a strange look.
They called me un-American,
they got so angry that they shook.

I died living in America
country of the brave
it could have been so great again
if we thought it was worth a save.

The Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide

“We are all going.” –William McKinley[1]

            President McKinley’s last words were and are true. Everyone dies. This truth may incite fear in some; some may feel joy, while others still may feel indifferent toward the notion of death. Yet no matter how people feel about death, they will all face it. In the time we are given we want to choose how to live our lives and, legally, the right to live the way we choose is assured. A modern day question, and the topic of this paper, is whether we ought to have the legal right to choose how we die as well.

This idea of halting medical assistance to allow a patient to die peacefully conforms to the mindset behind legislation in France which says that when medicine serves “no other purpose than the artificial support of life [it can be] suspended or not undertaken.” [2] Indeed, in other areas of the world, the right to physician-assisted suicide is not a debate. Luxemburg, The Netherlands, and Switzerland all offer avenues in which a terminally ill patient may seek out physician-assisted suicide.

            In July of 2011, 55% of respondents to a survey of American citizens said that they were in favor of physician-assisted suicide as an option for terminally ill patients. The survey asked over 6,000 respondents of various age groups and from locations all over the United States about their opinions. The survey polled citizens from ages 18 to late-80s. The survey was not confined to a specific socio-economic class or ethnic group. The result was very clear: a majority of Americans are not opposed to physician-assisted suicide.[3]

            This result is not abnormal in the modern world. Polls around the globe suggest that people are becoming increasingly supportive of the right to physician-assisted suicide, but their governments’ laws do not reflect this. In 2007 a British Social Attitudes report surveyed 3,000 citizens of the UK to find that 80% supported voluntary euthanasia. Since then, the UK has not adopted any new laws to allow physician-assisted suicide or take previous laws banning the practice off the books.[4] The situation is similar in Australia. In 2009 a Roy Morgan poll commissioned by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW (New South Wales) found that 85% of Australians supported voluntary euthanasia. Another poll published by News Limited in 2010 suggested that 78% of Australians wanted the laws banning euthanasia in Australia off the books.[5]

Despite this fact, only three U.S. states have adopted laws that allow terminally ill patients the option of physician-assisted suicide. In a country that prides itself on individual liberties, why are there laws in place in 47 states that prevent people from a medical option that can save them from pain and suffering toward the end of their life? The right to die is a fundamental one. Physician- assisted suicide ought to be a protected legal option available to all terminally ill patients in America.

            Those who oppose the right to physician-assisted suicide would argue that legal protection for the option is contrary to American tradition, and that there is no text in the Constitution that would support a federal government initiative to ensure the right. The only other argument that can be made is a moral one: the result of the law would be an undesirable one. However, the only people this would directly affect would be the people that desire that specific result.

            We can first refute the arguments that there is nothing in the Constitution that can support the right to physician-assisted suicide. The Ninth Amendment clearly states; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”[6] In other words, just because a right is not specifically written down in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. On the contrary, if there is a question of whether a right exists or not when it is not enumerated in the Constitution, it is to be assumed that the right does exist. In this case, the argument that physician-assisted suicide should not be a right because it isn’t in the Constitution fails due to the Ninth Amendment.

            The tradition argument can be countered in multiple ways, firstly, by referring to America’s pre-eminent document on what America stands for: The Declaration of Independence. If the Declaration of Independence is to be taken as a document detailing America’s most basic values then it should hold significant bearing on any tradition argument. The Declaration asserted that all men were created equal with certain “unalienable rights”[7] which included “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”[8].

            This matters because in the case of terminally ill patients, sometimes liberty and the pursuit of happiness are best served by having the option to end one’s own life. One of America’s strongest and longest-standing traditions is the value of individual liberty and ability to make choices on how to run one’s own life. Allowing the option expands the liberty of the individual to choose how to run their life. Likewise, if terminally ill patients are facing immense suffering over the course of months before passing away, it makes sense that they could be happier if they have the choice to pass away without encountering the pain that comes with their fatal disease.

