20 Nov. 2014. Angela Carlisle is the author of this article in the peer reviewed journal of Public Law & Policy. Her article primarily focused on ways to prevent drinking and driving. She also discussed what is already being done with these offenders and if these punishments were effective or not. The main part of her article that I used is the fact that jail time does no good for DWI offenders.
United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the reference to militia is just an explanation of why Congress ratified the amendment (civil-rights.lawyers.com). A human right is to bear arms, it states it in the second amendment. There are multiple reasons why you should be able to own a gun. Protection and hunting are two big reasons. Also, people kill people, not guns.
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
He brings up the fact that for years prior to the proposed law LaHood has said he would not ban cell phone usage while driving. Roff then describes distracted driving and how cell phone usage is not the only problem. He makes a great argument that the problem is already being addresses by multiple agencies. Educating the American people is the next argument which leads into using funds from various driving campaigns is better spent for this type of education. The author then attacks the law itself by citing it as a “preemptive law.” The last point Peter Roff makes is that it is wrong to
After reading this journal and reviewing the statistics stated it clearly shows no correlation of the two. By seeing these results it makes you wonder what else then can be done to lower the rates of gun control. This journal reflects great of my thesis statement because it is specifically talking about the correlation between crimes involving guns and the strength of gun control laws in
At the campaign rally in Burlington, Vermont, in January 2016, Trump claimed that mass shootings in areas such as San Bernardino, Chattanooga, and Orlando could have been prevented if the victims “had guns on the other side.” The Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms, which allows them to protect themselves. This freedom to use guns is a privilege, but one with many consequences. Mass shootings such as the Orlando shooting, which killed 63 people and wounded 75, may have very well been prevented if the victims were armed. However, that’s not the issue. The issue is that America has become a country where people must anticipate random acts of violence and be prepared to defend themselves.
Hillary Clinton: Guns/ Second Amendment Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign has taken a strong stance against the Second Amendment of our U.S constitution. She has pledged to ban semi-autos and use tax dollars to promote gun control. Also, Clinton has chosen to use gun violence research as a reason to add to her own political agenda. Gun Control Semi-automatic rifles, are one of the best home defense fire-arm available. Clinton has targeted these weapons, especially those built on the assault rifle (AR) platform, as so called assault weapons.
Banning Guns Will Endanger Law-Abiding Citizens Gun control has been an idea since the 1800s, Gun regulations can be good and bad. History has shown that banning firearms from the populace led to disaster and civil unrest. ¨We the People¨ in the United States are very divided when it comes to dealing with gun control and regulations for gun ownership. Banning guns increase fatalities, decreases personal protection and safety, and prohibits citizens from their constitutional rights. 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.
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. Our government today has not been stopped by the second amendment, they are out of control. They have infringed upon gun rights and instituted hundreds of federal gun
Government is called to dictate internet content when one incites people to violence with his speech, however, it needs to be a true threat which includes immediacy and an actual intent. For instance, during the Vietnam War, a man expressed that “if he got drafted, his first bullet would be for President Johnson.” The Court detected no threat nor any real intent in the context, therefore, the government had no need to monitor what was being said. If the speech did not pose any likely threats but was regulated by the government, one’s freedom of