Hand in Hand: Truth & Love; Will Grayson & Will Grayson

          I recently started reading the book "Will Grayson, Will Grayson" by John Green and David Levithan. This story is told in two, first-person narratives. When Will Grayson and Will Grayson coincidentally (or not) meet, Will Grayson A (I'll be referring to them as Will Grayson A and Will Grayson 1) had just had his heart broken by finding out his online love was actually a cruel joke played by his not-so-great-of-a friend, Maura. Both of the Will Graysons talk about truth and love, and how they make each other possible, and yet also suck. I thought this would be a blog-worthy thing to write about.
          Will Grayson A, who was mid-emotional breakdown, said to Will Grayson 1, "you know what sucks about love?" To which Will Grayson 1 replies, "what?" W.G. A says, that it's so tied to the truth." When W.G. A says this, he says it because he just found out that his love, Isaac, who he had talked to online every day for over a year, was completely unreal. Isaac was the one good thing in his life, the one person he didn't completely hate, or wasn't simply tolerating, and now he finds out that it was all a sick joke. The anguish and anger and despair he must feel is absolutely ginormous. But what he wishes, and what he expresses through that excerpt of dialogue, is that he wishes he could still have the feelings he had without having to know that Isaac wasn't real. He says that it sucks that love can't just be love-- it has to be connected with truth, and troubles, and difficulties, and everything else
          Will Grayson 1, trying to comfort Will Grayson A in some way, tries to think of something to say. Eventually, he says, "I know it sucks, but in a way, it's good." Ehhh... Not the best thing to say. But then, he says, "Love and truth being tied together, I mean. They make each other possible, you know?" And those two sentences bump up the worth of the first sentence by quite a bit; Will Grayson thought so too. What Will Grayson 1 is trying to say, is that without truth, what is love? Just random emotion, floating around, with no true meaning behind it. The feeling would still be there, but what would it's purpose be? And what would truth be, if there weren't any emotions or feelings to back it up? It would just be fact, and that's what life would become: entirely factual. Will Grayson A realizes that too.
          Truth and love are two things that you can count on to truly be hand in hand. It's like those are two "truths" in life you can count on (heh). And I agree with what Will Grayson 1 said, it sucks, but they make each other sound and possible. Love without truth is just pointless feeling, and truth without love is nearly pointless. If the two weren't permanently joined and always associated with each other, what would life be? Just random emotions mixed in with cold hard facts, and there would be no relationships of any sort, no emotional communication (well, that would mean anything, anyway)-- life wouldn't really have much of a purpose. Although it definitely does suck, because love can also come with some sad truths, without it, where would we be?

Friar Lawrence, Holy Or Not?