            There is not much in the way of precedent that relates directly to the right to physician-assisted suicide at this time. The strongest precedent in favor of the right to die comes from the Montana Supreme Court which ruled in Baxter v. Montana that physician-assisted suicide was not in conflict with any law they already had on the books.[9] The original lawsuit was brought by four physicians working in Montana and Robert Baxter, a 76 year old truck driver dying of leukemia. The Montana district court decided that there was a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, but this decision was appealed to the state supreme court. Robert Baxter died of complications from the leukemia before the state supreme court made its decision. In December of 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of physician-assisted suicide asserting that “nothing in Montana Supreme Court Precedent or Montana statutes indicated that physician aid in dying is against public policy.”[10]

In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Federal Government could not regulate the option away from states that had already decided in favor of physician-assisted suicide.[11] Attorney General John Ashcroft argued that the federal Controlled Substance Act could stop states from allowing doctors to prescribe medicine that would be used for suicide. The majority opinion, as authored by Justice Kennedy, found that while the federal government did have power to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, it did not have the power to regulate how legal medicine is to be used within states.[12] This ruling significantly strengthens a state’s ability to choose to have physician-assisted suicide as an option within the state.

On top of that, Supreme Court cases regarding contraceptives and abortions, two topics that involve the right to privacy, can be used as precedent to support the right to physician-assisted suicide. Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade are prime examples of how the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of individual liberties over moral objections. If stare decisis is followed by the members of the Supreme Court, then the right to physician-assisted suicide could logically follow the decisions made in these cases.

In 1965, the Supreme Court heard the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. The Griswold case is a question of the right to contraceptives.[13] In the early sixties, Connecticut had a law on the books that made it a crime to use contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut law. Justice Douglas wrote in the majority opinion that, while there was nothing in the Bill of Rights that directly allocated the right to privacy to all American citizens, there was enough evidence to suggest that individual privacy was an implied goal within the Constitution. Concurring opinions written by Justice Goldberg and Harlan argued that the right to privacy could be found within the purpose of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments respectively.

Griswold is significant because it is the first Supreme Court decision where a majority agreed that there was a fundamental right to privacy. This right to privacy has had staying power within Supreme Court precedence ever since. When an earlier test case came before the Supreme Court for the same issue, it was handed down, but in his dissent, Justice Harlan asserted that “The full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.”[14] This argument is the same as the Constitutional argument for the right to physician-assisted suicide.

In 1973, the Supreme Court released its decision on Roe v. Wade, one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in history due to the impact of the decision on pre-natal life. Though the moral implications are still being questioned today, the court’s decision, a solid 7-2, found that a woman’s right to medical privacy pre-empted state interests in protecting pre-natal life.[15] This is significant because the right to privacy that was introduced in Griswold is expanded to cover privacy in the context of medical decisions. The right to physician-assisted suicide is a medical decision. Like with the use of contraceptives and abortions, physician-assisted suicide is viewed as immoral by some groups. However, in Supreme Court precedent, privacy, specifically medical privacy, has been accepted as more important than moral objections.

            In order to understand how important the link between the Roe v. Wade precedent, the Griswold v. Connecticut precedent, and the issue of physician-assisted suicide is, it is necessary to review the history of the right to privacy. The right to privacy was first introduced to America’s jurisprudence through the writings of Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren.[16] The two wrote about the right to privacy in the context that, in the modern world, when considering technological advancements, it is necessary to accept that there are new fundamental rights that should be protected that never needed to be protected before. The arguments that were made in favor of the right to privacy were largely policy arguments that asserted that, without a fundamental right to privacy, the government and other people could get into people’s lives at will without restriction. In modern day, the right to privacy has been extended to medical privacy where individuals’ medical decisions belong to them alone and should not be made by the government. Roe v. Wade, and the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey[17], established that medical privacy is a fundamental right to the degree that the government cannot dictate that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term.

