In her article called, “Guns ad politics in the United States,” Marjan Chizari states that the NRA [National Rifle Association] and gun lobbies succeeded in the planning and influencing the politicians.” So, citizens of the United States can feed their obsession with gun possession. She presented evidence of 2015  statistics of mass shooting arguing that owning guns is a terrible things. The statistics of the  amount of people injured and  deceased by gun injuries was shocking. There were “13,286 [people] killed and 26,819  injured.” Too be honest the data is pretty alarming. 

Marjan  believes that the solution to the problem of the mass shooting in the United States is only allowing government workers, public servants to carry weapons. Hunters on the other hand should only be allowed to cary a gun with a state license and citizens should not carry nothing unless it's a special reason. She presented a graph proving that the United States has the most number of shootings compared to Canada, Uk and Australia, who have law control laws. This is a big problem, and the government has done nothing to fix it. The only solution considered correct right now is for everyone to carry a gun for their safety. 

Normal people carrying a gun is wrong, so I agree with Marjan’s solution to mass shooting. Nobody  having a gun is better than everyone having  a gun. I believe it is absurd to think that everyone is claiming that they are  buying a gun for their protection when they could be planning to shoot a school, church or even to harm their own family. 

A law that enforces gun control is the best thing that could happen to the United States, It’s just common sense.  An article by Even DeFilippis and Devin Hughes  called, “ The myth of the good guy with a gun,” Backs up the idea and they say that, “ The NRA is wrong: Owning a gun is far more likely to harm you than protect you.” They found pretty interesting information from a meta analysis of 16 studies. They found that “gun ownership doubles the risk of suicide and triples the risk of homicide.” This is socking, so I also believe that only government officials and professionals should have guns. This would lower dramatically the number of shootings throughout the nation. The United States would be safe, and there would be one less cause of leading death. 

It is unbelievable that the United States still uses death penalty as a form of punishment for capital crimes in the 21st century. Death penalty should be forbidden in this country. It is cruel to take a human beings life. The decision of weather someone deserves to die should only lay in gods hand. This country is known for being strong, free and fair and this is only possible because of justice. But is justice murdering a murder? Just "last year there were 28 deaths and there has been 18 deaths this year so far"(Bureau of justice statistics). Those criminals were probably horrible, but they did not deserve to die, after all, their act is also being used to punish other dangerous criminal.
The eighth amendment in the constitution says " excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fine imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." So how is death penalty not cruel and unusual? The person was sentenced to death probably because he was a criminal, but we forget that he was a sibling, a parent, an uncle or even a loving husband who might have made a huge mistake by letting his impulses control his actions. The saddest thing about death penalty used to punish bad humans is that a lethal injection is not the only form of death penalty allowed and used in america over the years. According to the death penalty information center other methods used in the United States to punish criminals include electrocution, gas chamber, hanging and two states can also use a "fire squad if something goes wrong or if the prisoner prefers another way to die besides the lethal injections."(Bureau of justice statistics, capital punishment 2011). This has been used in the past but even considering the fact that someone has to go through something another form of punishment besides being sedated to death is just wrong. For me that is cruel and not even a criminal deserves to die by human decision.
I believe life long imprisonment is enough punishment for a person. Death penalty is absurd not only because we are assassinating as a form of punishment for assassination, but we are killing a horrible person, which is like letting them rest in peace, since they feel fear for their life only for an instant. When we could imprison them for the rest of their life. At least in jail the criminal would remember every single day that they did something wrong and they are suffering because of that.

I totally agree with Vanessa; families should not be torn apart by deportation, after all, this would only harm our country economy. An article in the U.S News called “undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes,” by Soergel Andrews, backed up your point after it affirmed that, “A study from The Institute of Taxation and Policies...found that illegal immigrants contribute with [the counties economy by] nearly 12 billion each year in in incomes, property, sales and taxes.” This means that even with Trumps new plan of deporting only 3 million immigrants, we would still see dramatic changes in our country’s economy. 

It would be better if instead of deporting immigrants they where given a permanent residence or citizenship to the United States. You mentioned a comment made by Raul Hinojosa, professor of UCLA stating that “undocumented  population typically gets about 20% less wage”(Vanessa). You pointed out the benefits the companies had, but not the reasons why the immigrants get less wage. I think it might because, most immigrants work in jobs where the salary is illegally bellow the minimal wage. They have jobs that, to be honest most americans consider a waste of time,money, and effort. Immigrants have long shifts, yet they have no insurance or benefits. This is better for the companies but not the for people. 

However, if the undocumented people were given a residency or a citizenship, they would be treated fairly, they would not fear being deported if they claimed their rights. They would be paid more, and they would have to pay their taxes if they never have. Tearing families apart and building a wall is not the solution for immigration problems, but giving more opportunities to people from other countries with visas and punishing only criminal is. After all, the great America is built upon immigrants.

