"Thoreau sees the natural law and human law as antagonistic and separate from each other, as he says: "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first and subjects afterward" (p. 222)."

Thoreau is trying to say that no person should have to limit their natural rights for the law. For example, no one should feel like they are inclined to do something only because the law says so. He is saying that people should remember we are human beings before we followers of the government. It relates to the theme of the lecture because the lecture talks on people in U.S history who felt the need to fight for all their rights as human beings with natural rights before they were law-abiding citizens.

"I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy".

This quote by Price provides the perfect reason why the Second Amendment, which is the right to bear arms, should be abolished. The reason being is the extensive history the U.S has with gun violence against our children. These include the massacre at Columbine in April of 1999, Virginia Tech in April of 2007, and Sandy Hook Elementary in School in December 2012. Each of these massacres involve multiple murders of very young children, at minimum 6 years old, to teens in high school and adolescents in college. The right to bear arms has been taken full advantage of by those who believe it is justifiable to take another's life. It is also a wrongdoing by those who put firearms in the hands of those under 21 years of age and without a license.

I chose this quote to talk about because in my opinion, there are people out in today's modern world who are insensitive to the killings that have been done towards our youth. The killers of the victims can arguably be children as well, so it is a shame to see how history for the youth is becoming nowadays. Price pointed out the best reason why we can push to start the process of exterminating gun violence, although in reality it will not die away in its entirety. I also found it interesting that she said the Constitution is the only document fit enough to make American realize what its intention is to do, which is give society structure in a peaceful manner.

In this essay, Bachrach and Baratz are concerned with analyzing political power. The concept of power is a central concept in political science, but its meaning is elusive. They begin from a previous discussion regarding the nature of power between sociologist C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl, a leading "pluralist theorist" in political science. Bachrach and Baratz side with Dahl, arguing that Mills sees power in a one-dimensional sense, unlike the theory of pluralism which sees power divided up between different groups. Mills most famous work in this area was The Power Elite first published in 1956 at the height of the Cold War. Mills argued that political power in the U.S. was concentrated among what he called the "power elite" or the close-knit group made up of government bureaucracy, the military, and corporate elites. This view was affirmed by of all people Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Commander during World War II and President of the U.S. during the 1950s, who in his farewell address warned of the "military-industrial complex" which seems to parallel what Mills called the power elite.


                   In my opinion, the meaning of this paragraph describes the perspective of power by two different sociologist who both make valid points in todays political system. C. Wright Mills views power as "one-dimensional", meaning he sees power as not thorough or lacking depth. This is a valid point to describe the political system because our system is based off the eyes of our Founding Fathers, who created the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, Robert Dahl uses the "theory of pluralism" to describe power. In our political system, this raises true because we have the Democrats and the Republicans, two sides of the government with different outlooks on how the government should be run, but come together to make decisions on behalf of us as a nation. Thus, both sociologist provide different aspects of power which interestingly enough is recognized in today's modern government.


                   The reason I chose this passage to paraphrase is because it was interesting how both sociologists had their different perspective on power, and both of them were right. We can see the "pluralism theory" with shows like "House of Cards", which presents the way close-knit groups manipulate how to gain power in a bad way. This was the view of Mills, who wrote his book The Power Elite. Then again, we have Dahl's perspective on power, saying it is divided and shared amongst the groups of people in the government. We as a people see this because we vote for the people we want to represent us in our government. These sociologist have both make valid points in contributing to how power can be perceived in our government today.