            If the government cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, can the government force a terminally ill patient to suffer and die when there is a medical option to prevent the suffering? Past precedent on medical privacy seems to suggest that the government ought not to have this power. To the contrary; the precedent involving the right to privacy seems to suggest that patients should always have the final say on medical decisions that are made. If this interpretation of the precedent is to be accepted, then it will fit well with the public opinion on the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Some critics of the Supreme Court have argued that the court can rule against public opinion without having to answer to anyone. In this case, the Supreme Court does not risk such controversy.

            It ought to be addressed that there is Supreme Court precedent that does not conform to the argument that the right to physician-assisted suicide is a fundamental right. In 1997 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the ban on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Washington was constitutional. Washington v. Glucksburg resulted in a decision that is clearly contrary to the legal acceptance of the right to die[18].

            The original case came out of Washington in 1996. Dr. Harold Glucksburg, a number of physicians, and a handful of terminally ill patients challenged Washington’s state-wide ban on physician-assisted suicide. They argued that assisted suicide was a fundamental due process right that was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court that heard the case originally ruled in favor of Glucksburg. When the case came before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals it was reversed, but after the court heard the case again en banc, the Ninth Circuit also ruled in favor of Glucksburg. When the Supreme Court heard the case, however, they ruled against Glucksburg, citing traditions arguments.[19]

The decision in Washington v. Glucksburg was come to through the influence of precedent and tradition arguments. The Supreme Court in Moore v. City of East Cleveland asserted that when determining substantive due process rights, there are limits that must be drawn from “respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society.”[20] In Washington v. Glucksburg, the majority opinion cited the Moore case as its precedent reasoning behind its decision. This is important because we can see that the reasoning behind the Washington v. Glucksburg opinion hinges on the tradition argument primarily.

            As has been addressed, the tradition argument against physician-assisted suicide has some flaws. The argument fails to take into account competing traditions, evolving mindsets, or a clear infringement on medical privacy rights already recognized. In fact, in less than ten years after this case was heard in the Supreme Court, the state of Washington voted on and approved the Washington Death with Dignity Act, a state law allowing physician-assisted suicide.[21] Pursuant to these weaknesses within the tradition argument, the Washington v. Glucksburg argument is weak. This precedent ought to be overturned and replaced with precedent finding in favor of the right to physician-assisted suicide and the continuation of precedence on medical privacy rights.

            Precedent and a new evolving tradition are not the only things we should take into account. If we consider the policy implications on both sides it is very clear what decision is right for American citizens. If states can ban access to a medical procedure that is specifically designed to prevent people from suffering without directly affecting any other person, then what else can the government do in the realm of making medical decisions for patients? On the other hand, if we allow terminally ill patients to make the decision to end their lives before they suffer, then the result would be that terminally ill patients could prevent the suffering that they are facing. It is as simple as that. In evaluating whether these two results are acceptable, it is necessary to consider the positives and the negatives for both possibilities.

The result of a ban on physician-assisted suicide has the positive aspect of ensuring that no terminally ill patients have the risk of being euthanized against their will. Gerald Dworkin, an expert on ethics in medicine wrote, “The moment we begin to define who can and cannot die, we are ultimately leading ourselves to new questions of who should and should not die. This is the same reasoning behind the eugenics movement and argument that spawned such horrors as the Holocaust.”[22] Dworkin’s hyperbolic language is unfounded, as the evidence suggests: laws allowing physician-assisted suicide correlate with less unwilling euthanasia incidents.[23] The negative aspects include the fact that terminally ill patients have certain medical options that are not available to them; their right to medical privacy is infringed to the extent that the government requires them to either be treated for an incurable disease or waste away until they die when they could avoid undue suffering. Under the ban, terminally ill patients would not be given the dignity to choose to avoid immense suffering, nor would the full extent of liberty be available to them.