          In "Romeo & Juliet" by William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet get married very quickly. This, and a few other things leads to their horrific ending. Romeo and Juliet get married after a few days of knowing each other, and Friar Lawrence marries them. Friar Lawrence is a very interesting character, because although he is a "friar", and he often guides many people religiously, and in general, he makes some very unethical decisions.
          When Romeo comes to Friar Lawrence and tells him that he wants to get married to Juliet, Friar Lawrence is surprised that Romeo had gotten over Rosaline so fast, and tells Romeo to slow it down. He says, "Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear, so soon forgotten?" by which he means, 'Jeez! You got over her quickly!' Romeo informs him that he does not care for Rosaline anymore, but is the "fair daughter of rich Capulet" that now intoxicates him. To that, Friar Lawrence responds, "Young men's love then lies not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes." By that, the Friar means that Romeo is only basing his love on Juliet's looks, not her actual personality. Which, in my opinion, (sorry to you romantics out there) is definitely true. Friar Lawrence clearly thinks so, and so he is disapproving of Romeo and Juliet's relationship. He also advises Romeo, "Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast." He is telling Romeo to slow it down, and get to know Juliet a little better before marrying her. This shows that Friar Lawrence is a good, wise mentor and guide. However, during this encounter, he then agrees to marry them because he thinks it could resolve the feud between the two families. This is where ethics come into play.
          Some people might say that Friar Lawrence did the right thing by agreeing to marry them, because as we talked about in class, he did it for the greater good. Some people, like myself however, think he was partially in the wrong. I'll admit, he definitely gave Romeo a lot of advice, but it was clear that Romeo wasn't fully processing the advice, or really considering what he and Juliet were doing. Friar Lawrence told Romeo to "slow it down", but he is the one who's helping him get married. Although he does post-pone the marriage a few weeks, a few weeks probably isn't going to do much for their relationship. Since he has the power to marry, we can assume that Friar Lawrence has a fair amount of power involving the church, and that people often come to him for advice and consolation. He may have told Romeo the right things, but he didn't deliver them with much conviction, and he didn't make sure they had an impact because deep down, he wants Romeo and Juliet to get married as soon as possible. This was very unethical of him. Some people might argue that he was justified, and he did make his case, but he really didn't do all that he could. If a teacher just recited information to a class, but not a single one of them understood, that teacher would not be considered doing their job.
          Friar Lawrence is such an interesting character because although he has huge responsibilities as a "mentor", he still chooses to literally risk these two teenagers' lives to try and stop the feud. Romeo and Juliet make a lot of rash decisions, and as you go on throughout the play, they kind of snowball on top of each other. There are also a lot of people along the way who could've prevented many of the tragedies that occur during this story, and Friar Lawrence is one of them. When Romeo came to him for advice, Friar Lawrence saw an opportunity and took it. Ironically, he makes a rash decision to sacrifice Romeo and Juliet for the "greater good", and the repercussions were truly gruesome.
          Decisions are almost never just the "good" decision and the "bad" decision. Even when you try to balance things out, or make somewhat of an effort to do one thing, even when you are choosing the other, it is often the minor details that have the greatest impact, and every little decision counts. I think that was one thing that Shakespeare was trying to get us to realize: just how much every decision we make affects other people. I think it's an extremely important lesson for everyone to realize, and although this story is quite dramatic, Shakespeare eloquently displays just how one little thing can lead to another, and another, and so on and so on until you have a complete and utter tragedy.



P.S. Good luck to everyone tomorrow!!!!! 

Romeo & Juliet: Going Too Fast? Or Getting Pushed To Do So?

          In ELA, we are currently reading "Romeo and Juliet" by William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet is about a young boy and girl from two enemy households (Romeo: Montague, Juliet: Capulet), who fall madly in love, and in a horrible mix up, both end up killing themselves. While reading this  script, I noticed a certain theme. Throughout the text, there is a lot of reference to people "coming of age", and reminiscing over children growing up too fast.
          Shortly after the initial fight scene, Paris talks to Capulet about his wishes to marry Juliet. To Capulet, he says, "Younger than she are happy mothers made." By this, Paris is saying that girls younger than her are happily married and have children, so Juliet should be perfectly fine with it. In response, Capulet says, "And too soon marred are those so early made." By "made", Capulet means "married", and he is saying that by getting married so soon, Juliet will lose the freedom of life too soon, and it should be lost later in life (in adulthood). They clearly disagree.
           When Lady Capulet is first talking to Juliet about marriage, Lady Capulet and Nurse are talking about Juliet's age. Lady Capulet says, "She's not fourteen". "I'll lay fourteen of my teeth (and yet, to my teen be it spoken, I have but four) she's not fourteen," agrees Nurse. At the same time however, they are reminiscing. Nurse goes on a long, ranting story of when Juliet was just a child; "'Tis since the earthquake now eleven years, / And she was weaned (I never shall forget it)/ Of all the days of the year, upon that day...." In this manner, it appears as if Juliet is growing up very fast, and that they are saying that she is young. Soon after, however, Lady Capulet proposes the idea of marriage to Juliet, and tells her of Paris's wish to marry her. When Juliet says that she respects the idea of marriage, but does not wish it for herself just yet, her mother replies, "Younger than you/Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,/Are made already mothers. By my count/I was your mother much upon these years/That you are now a maid." By this, Lady Capulet is saying that at age 13, Juliet should be glad to be a mother; respectable women were mothers at ages younger than 13, and Lady Capulet herself was a mother at around Juliet's age. By these words, it seems as if Lady Capulet is pushing Juliet to become more mature then (in my opinion) she ought to be at such a young age. All of these conflicting messages both support the concept of my theme.
           In Act 1, Scene 5, at the party, Capulet is talking to his Cousin about how long it's been since they last attended a masquerade party. Capulet's Cousin says it's been thirty years, but Capulet is saying it hasn't been that long: "Some five and twenty years, and then we masked." His cousin then replies, "'Tis more, 'tis more. His son is elder, sir. His son is thirty." To which Capulet replies, "Will you tell me that?/ His son was but a ward (one under the care of a guardian) two years ago." Capulet is saying that time has gone by very quickly, and he cannot believe how fast "his" son has grown. Although this is a minor detail within the story (barely), it still stood out to me, because there's quite a lot of talk of children/teenagers becoming, or not yet becoming adults.
           In class, we're often told to consider why Romeo and Juliet fell so madly in love, and if we think it was smart for their relationship to escalate so quickly as it did. While thinking about the theme that I noticed, I came to a realization. Many people say that Romeo and Juliet's love for each other was just lust, and that it happened way too quickly, and at too young an age. But really, how can we blame them? Throughout the story, there are so many conflicting pieces of advice, or orders about how to act, and what actions should be done in affiliation with their ages. It is true, they do agree to be married very shortly after they meet each other, but what about Paris and Juliet? Do they know each other any better than Romeo and Juliet know each other? Put yourself in Juliet's shoes. Here she is, constantly being told that she is an adult, but also often being defended as a child/teenager. Then, she learns she is soon to be forced to get married to an adult man. Then comes along Romeo, someone actually her age, and they fall in love. Was it really that unwise, or that ridiculous? They're constantly handed responsibilities as adults, and relationship-wise treated like adults, so it was quite understandable that they fell in love as adults, or that they felt they did. Maybe it wasn't just Romeo and Juliet being careless and impulsive, maybe it was how they were treated that made them act the way they did.

