Guns are undoubtedly dangerous yet, unlike most dangerous items they are far more controversial to talk about. There are two extreme positions on this topic that many can fall into when talking about firearms. Some want to ban guns completely, while the other side feels like guns are a right granted by our constitution and do not need regulation but instead, educate gun owners on the proper usage of a firearm. There are some flaws in both arguments. The problem with banning guns is that we should protect ourselves if the need arises.
However, some people believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Thanks to our Second Amendment, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to defend ourselves. However, it’s difficult to predict what might happen if you didn’t own a gun in that scenario. The intruder could possibly have a firearm, there is nothing stopping them since they’re already disobeying the law by breaking and entering. Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property.
. . would not only shield them from impending ruin, but promote their welfare and happiness. Experience has clearly demonstrated that in their present state it is impossible to incorporate them in such masses, in any form whatever, into our system. It has also been demonstrated with equal certainty that without a timely anticipation of an provision against the dangers to which they are exposed, under causes which it will be difficult, if not impossible to control, their degradation and extermination will be inevitable” (Peters).
In R v Bournemouth Justices, ex parte Cross, Griffin and Pamment  , the point of issue was whether conditions could be imposed on bail for a non-imprisonable offences. The defendants were released on bail on condition that they did not attend any hunt meeting in England and Wales before their next appearance. Following this incident they were arrested again for breach of this condition and remanded in custody. The Divisional Court stated that the condition had been validly imposed. Pamment indicated that in certain circumstances he would intervene to prevent a hunt being carried on illegally and that was taken by the justices as a refusal to agree to the imposition of the condition.
King infers that some laws may look justified at a glance, but are really unjust when they’re put in context. He gives the example of his arresting for parading without a permit. King implied the issue isn’t how he broke the law of not having a permit to parade, the unjust happens when the law was used to maintain segregation and deny those citizens of their right of peaceful protest. The unjust happens when citizens are stripped of their natural- born, and constitutionally- written rights (King 928). King asserts that in no way is he advocating for defying laws, but he is for breaking unjust laws.
Highly likely, the news of foreign spying issue is considered as hazardous overall which created more harm than good for our nation. On the other hand, such actions undermined the effort of giving three sixty protections to our homeland from the foreign enemy as well as our determination of having a clean image in front of the globe around is hampered. As a duty of a true patriot he would protect the American laws and overreach only the domestic spying operations, but he failed to do that and became a traitor. Next argument is a patriot always trust in his own deeds and willing enough to face the consequences, but Snowden fled the country because he knows his documentation was stolen which make he a criminal. The righteousness of the cause and action never can be justified as having valuable information and seeking refuges is not a sign of patriotism and if his theory was genuine he would remain in the country and faced the consequences .
When people can pursue what is morally right to do, regardless of what reaction their actions will provoke from others, they will never feel repentant for what they have done. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to follow one’s conviction. For instance, in an imperialist system, which involves the exploitation and torment of colonized people, some citizens of colonizers face such situations in which they cannot comply with their convictions. When the government of a country oppresses another country’s citizens and restricts their freedom, the government does not reckon that this oppression will affect its own citizens. The aftermath is harsh for a colonizer who does not support or agree with the imperialist project because he is very likely
Criminals know that they can get guns, however, the citizens cannot. These laws infringe upon the second amendment, which states ‘‘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’’ (Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Taft-Hartley Act). If gun control laws were put into place across the nation, Americans would no longer have a militia if it was ever needed. By examining the issues surrounding gun control it is clear that prohibiting guns is not the answer to stopping violent crimes from happening; it only restricts law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. “Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns.
Local Iraqi Christians fear that they may be forcibly returned to Iraq to face persecution or death. Our Syrian American community is blocked from providing a safe harbor for refugees. The U.S was a safe place for refugees to come to escape, but Trump is deporting them right back where they are in
She posed a “relatively serious” threat to the country and its’ citizens. Issue The issue and question at hand was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, the other question was that did the Criminal Syndicalism Act also violate the First Amendment. Rule of Law- A state can prohibit its citizens from knowingly being a part of or beginning an organization that promotes criminal syndicalism with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
Supporters argue that people that break the law should not partake in the process of it and argue that the potential loss of these basic American civil liberties can provide deterrence. The opposition argues that it violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution and disproportionately
This amendment guarantees the citizens a means to defend themselves in case the need arises. This right remains paramount in ensuring self-defence and limiting these rights are the initial steps for the government to take away individual rights. Additionally, it is important to note that mass shooters do not abide by the law and most of the guns used in these shootings are acquired illegally either through illegal purchases or through theft. This implies that the shooters are not subject to gun regulations and background checks. Therefore, stringent gun regulations will do nothing to prevent these shootings and these regulations will not be easy to implement due to the lack of time and resources to investigate and prosecute individuals who provide inaccurate
Also if their opinion wasn’t interfering with people’s positive look on the war. Since the Espionage Act didn’t allow people to say otherwise, “the Espionage Act prohibited individuals from expressing or publishing opinions that would interfere with the U.S. military’s efforts to defeat Germany and its allies.” (immigrationtounitedstates.org ) The sedition act followed this by making “the language of the Espionage Act more specific by making it illegal to use disloyal, profane, or abusive language to criticize the U.S. Constitution, the government, the military, the flag, or the uniform.” (immigrationtounitedstates.org) Therefore making it extremely difficult to even try to oppose it and