            If the right to physician-assisted suicide was assured, the negative aspects may include negative reactions from family-members of the terminally ill patients if they are not in favor of the policy. If the physician-assisted suicide laws reflect those that have been accepted in states like Washington and Oregon already, then the risk of terminally ill patients being euthanized against their will is eliminated. The positive aspects include the fact that the right to medical privacy would be protected. Terminally ill patients would have the right to choose whether to struggle and suffer or to end their lives before facing such pain. Terminally ill patients would be treated with dignity, without government involvement denying crucial medical options to them.

            Terry Pratchett, the author of the personal documentary “Choosing to Die,” compared the thought of dying to a metaphorical cliff, saying, “I live in hope that I can jump before I am pushed.”[24] Death is a natural part of life, as is suffering. For thousands of years people have had the means to end their own life in favor of suffering fatal diseases. Governments, being entirely human institutions, are distinctly unnatural in the course of an individual’s medical decision making. While we have evidence to suggest that a majority of Americans favor the right to physician-assisted suicide, this does not mean that every individual is planning on utilizing the right. Terry Pratchett’s documentary on physician-assisted suicide ends with him witnessing a man take a prescribed drink that puts him to sleep and then stops his heart.

The scene is a somber one. The man is surrounded by his loved ones and his wife is by his side. After being asked twice if he is sure he wants to go through with the action, and confirming, he takes the drink. The man indicates that the drink did not taste very good and takes a sip of water. His wife makes a comment about how, throughout their marriage, she would always rub his hand until he fell asleep at night. We see her rubbing his hand and staring into his eyes. After about a minute, the man closes his eyes and begins to snore. After another minute or two passes, his snoring quiets and eventually falls silent.[25]

After the scene, Terry looked visibly shaken. He made a comment about having seen “the bravest man” he had ever known. Toward the end Terry admits that he does not know if he has the courage to take that final leap. Despite this, he asserts that he firmly believes that an individual’s right to make that choice is fundamental. He ends his documentary by saying that he intends to spend his final years fighting for that right in his home country of England.[26]

            Requiring individuals to suffer through terminal illnesses, and denying them the right to physician-assisted suicide is contrary to America’s founding texts. A ban does not allow for the rights of “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness.” On the contrary, it denies individuals these most fundamental rights. Denying the right of physician-assisted suicide is contrary to the holdings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey– a Supreme Court case that largely upheld the decision in Roe v. Wade, thereby making the precedent even firmer.[27] All of these cases iterated the necessity of privacy and individual liberties. All of these cases are controversial to the degree that the decisions associated with them possibly affect the rights of more than just the individual who is making the medical decision; however, in the case of physician-assisted suicide, it is clear that there is only one life that hangs in the balance. There is only one person’s rights that need protections.

            A ban on physician-assisted suicide was never within the intent of the founders. Though many of the founding fathers were pious Christians who may have frowned on suicide, the clear motive behind their early works was ensuring individual liberty. The clear intention of the founders, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, was to create a new nation where people were afforded the greatest amount of liberty possible. In our modern age, we should not reject a fundamental right that is a part of the liberty that the founders intended us to have. The founders were also invested in creating a democratic government that would create laws that reflect the needs and wants of the people. If the Truven polls are correct, then the government needs to do more to ensure that the right to physician-assisted suicide is guaranteed, because that is what Americans want. The policy to allow physician-assisted suicide is a good one. If allowed, the result would be the attribution of a fundamental right to choose one’s fate in the face of terminal illnesses. This would allow greater liberty and less of a government influence in an individual’s medical decision-making.