I believe congress is the broken branch of government, and it needs to make many improvements. Congress represents the people of the United States, and in its representation it makes laws to protect their rights,insure there comfort and security. Congress has done a great job job passing laws to protect us. However, many times the house and the senate can not agree with decisions and when they do it's as if their only preference was towards certain people instead of every single individual that is part of this country.
An example of this was the Dream act proposal that was denied by congress a few years ago. This act would allow students to gain permanent residence in the united states. I think congress denied this without considering the fact that this act would help the United States grow as a nation and build a greater society. It could have been denied because of the illegal status of the students or lack of funds for it to be possible, but if this would  been approved we would have a greater america in the future.
 I believe if congress was strong and more united there would have been a solution for immigration long ago.

                      “Selfie addicts should be penalized in every state for sharing selfies in voting polls.”

Millennial’s and their sick need to document everything to social media is getting out of control. With voting just around the corner, cameras and selfies should be banned from voting polls in the entire county and not just in a few states. People who share pictures of voting material should be persecuted and punished. Specially in the  states that still use the old voting machines that are easily hacked. 

Taking selfies can have more  repercussions in our voting system, than the amount of likes the selfie will receives in social media. According to the article by CBS news called “Hacker demonstrates how voting machines can be compromised ” the Brennan Center for Justice, " found that more than 40 states are using voting machines there that are at least 10 years old." 

 So, what would be the worst thing happen if someone takes a selfie in the early voting and upload it to social media? Well,  In the article it mentions that a way to hack the machines is, “ to get an affordable device off line, that costs 15 dollars and in depth knowledge of the card”(CBS). A selfie or photograph showing the card used for voting can  easily give out information needed to manipulate the amount of votes in the machines. 

However, hacking is not the only problems selfies can drag.  Voters taking pictures could show off their votes  to prove they have voted for certain person, and receive money or other benefits for it.  In Mexico this problem is visible and is well known to happen. Political candidates buy their votes with money, food stamps or a promise of personal benefits in the future. The only thing needed is a proof  of your vote (photograph). This is ridiculous and people with low income find it almost impossible to deny the offer. Their moral does not matter as long as they can support their family. Banning cameras and photographs in the voting polls of every state would prevent this from happening, and it would give the voters liberty to vote for whoever they believe will build a better future for our country and not for a simple benefit. 

Many of us believe the candidates for this years elections are not presidential material, but like the article “Hillary Clinton for president” from The Washington Post says, “Hillary has the potential to be a good president and not just because her opponent is dreadful” She is more knowledgable, prepared, and she is just our best option.  In this article the author is convinced that every voter should vote even if they don't think neither of the candidates are adequate. The article is persuading the voters to vote for Hillary. The author has bias towards Hillary, but provides negative facts of both candidates. The article mentions things Clinton has done wrong, but it also mentions things she has done right. For example it's mentioned that, “As first lady, she failed when she tried to radically remake the American health-care system. Instead of retreating, she reentered the fray to help enact a more modest but important reform expanding health-care access to poor children.” So, I agree with the opinion of this author, I consider that none of the candidates are perfect, but Hillary is more prepared, has more experience in political issues, and her reputation is far better than Donald Trump’s. Nothing changes the fact that his is one of the most ridiculous election of all times. Donald Trump should have dropped from the elections after the multiple racist offenses he made against Mexicans,Muslims and specially women. It would just be shameful to have him as president of one of the most prestigious Nations. Hillary has done suspicious thing and have been accused of many others. However, there is no poof of many things that are being said about her, so why not vote for her?  Donald Trump would be a far worst president, even compared to Mexico’s who has done nothing to make his county progress. At least he doesn't have a reputation of making any form of disrespectful comments towards people. Trump on the other hand  would not only be a bad image to our county for the way he speaks, but knowing how he acts, he could easily damage our county for good. 

"How much damage could a president trump do?

Once again, one of many journalists from the Washington post has written about how Donald Trump would be a disaster if he were to be elected president. The title of the article is, "How much damage could a president trump do? We can only begin to imagen." The title itself resumes the entire point of the article; which is intended for all the voters; specially, those who have considered voting for trump. The authors main argument is about the cons of having trump as a president it states that "[trump]could, in fact, unilaterally order mass deportation, resume torturing detainees, undue the preservation of of natural treasures and tear up long standing trade arguments."(Editorial Board) The reason for believing this is the fact that it is long known that "Trump quickens to take offense, has lack of impulse control, so it is natural to focus on the most extreme possibilities."(Editorial Board) He would be a disaster as president. The authors name is not specified, but all his statements and assumptions of what could happen if trump is president are accurate and reliable. If this article was indeed to persuade voters to see reality and vote for Hillary Clinton, I agree. I agree with the opinion of the author of this article and so does the majority of Americans. Donald Trump as president is the worst thing that can happen to this country. Although many people believe neither Trump or Hillary are president material; Hillary is much more prepared for the role as president. She  is way more responsible, respectful and knowledgeable.