For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4). In the past six years the progress in advancing immigration reform has been miniscule because the drastically different opinions on how severe the reform should be. Some people, mainly liberals, disagree wholly with immigration reform because it contradicts the American ideal of all people, no matter their race, religion or gender, being welcome in the country, as well as, the distinction between refugees and immigrants. Others believe that, to continue to prosper, America can only solve American problems and to take on the responsibility of more people is detrimental to America’s wellbeing. And despite immigration being considered a “national crisis”, the Senate still, through a vote, prevented the progress of a bill that
It was actually a rather short complaint, consisting of only a few pages with no extraneous issues or “trap doors.” His argument was that “the second amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional personal firearm,” His choice for the lead plaintiff was a woman by the name of Shelly Parker who had fought drug dealers in her Capitol Hill neighborhood. Unfortunately the NRA was able to have his case dismissed “Because this court rejects the notion that there is an individual right to bear arms separate and apart from service in the militia.” Which was part of the ruling in the court case United States V.
Harold Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act for unlawfully possessing a fully automatic assault rifle that was not properly registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. Staples claimed he had no idea that the gun could fire automatically. At the trial Staples requested a jury instruction that he could not be found guiltily unless there was proof that he knew the gun was fully automatic. The trial judge ruled that the National Firearms Act did not require knowledge or mens rea but that it was a strict liability crime. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction.
It 's ironic that she says she changed her position after doing research, because virtually everything she says is uneducated on the second amendment. Two hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that the right to bear arms is a collective right, modified by the militia clause, NOT an individual right. http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jcred The notion of an individual right to bear arms only appeared in Supreme Court law in 2010 in the Heller decision, which has been roundly criticized. The attached article is from a conservative legal scholar, who says that the decision violates conservative law by forcing legislation through the court. In other words, the court made up new law rather than respecting the constitution as
Gun control in America is a big concern and has been a political concern. The debate concerning gun control has been about the right to bear arms and the laws and policies stipulated under the second amendment to the constitution. Gun rights activists argue that it is the right of every American citizen to arm themselves as a means of protecting oneself. The debate of whether stricter gun control need be implemented or modification of the current policies done has been a raging debate. The implementation of stricter gun control continues to be a debate that questions the ethical and moral underline that gun control and gun ownership policies hold.
We are unable to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho's act of the mass killings could have been stopped but what we do know is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that lawmakers want to see. Having guns in the right hands can be influential in stopping crime and having fewer guns in the wrong hands can make for more crime. Therefore, this makes gun control not equivalent to crime
We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons. Whether this was obtained in legal or illegal circumstances, it does not change that fact that we need to create regulations on automatic weapons.Weapons like everything else, should have limits. For example a person cannot have more than 2-3 dogs or they will be cited. Another example is that although we have freedom of speech, we can not yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire; there are limits to our free speech. Why do we have limits on everything else but weapons, does human life no longer have value.
An argument towards the fewer guns approach is noted by saying that a shooter whom approaches a location on campus in which weapons are prohibited will minimize the possibility of someone being able to defend themselves, allowing a shooter to feel untouchable; if students were allowed to legally handle weapons they would have the potential to interfere and attempt to prevent a shooter from performing more harm (Birnbaum; Bouffard et al. ). Clayton Cramer, an American historian and professor, supports Birnbaums statement by arguing that if laws prohibiting firearm carry existed there would be nobody legally armed to fight back and protect the people around him in the state of an emergency (Cramer). The most obvious argument pro gun activists assert is the Second Amendment. Pro gun theorists believe that handling a weapon is a perpetual right that must not contain exceptions solely when a student is on a campus (Birnbaum).
(Cathy Lanier) and New York City suggested that citizens should take action to defend themselves if faced with a similar attack OTHER - Taking away guns does not actually drop the crime/murder rate - Most people who misuse handguns and do harmful acts with them are buying them illegally and do not have a concealed handgun license - Owning a handgun can protect the citizen when the police are unable to always be relied on - The right to own guns should not be taken away from everyone, including those who don’t misuse them, but rather only from those that do - Guns aren’t the issue it’s the people who use them wrongfully - Stopping the black market for guns will do more justice than taking them all away - Criminals will still use some form of weapon even if its not a gun so why not allow guns for people with concealed handgun licenses to protect themselves and others COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: More guns allow for more suicides? Yes people may choose to use a gun if they have access to one, for example in their house, but if someone is seriously going to commit suicide they will find another form or way to do it… guns don’t promote it or make it more
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, doing this will not stop felons from procuring and committing gun-related crimes.