            The most cited argument against the proposal to allow physician-assisted suicide is that the right to die has never been traditionally considered as a fundamental right. The counter-argument is two-fold. To a certain degree there is a competing tradition that comes in the form of individual liberties. Liberty is chief among America’s most important values, and has been since the founding. In supporting individual liberties, but denying the right to physician-assisted suicide, American tradition is contradicting itself on the point. The second counter-argument is that there is a new emerging tradition. As the Truven Health Analytics survey shows, a majority of Americans now favor the right to physician-assisted suicide.[28] This matters because it reflects that Americans today favor the tradition of individual liberties as well as showing a new opinion about what those individual liberties include.

            The right to physician assisted suicide is a fundamental right. America’s culture is ever-evolving. If there are any founding values that America holds dear it is the value of individual choice, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The text shows the intent of the founders, traditions are evolving, the precedent is set, and the common-sense policy is clear. When the precedent, text, public opinion, tradition, and policy are all on one side, the law ought to reflect it. Whether through the courts, or through the legislature, the United States should ensure that all terminally ill patients have the right to die with dignity.


[1] Scott Miller, The President and the Assassin. New York: Random House. (2011). p. 320 

[2] McDougall, Jennifer Fecio; Gorman, Martha (2008). Contemporary World Issues: Euthanasia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

[3] Truven Health Analytics, Health Poll: Physician Assisted Suicide. (2012, December) retrieved 1/28/13 from

[4] Most Support Voluntary Euthanasia (2007, January 24). BBC News. Retrieved 4/2/13 from

[5] Euthanasia Billboard Approved (2010, October 4) The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 4/2/13 from×7.html

[6] U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 9.

[7] Declaration of Independence

[8] id

[9] Baxter v. Montana (2009) Montana Supreme Court. MT DA 09-0051

[10] Id.

[11] Gonzales v. Oregon (2006). United States Supreme Court. 546 U.S. 243

[12] Id.

[13] Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) United States Supreme Court. 381 U.S. 479

[14] Poe v. Ullman, (1961) United States Supreme Court. 367 U.S. 497

[15] Roe v. Wade, (1973) United States Supreme Court. 410 U.S. 113

[16] Louis Brandeis & Samuel Warren, The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review vol. IV no. 5 (1890).

[17] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992) United States Supreme Court. 505 U.S. 833

[18] Washington v. Glucksburg (1997). United States Supreme Court. 531 U.S. 702

[19] Id.

[20] Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977). United States Supreme Court. 431 U.S. 494

[21] The Washington Death with Dignity Act (2008) retrieved 4/1/13 from

[22] Dworkin, Gerald, et al. (2004) Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against. Cambridge University Press. P. 177

[23] CJ Ryan, Pulling up the Runaway: The Effect of New Evidence on Euthanasia’s Slippery Slope. “Euthanasia in The Netherlands” Vol. 25 pp. 60

[24] Terry Pratchett, (2011) Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die. Retrieved 3/5/13 from

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992) United States Supreme Court. 505 U.S. 833


[28] Truven Health Analytics, Health Poll: Physician Assisted Suicide. (2012, December) retrieved 1/28/13 from

CNU Bucket List

As I have been spending my last couple years at CNU, I have been developing my bucket list. …Now I don’t mean to say I’m going to die anytime soon. I actually think I’ll live forever, based on what I have experienced so far, I have little to suggest otherwise. But I digress…

The purpose of this bucket list is to be able to check off things I definitely want to do before I leave CNU. I can’t think of a student here that does not have a CNU bucket list. Some people want to lead a church small group before their graduations, others want to be able to say that they did some love-making with someone in every residence hall on campus, still others want to be able to say that they knew President Trible personally by the end of their senior year.


 (By the way: Paul, if you are reading this- let’s do a poker night again real soon.)

By the time I am done with school at CNU I want to be able to say that I:

  1. Had a splash-fight in the CNU fountain next to the Luter School of Business
  2. Beat my girlfriend (at least one time) in a legitimate game of tennis
  3. Had a recognizable name on campus due to my writing
  4. Represented the CNU Student Honor Council well through-out my tenure in the organization
  5. Made a legitimate and delicious dinner in my apartment
  6. Ended poverty.