Should The Rich Pay Higher Taxes?

          In the article "Should The Rich Pay Higher Taxes?", the opinions from two men are taken, and both are meant to persuade the reader one way or the other. On this issue of taxes for or not for the rich, Robert B. Reich, U.S. Secretary of Labor (1993-1997) feels that the rich should pay higher taxes. "The government isn't collecting enough money to pay for everything we want it to do. If the rich don't pay more, the rest of us will have to. Otherwise, we'll have to do without good schools, roads, bridges, national defense, and everything else we expect from our government." Reich wants the reader to know that the government needs money. The government needs money, and the only way to get enough is to tax the rich. Without it, we will lose many national necessities. "The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together." For Reich, it is a clear choice-- yes!
          On the other side of the argument, John Lott, economist and commentator, feels differently. "One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that incentives matter. The higher the wages, the harder most people work. And lower taxes let people keep more of each dollar they earn and make them want to work more." Increasing the taxes on the wealthy would mean that a lot of the money they earned would go to the government. If that were the case, they might see their actual paycheck and think, 'What's the point? Why should I work so hard when I barely get any of the money I'm earning?' Lott says that the wealthy should be rewarded for their hard work. Lott also says, "The U.S. has a higher income tax rate than most countries. On top of that, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, 40 percent.... Tax rates have been falling around the world for decades, and the countries with the lowest tax rates--like Chile and Singapore-- have had the fastest economic growth." For Lott, it's a clear no!
          Overall, whoever put this article together wants the reader to see that there were two plausible, reasonable sides to this relevant debate. Both of the educated, well-informed men providing the sides of the argument get their points across with convincing facts and numbers, as well as responses to the counter-claims/reasons people are against their points of view. In response to the "yes" side of the argument, Lott says, "Our tax system is already unfair. Americans' taxes increase sharply with income," and then gives an example. He feels that the tax system the way it is now is unfair, and increasing it would make it even worse. He also regards the national debt, which is the major reason for this tax debate, "Our $16 trillion dollar national debt is a huge problem, but it's the result of spending too much, not taxing too little." In response to the "no" side of the argument, Reich says, "Raising taxes would not slow the economy.... Nor are the rich especially good "job creators". Jobs are created when companies need more employees to handle increasing sales. But so much wealth has been going to the top that the rest of us don't have money to buy what companies could sell with more employees." Both sides effectively get their points across, and make sure that they address the counterclaims while using factual and persuasive evidence.
          Personally, I think that we should increase taxes on the rich. I agree with Lott, I'm sure that low-tax economies like Chile and Singapore are highly functioning, and I would love to have low taxes here too, but unfortunately, at this moment, we really can't afford it. Maybe we did get our debt by spending too much, but at this moment, we need to tax the rich. Right now, our main focus is getting ourselves out of this trillions of dollars of debt, and I'm afraid keeping taxes the way they are right now isn't going to be of much help in that situation. I also agree with Reich; the rich aren't especially good "job creators". What is often referred to as the "trickle down" effect has not worked, and something needs to be changed. Really, it's all a big cycle; the middle and lower classes purchase things from the upper class, or help their businesses grow and thrive, and in turn, the upper classes employ middle and lower class, and lower prices. Whether you think that cycle starts with the middle class benefiting or the upper class benefiting, our current economic strategy (favoring the upper class) has not been improving our economy, and it's definitely time for a change. It's time for the upper class to carry some of the economic weight that has been for the most part, leaning on the lower and middle classes.

