Colonists Grievances

Everyone has an opinion about someone or something. The First Amendment grants all United States citizens the freedom of personal speech and press. This allows people to form their thoughts and beliefs based on many opinions. And if you don’t agree with someone’s opinions

The colonists’ sense of identity and unity as Americans was further developed when they coalesced to fight the British. Many people who lived in the colonies were not English; they were German, Dutch, Swedish, Jewish, Scots-Irish, and French. Some people were a mixture of many different ethnic groups. This “mixed” group of people, which could not be found anywhere else in the world, that united to fight for their rights led to the creation of a separate identity (from Britain). The British thought that this “open Rebellion” was unjustifiable and that the colonists had no reason to turn against their mother country, who “…protected them against the Ravages of their Enemies…”

The 2nd amendment of the United States is ¨The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.¨ This statement plainly states that every American has the right to bear arms, there are no other possible interpretations of this amendment that make any logical understanding. The rights cannot be violated because the Government deems it to be politically incorrect, The rights of the people are not being read broadly enough and the misinterpretation leads to ignorance and irrational fear of firearms. ( Ferrara, 1) The District of Columbia´s ban on firearms is totally unconstitutional and a violation of American Liberty.

When the United States was a free nation, they made it their number one priority (amendment) that the freedom to speak how you will without fear of prosecution from government

She intended to vote . The 14th amendment says it does not matter what gender you are if you are born in the USA you are a citizen then , you have a right to vote. Quotes from Susan B. Anthony , Men their rights and nothing more . women their rights and and nothing less . I declare to you you must not depend upon on the protection of man , but must be taught to protect herself , and take a stand.

Amendment 2, “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.” This amendment was written by William Lambert, however James Madison drafted it. The 2nd amendment impacts the people by allowing them to protect themselves in dangerous situations in self defense, and will not receive any punishment. Amendment 3, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The amendment quoted above had been written by James Madison.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states American citizens have the right to freedom of speech, press, and religion. ("First Amendment") Censorship is the infringement of these rights. Americans should never be censored because it goes against the first amendment and everything that the men and women of the U.S. military have fought and died to protect. When people are not censored they can live freely without worry of being told what they can and can’t do. They can say what they want to say and produce things without having to worry about breaking a law.

However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions.

Speaking of the First Amendment, we should all remember what the actual documentation says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Based on the first amendment, there is no "Hate Speech" to it as seen in some Colleges[1]. College students defined Hate Speech as "ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties" (Davidson). Basically, whatever that is against the Liberal point of view is viewed as hate speech; however, such a thing as "Hate Speech" does not exist; there are only different opinions and point of views[1].

This is our sacred Constitution, which has provisions relating to the right of privacy. Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (The Rights of Privacy screen 1). In other words, the government only has the right to search one’s property upon maintaining of an official warrant issued for probable cause. This being said, our founding fathers did not anticipate the internet and the

Elena Contreras Mrs. Polatty AP US. History/4B 20 September 2016 DBQ #1 WC: Scattered across the timeline of the period that includes the 17th and 18th centuries, the English colonies managed to construct an uncommon government system filled with revolutionary ideas that only pertained to their specific group. They created a unique government that permitted each individual person to have a say in the decisions about the country. The whole general idea of political rights created a well-known status that was unique to America alone.

Has anyone heard about how the colonist fought against the British? Most definitely you sure did, but have you come to think why the colonist fought them? Well, because of the fact that the Colonist was being under the control of Britain and no longer wanted to be, under anyone's control. So, the Colonist were justified to revolt against the British. I believe they were justified to revolt because, British violated the Colonist rights, the British impacted the Colonists' economic opportunity, and the Colonists' life and liberty was impacted.

The American Revolution was, to date, the best event to happen on American soil, providing freedom and representation in government to the individuals who fought so hard for it. France and Spain aided our cause, helping this group of brave colonists to defeat the strongest army in the world. But, there is a question still not answered; were the colonists justified in breaking away from Britain? The American colonists were justified in breaking away from the British because there was taxation without representation, they had no freedom, and the British government violated their individual British rights. I believe the American colonists were justified for breaking away from Britain because there was taxation without representation.

In the 1770s, Britain had established numerous colonies in today’s North America. The Colonists were under control of the British Parliament, and they had to fulfill Britain’s laws and their trade policies. Many Colonists believed that the British were violating their rights; these people gained the title patriots. On the other hand, some colonists still believed they should remain loyal to the British; they were the loyalists. In the end, the colonists broke away from English rule due to British Parliament forcing the Colonists to pay for the war debts through taxes and not letting the Colonists have a say in their decisions.

In 1775, the American Revolution, a battle between England and their 13 colonies in North America, in order to nullify the British government’s power against them, began. Some will say that the colonists who fought as patriots were not influenced by the desire for democracy or independence from Britain, but to not want their common goods taxed, since they destroyed British property as a result. However, the colonists only protested taxation without representation, tried make Britain listen to their grievances, and fought to prevent the capture of rebels.