Other optional goals include, but are not limited to:

–          Getting married and then accepted into Catholic seminary school.

–          Representing CNU in the Ultimate Frisbee World Championship.

–          Actually losing at UNO.

–          Creating a teleportation device so that I can visit my family in Maine on a daily basis.

Just like in life, there simply is not enough time to do everything that you want to do while at CNU. I’d love to be the president of three organizations, but unlike in high school, if you want your organizations to succeed, you really can’t head more than one. This lack of time and realistic restrictions on what you are able to do in your time at CNU can seem constricting. However, the triumph of success and the meeting of goals at CNU can be the greatest feelings of your life. 

Flashcards and Midterms

Midterms week and Finals week at CNU can seem like the darkest of times. After weeks of hard work and studying you are confronted with about five days that can make or break everything that you have done in your classes up until that point. As the weeks approach, you can feel like you are standing at the bottom of Mt. Everest, the peak seems so far away and you know that you have a grueling and physically taxing quest ahead of you. The only difference is that when grades come back, you are not necessarily going to feel triumph when you are done.

All around campus people are utilizing their “tried and true” methods for getting the best possible grades on their exams. Some people drink some special energy drink that they “swear makes you way smarter”. Others turn to epic movies like Disney’s Hercules or 300 to motivate them to achieve their best in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

I have my own way, and it has seemed to work quite well each semester. In the realm of everything but math, the best method for me: FLASH CARDS.

These seemingly innocent-looking index cards can be the difference between victory and defeat on test day. The process of writing up the cards in the first place is a great way to review, but if you get someone in your class to sit down and run through the cards with you until you have them memorized, you will find that you can recall just about all the information on those cards when you are taking the test. I’m not saying that it’s fool-proof or it works for everyone, but I’ve noticed that on tests that I have prepped with flashcards, I will usually get ten points more than I usually would.

Outside of flashcards, studying for midterms requires motivation, and, sometimes; company. Girlfriends, boyfriends, best friends, and academic competitors are great to study with. The people you choose to study with ought to challenge you to memorize more and focus as much as possible. The right study partner can make the difference between being prepared, and having played Super Smash Bro’s for six hours straight.

But likely the best advice I can give to students as Midterms or Finals week approaches is to listen and reflect on the words of Samwise Gamgee: “It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.”

“Pew! Pew!”

America doesn’t have a lot going for itself right now. We aren’t the best educated nation, we don’t have the most competitive economy, we have some of the worst income inequality in the world, and the likelihood of social mobility is appalling. So for all of our not-quite-top-of-the-class statuses, at least we can claim that we have the most guns per capita and the most gun death rates!

Okay, so maybe the number of people falling to bullets isn’t something to brag about, but you wouldn’t be able to tell based on the enthusiasm groups of people have for defending their right to own assault weapons without background checks.

This guy looks patriotic to me.

This guy looks patriotic to me.

I’m not trying to imply that pro-gun groups like the NRA want record gun deaths each year. Gun owners are not inherently violent people, neither are the interest groups that they are a part of. It’s pure coincidence that the NRA came into being shortly after the KKK was recognized by Congress as a terrorist organization in 1871

Totally different, you can see my face.

Totally different, you can see my face.

But seriously, in the modern day the NRA is not a racist organization, nor does it endorse shooting anyone besides criminals. In fact, a majority of the NRA’s membership comes from discounts at shooting ranges for members. If you own a gun and you like to shoot it, it’s a really good idea to join the NRA because of the financial benefits. There are also political benefits if you run for office.

The major problem with groups like the NRA is that they utilize slippery-slope logic every time someone proposes legislation that has something to do with gun regulations. A majority of Americans are in favor of background checks before rifles are given out. A majority of Americans are in favor of eliminating the right to assault weapons and hollow-point bullets. A majority of Americans are in favor of  restricting bullet magazines so that a mass murderer can only kill ten people before having to reload. Yet when any of these proposals hit the floor, pro-gun groups are in an uproar asserting that any new regulation will result in the government coming to our homes and confiscating our guns.