Anne Frank, Meant to Be?

          Along with another book, I am currently reading, "The Diary of Anne Frank" written by Anne Frank. I have also recently just been cast in the MS51 production of Anne Frank, so I am also looking over the script. Needless to say, I've been thinking about this story a lot recently. Throughout her diary, Anne Frank mentions that she wants to be a writer quite a bit. It's really unbelievable how her dream came true, though not I'm guessing, how she thought it would.
          During Anne Frank's time in the Secret Annexe, she lived with many other people such as her parents, Edith and Otto Frank, her sister Margot Frank, family friends Hermann, Petronella, and Peter van Daan, and a dentist, Albert Dussel. In the end, all of them perish except for Otto Frank, Anne's father. When he returned to Holland after being released from a concentration camp, he had to wait awhile to find out what had happened to the rest of his fellow Annexe members. During that time, he received Anne's diary. Once he found out what had happened to his family and friends, he spent the rest of his life devoted to getting her diary published. Now, Anne Frank's diary is probably the most well-known document of the Holocaust.
          To me, it seems almost unreal that Anne wrote her diary without knowing what would become of it. Her writing was exceptional; the members of her family and life play out such a string of events that it seems as if they were actually written as a fictional story; most of all, the fact that her diary made it's way back to Otto Frank and were then eventually published is incredible. I don't quite know how to put it, but it's almost as if Anne's story was meant to become so infamous. The way that she documented her life, and what she chose to document had ample potential for a story. There's so much detail about the setting, her emotions and thought processes, information about the Holocaust, and such details and quotes from the fellow members of her life that it continuously astounds me that this was a diary she kept without knowledge of what a big piece of history it would become.
          In the very beginning of her diary she writes, "It's an odd idea for someone like me to keep a diary; not only because I have never done so before, but because it seems to me that neither I -- nor for that matter anyone else -- will be interested in the unbosomings of a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl." That line gives me chills. It's almost as if she's foreshadowing the rest of the life of that precious diary that she's writing in. She also writes, "There is a saying that 'paper is more patient than man'... Yes, there is no doubt that paper is patient and as I don't intend to show this cardboard-covered notebook, bearing the proud name of "diary," to anyone, unless I find a real friend, boy or girl, probably nobody cares." Yes, to her, paper was more patient than man. Little did she know that later there would be millions of patient men and women choosing to read her diary, taking in every page. I think it's definitely safe to say that there are tons of people who care about Anne Frank.
          The story of Anne Frank and her diary is astonishing. The many factors of Anne Frank's life and time in the Annexe contribute to an extremely substantial primary knowledge document of the the Holocaust. Out of over six million Jews, Anne's story became famous. Out of all of the members of the Secret Annexe, only Otto Frank survived. Anne's diary made it's way to Otto Frank, the only surviving member of the family, and the Annexe, and because he survived, he was able to work extremely hard to get her diary published. There were so many events that brought Anne's diary here today -- was it meant to be?

