Without gun control in the US or some high security in our schools and maybe even giving all the teachers handguns to protect families in our communities. “There has been 18 mass shooting just this year, two months into the year 2018”,”(Boston Globe inc). The laws would help decrease the amount of mass shootings that might happen in the near future. Although Americans feel that not having gun control is their constitutional right, gun control will help prevent guns falling into the wrong hands and can lower gun deaths in the US tremendously. (Rewrite this sentence and integrate the quote better)“Australia has not had a mass shooting for at least 23 year to be exact in counting because of their gun laws enforced in 1996 (Bostonglobe,boston,Inc,2018,url)”.
Kenneth Barnes lost his son in 2001, his son was shot and killed. Kenneth Barnes supports his city 's current gun law. "I have no issue with the right to bear arms" but the Supreme Court 's decision gave the city the right to set gun laws for its citizens, he said. (Fields, Gary). In 2009, law in effect, homicides in the city dropped to 143 from 186 in 2008.
Others are infuriated by the idea that these crimes continue without any government backlash, demanding immediate government action in an attempt to reduce gun related crime. Trump has responded by suggesting that congress raises the legal age to purchase firearms and passing a bill to make certain weapon performance modifications illegal to attempt to dissipate the anger among those that are pro gun control, consequently the NRA was displeased with Trump's decision, considering they supported him during the elections. "The NRA doesn't back any ban," Dana Loesch, Spokesperson of the NRA, said. The republicans fighting against gun control are primarily concerned with the idea that if all firearms were made illegal criminals would still find ways to obtain them illegally, while others would not be able to own firearms to defend themselves
On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman, a former marine, began sniping students, professors, and police at the University of Texas at Austin from the clock tower. He killed sixteen people and wounded thirty two others. Whitman had to be shot unexpectedly in order to stop this mass shooting. In The New York Times, Manny Fernandez and Dave Montgomery wrote about Texas lawmakers passing a bill that allows guns at college campuses. Texas lawmakers should not have passed a bill, allowing guns at colleges, because it compromises the safety and well-being of all people on campus grounds.
If a teacher had a gun in your class how would you feel? What if a student gets hold of the weapon, how would you feel? Even if the student means no harm and makes a joke, it’s still a danger towards students. You would feel stressed or scared. After the school shooting in Florida, President Trump made a speech stating teachers should be armed in classrooms because they could shoot an armed intruder and protect their students.
It is one thing to be scared, it is another thing to be so scared that a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun is seen as a threat, such as seen in the death of Tamir Rice. The first step begins with acknowledgment and education. Police training should involve less use of force and hold police officers to a higher standard. Officers should be trained in methods that prevent deaths, perhaps even given sensitivity training to better empathize with people of color. I, as a citizen of the United States should not be scared to call on the police for help.
“Every Teacher in America Should Have a Gun” by Steve Siebold delivers the message about why teachers should be armed with guns. Primarily he thinks that shooters will be less motivated to try to attack a school that is able to defend itself against the gunman. He also goes on to say that “Every second counts in a school shooting. Calling 911 and waiting for police to arrive isn’t good enough.” He gives us the idea that we need to take action against these shooters and potentially end school shootings once and for all.
Ensuring that all gun holders have a registered licence, adequate education and training and a genuine manner is the first step in reducing gun violence. In 1990 The Crime Control Act was passed outlining criminal penalties for possessing or disarming a firearm on school grounds. In 1994 the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act imposed a background check and a five day waiting period before an unlicensed person could be sold a firearm. Following this, in the same, year, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (commonly known as the Assault Weapons Ban) was passed banning the importation of firearms or large capacity magazine clips.
The United States v. Lopez case was about Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student from San Antonio, who came to school carrying a hidden weapon. Under Texas law he was charged with possession of a firearm. Later on he was dismissed of this violation and was later charged with “federal criminal statute”. He was found violating “ The Gun-Free School Act”, which was created in 1990. His sentence was 6 months in prison and two years of being supervised while being released.
The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution 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. " The topic of the editorial, "Let The Teachers Teach" by The New York Times Editorial Board, is about gun control and why it is important that guns are out of schools. A few weeks ago there was another school shooting in the United States, twelve school shootings to be exact in just nine weeks. In Parkland, Florida a 19-year old man walked into a school with an AR-15 and shot and killed 17 students. The editorial states that in response President Trump is suggesting that we should arm 20% of the teachers in primary and secondary schools which would equal around 700,000 teachers in the United States
Federalist and Anti-Federalist had different views on the new constitution. The Federalist supported strong central government and did not want the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalist wanted power in the states and wanted limited federal power. The framers chose to create a strong federal government because they wanted a government that could bring together a belief within the states without reducing other states ability to control itself. They wanted small states because it would make is easier to reach an agreement.
United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named
Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.