Let’s think about the logic behind that. If banning assault weapons leads to the government taking away all our weapons, then couldn’t we argue in the reverse that if we allow assault weapons then we should allow any weapons (including nuclear warheads). The Constitution says “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” so I guess I can have nuclear arms and no one can fault me for it.

If you actually read the second amendment in it’s entirety you can see that it’s been misread for quite a while: “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.” The second amendment is the only amendment in the Constitution that states it’s purpose. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed in the context that the arms are used within a well-regulated militia.

You guys don't count.

You guys don’t count.

The Supreme Court, led by “Originalist” thinkers such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have ruled the right to bear arms as an individual right rather than a collective right based on “American Tradition”. In D.C. v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a law couldn’t be passed to require guns to be unloaded or bound by a trigger lock when not in use. Scalia and Thomas took part in another decision that ruled against partial birth abortions because of how disturbing the procedure is. I agree with them on that, but they must have failed to consider how disturbing it is to find a toddler’s head blown off because their dad left their gun loaded without a trigger lock in the living room.

It turns out that owning a gun results in much more risk than benefits. Family members living in a house with a gun are far more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. But I am digressing.

The main point is that there are people in the government right now that are trying to propose ways in which we can stem the tide of gun violence in the United States. President Obama recently pointed out that over 1,000 people have died due to gun violence since the Sandy Hook School shooting. Some people may argue that this is just political posturing, but the family and friends of those thousand people would probably disagree. America has a problem and there are people trying to fix it.

I don’t think that American citizens need to have assault weapons. To those who would argue that “we need to match what criminals have” I would argue that America doesn’t need to have shootouts at noon in the town square every time someone tries to do something stupid. I think that everyone should have to go through a background check before buying a gun. To those who would argue that “background checks are inconvenient” I would argue that going to a theater and getting shot before the movie starts is inconvenient too. I think that a magazine should have a limit on the number of bullets it can carry. To those who would argue, “We won’t be able to protect our neighborhoods as well,” I would point out; “Because we do such a good job of that in the first place…”

Let's try to cut down on the violence.

Let’s try to cut down on the violence.

Leading at CNU

I’ve found that groups and organizations around CNU are always looking for people to take leadership positions. In fraternities, singing groups, volunteer organizations, and sports teams, leaders are always valuable and desirable. I feel lucky to have become deeply involved in various organizations. In my commitment to these organizations I feel a closer connection to my fellow members and the CNU campus.

I am currently fulfilling my final requirements for CNU’s Leadership Minor. Through the classes I have taken in the subject, I have been challenged to look at organizations and groups through the lens of leadership. This doesn’t just involve watching the president of every organization, this involves focusing yourself to push the organization to be better regardless of the position you are in.

In Phi Alpha Delta (the Pre-Law Fraternity), Trebled Youth (an A Capella group) and even in CHECs (the student judicial appeal) I have seen some of my peers step up to take positions when there is a need for them. In high school it was always frustrating to see individuals pursue leadership positions for the glory or the resume-fodder. At CNU I have seen responsible people take on leadership positions when they see a need, and they feel that they can do the best job. It is for this reason that many of CNU’s clubs and activities are very well-run.

The most visible way that this leadership maturity can be seen is in students’ willingness to take positions like secretary, and treasurer in a group and still deliver their 100% even if the position does not offer them bragging rights. I have seen students defer greater leadership positions that they want to other people that they think can do a better job because they want what is best for the organization.

If you have members of student groups and organizations that care as much about the group as the president of the organization then you have a highly effective group. CNU is filled with these organizations. If you take your time to find a group that follows the same passions that you do, you will find that you become a leader in the group in no time at all.