To the "Otherside" and Back

          In the song "Otherside", written by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, performed by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Fences, he (Macklemore, the rapper) talks about the promotion of drug addiction throughout the rap industry and his personal story of relapsing. It's hard for me not to analyze every single line of this song because it's so well written and meaningful, but alas, I can't. Full lyrics here.
          Macklemore himself relapsed in 2008. At this point he had come out with two albums -- The Language of Our World, and The Unplanned Mixtape. In the song, Macklemore talks about how rap artists he listened to and looked up to, such as Lil Wayne, would always talk about drugs. Macklemore knew he wanted to be a rap artist since he was pretty young, and he listened to other rappers. He wants kids to know that you shouldn't listen to "the system". By the system, he means the rappers in the media and the portrayed image of those rappers. He listened to rap music all the time, and he can show firsthand, the effects of those lyrics. You don't think you're ever going to go too far, but you will.
          "Little did he know it was just as addictive as base/... Months later the use went up/ and every blunt was accompanied by the pink stuff/ But Goddamn he loved that feelin/... liquid to fix and it comes with a cost/ Wake up, cold sweat, scratchin, itchin/ trying to escape the skin that barely fit him/ Gone, get another bottle just get a couple swallows headed/ towards the bottom/ couldn't get off it/ Didn't even think he had a problem/ Though he couldn't sleep without getting nauseous/ Room spinnin/ Thinking he might of sipped just a little too much of that cough syrup/ His eyelids closed shut/ Sat back in the chair/ clutchin that cup/ Girlfriend came a couple of hours later said his name shook him but he never got up/ never got up, never got up/ we live on the cusp of death thinking that it won't be us." He got addicted, and loved it, so he didn't try to stop. Then, he overdosed and died. Macklemore isn't messing around. His lyrics are straightforward, and I'm sure they're pretty accurate for most teens/young adults. He got addicted to cough syrup, but what gave him that push?
          "He rolled up, asked what he was sippin on/ said lean-- you wanna hit it dawn?/ That's the same stuff Weezy's sippin huh?/ And tons of other rappers that be spittin hard" and "The easter pink, heard it in a rhyme before/ finally got to see what all the hype was on/ And then he took a sip sittin in the Lincoln/ thinkin he was pimpin as he listened to the system". Macklemore wants the listener to know that that kid (whether or not he's talking about himself in third person) was doing all of that simply because he'd heard rappers rap about it. He's also emphasizing that it's just hype and that he doesn't support it. The line I really liked was, "And then he took a sip sittin in the Lincoln/thinkin he was pimpin as he listened to the system". He doesn't mean "listening to the system" as in taking orders/listening to authority, he means listening to the system meaning the peer pressure that is the media. Yeah, it's illegal, but popular artists promote it all the time; it's still listening to them. "And he just wanted to act like them/ He just wanted to rap like him," those kids just want to be just like those rappers, so they do all this stuff thinking that by doing it they'll be just as successful and praised.
          The whole rap industry is constantly pushing for these kids to follow their lead. "Despite how Lil Wayne lives/it's like conducive to being creative/ And I know cause he's my favorite/ And I know cause I was off that same mix/ Rationalize the stuff that I tried after I listened to dedication (A mixtape by Lil Wayne and DJ Drama)/ I sip that stuff pass out or play playstation". He's been through it all. When he says "he's an alien", he's talking about how he did just what he did and realized he had no idea how Lil Wayne did it, because it was too much for him. It's too much for kids, but it's hard for them to resist seeing as the people they listen to and look up to are always telling them to do it. That's the type of music that sells in the rap industry. "Surprise, you know the drill/ Trapped in a box to climb record sales/ Follow the formula/ violence, drugs, and sex sells/ So we try to sound like someone else/ This is not Californication/ There's no way to glorify this pavement/ Syrup, percocet, and an eighth day will leave you broke, depressed and emotionally vacant".
          The "chorus" of the song is "Oh girl, this boat is sinking/ there's no sea left for me/ and how the sky gets heavy/ when you are underneath it/ oh I want to sail away from here/ and God, he came down x8, and sailed (down x8) nothing". At the beginning, "oh girl, this boat is sinking/ there's no sea left for me" makes me think his journey with this girl, or with this lifestyle has stopped midway, their sailing travel, because the boat is sinking and there's no place for him farther along that path. He had made a decision previously to go down this road, or sail across that sea, but midway, he feels his world is crumbling down and he realizes there's no place for him there, probably when he's talking about when he relapsed. There's no "sea" left for him to sail over. When he says, "and how the sky gets heavy when you are underneath it/oh i want to sail away from here", I think he means he's realized how dismal that place is, and the people he's with are, and he just wants to sail away. "and God, he came down x8 and sailed nothing" -- by saying this, I think he's trying to represent how God looked down upon him and saw his conflict -- keep sailing in this broken boat that is soon to sink, try and sail away, and God did neither. He didn't help him along a certain path, because God was disappointed in him.
          Macklemore, has been to the "Otherside" and back. He nearly died from overdose. As a rapper, he knows firsthand the pressures of rap music, and as a listener and a young kid, he succumbed to it all: "Us as rappers underestimate the power in the effects that we have on these kids". He's trying to share his story and get people of all types to stop this epidemic in the rap industry. He wants kids to stay above it, because you don't have to do it to be successful-- just look at Macklemore! "Thinkin I would never do that/ not that drug/ Growin up nobody ever does/ Until you're stuck lookin in the mirror like I can't believe what I've become/ Swore I was gonna be someone/ Growin up everyone always does/ We sell our dreams and potential to escape through that buzz/ Just keep me up, keep me up/ Hollywood here we come". Overall, it's a fantastic song, I suggest you listen to it.

