Argument Against State Ratification

This absolute, universal law goes against the schemes of Marlee and Nick. Kantians also follow the maxim that every person is an end and not a means to an end. Thus while some utilitarians would accept the scheme, a Kantian would not in any circumstance accept it as it is basically using the gun manufacturer and it’s workers as a mean to an end as stated earlier. Another Kantians would not accept the schemes of Nick and Marlee, and the result of said schemes is due to an important principle brought about by Immanuel Kant which denotes that “…no human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative.

Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.

We the People Reading Assignment: Anti-Federalist Position 1. Why do you think Madison suggested having the Constitution ratified by the people in special conventions instead of by state legislatures? As a Federalist, Madison knew that the state legislators would vote against ratifying the Constitution because it would lessen the states’ powers with a stronger national government. As a result, Madison suggested special conventions to prevent this from happening.

Mill’s statements on the freedom of speech is what I will rely on for my argument. Mill’s view on the freedom of speech is still relevant today because he does not take the view that there shouldn’t be any freedom of speech, but that it should be limited at certain times and this issue is very relevant in today’s society. Mill states a bold statement in the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, in defence of the freedom of speech ‘If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered’. Mill clearly is in the defence of the freedom of speech here because this liberty has to exist with everything so that we have ‘absolute freedom of

The general argument made by Shiha Dalmia in her work, “The Case Against Banning Guns” is that guns should not be banned in the United States. Banning guns is not going to stop people from killing other people. There is no possible way to collect every single gun in the U.S. and even if there was, people have other ways and items to hurt others. When something gets banned, everyone seems like they want to do that thing more. Guns should only be used for appropriate activities like hunting, for example, but there is no one to stop people from harming others.

To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.

First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence.

However, it is imperative that we remember that you cannot fight cruelty or abuse with cruelty or abuse. We need to be serious, but not offensive- a rule that should apply to all forms of activism. It’s all about effective communication. How can you get involved? Not all of us are cut out to be full blown activists, so you can make small contributions by going vegan or partaking in Meatless Mondays.

Ratification is needed for these conventions and states may choose to ratify the convention they like and not ratify the conventions they do not like. However, I believe that such an argument against the ILO is in effect an argument against all international organizations as all international treaties are subject to ratification. Does this not say then that to abolish the ILO on the ground of its lack of enforcement power would be ground also to abolish other international organizatons? Despite this lack of enforcement power, I argue that the ILO is still relevant and necessary. The ILO, as the representative and voice of labor in the international level would be the proper party to induce global pressure on non-compliant or labor-abusive nation states or be the body that provides protection to the victims whose abuse is imposed by their own

Some say it is just not suitable for this society, where constitution guarantees the human rights, and the conception that human rights are equally applied to every human being, exists. On the other hand, some say that death penalty is needed to clean and organize this world contaminated by crimes, and is a tool to make an ideal, crime-free world. I cannot deny that human rights are important, but if we keep pushing with human rights, nothing would be done to save furthermore victims, and that is basically out of its purpose to guarantee human rights; victims’ rights will be violated by death, and that is not a result wanted. It might not make sense, but we have to follow the utilitarianism, which encourages sacrifice of the small and less, for the big and many. We can save furthermore victims in future, use taxes in places where really need it, and comfort every family who suffers from such tragedies like family member’s death, by using death penalty for violent

I think that if the people’s safety are at risk, the constitution and all the amendments would be completely disregarded, security comes first and foremost for all and I’m afraid that’s the only line that is holding the constitution

We the people should stand up against gun violence. Life is a natural right. Killing is against the law, so why is it we give the "proper authorities" the right to kill those they feel threatened by? Why is it that it 's ok to kill someone if they did something against the rules? Killing them won 't change anything!

He proposed it as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists and anti- Federalists. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. People believe that this doesn’t mean anything in today’s standards, they believe the reason this bill was made was to defend and fight against the English. When really it’s about the people being able to fight back against a government that is exercising power in an arbitrary way.

People take advantage of Amendment One by verbally hurting someone purposely or they will state false facts. The Constitution does not protect these acts at of abuse. For example Amendment Two states that “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.” Although United States citizens have the right to bear arms, some people choose to use this law to commit crimes such as murder or robbing banks. To use one law to violate another does not make logical sense whatsoever, and committing a crime based on the Constitution is not protected in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to