Gun Control or Gun Protection?

          I just read the article, "The Gun Debate", from the January 28, 2013 issue of Uprfront Magazine. In this article, the author, Patricia Smith, gives a history of gun laws and gives a brief description of each side of the argument. I think that the author, like me, is pro-gun control.
         Like Smith says, "The debate over guns in America goes back to 1791, when the Bill of Rights, the 10 amendments, was adopted." Gun control/gun rights has been an ongoing issue for a very long time. This can also be said to be one of the main reasons it's so difficult to make changes involving it because people refer to it as a right they've had since when the Bill of Rights was adopted, suggesting because it's so old, it's a given right. Right, because a document created over two centuries ago, written for when the Revolutionary War was taking place is totally appropriate as a dictator of our gun laws today. "Long one of the Constitution's most disputed passages, the Second Amendment reads, in its entirety: "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." In 2008, more than 200 years after the framers wrote the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court finally ruled on what it means: The Court says it applies to individuals, not just militias." This means that, even if you disagree with their translation of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has recently decided that it applies to individuals, to just militias. This has been the basis of many pro-gun arguments, stating that people have the right to own a gun in self-defense.
          Another part of gun history is that gun control laws have often been passed after tragic events involving guns such as an assassination or a shooting. "After the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prevented mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns and banned felons and drug users from owning guns. The 1994 Brady law, which spurred in part by the 1981 attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, created a national system of background checks for gun purchases," and so on. A huge reason gun control is such a big topic of conversation right now is due to the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. People are reasonably demanding new gun restrictions to prevent guns such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which was what 20-year-old Adam Lanza used in December by to kill 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, Connecticut. "The AR-15 rifle that was used in the Newtown shooting was the civilian version of the military's M-16 and M-4 rifles. It's been used repeatedly in mass shootings: the killing of 12 people in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July, and the killing of two people in a Portland, Oregon shopping mall in early December."
          I think it's ridiculous that it hasn't already been banned, seeing as it's appeared in so many gun-related tragedies. Even after Newtown, there have been more school shootings. Just today, there was a shooting at Lone Star College in Texas. So far it seems as if it wasn't a planned mass infliction, but it did occur after two students had some sort of altercation near the campus library (See article here). The fact is, shootings like those are becoming quite common, and actions need to be taken against these guns, especially the semi-automatic guns that can hold from thirty to hundreds of bullets.
          Gun-rights groups (the most powerful would be the National Rifles Association, a.k.a. the NRA) argue that gun control laws restrict the right to bear arms and cripple their ability to protect themselves from criminals. "The vast majority of gun owners, the N.R.A. says, use firearms responsibly". Well, of course that's true. There are not hundreds of thousands of people like Adam Lanza who intend to use guns for such awful purposes as mass shootings, etc., but just because most people use it responsibly does not mean that the few disturbed people out there will hesitate to go out and purchase a semi-automatic rifle and shoot dozens of people.  All it takes is one psycho out of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to do something awful. "Guns are why we're free in this country, and people lose sight of that when tragedies like this happen," said Scott Ostrosky. "A gun didn't kill all those children. A disturbed man killed those children." Ostrosky owns a gun range in Newtown. Yes, it was Adam Lanza who administered the gun and shot those 26 people, but do you think if he hadn't had a semi-automatic rifle and carried hundreds of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill the entire school, that those children and adults would still be dead, today? Because I sure don't. It was his idea and his action to fire that gun, but our loose gun laws made it possible.
          As Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said, "this tragedy exposes our gun laws for what they really are: wildly inadequate and utterly insane."