In the year 2014 much debate began on gun laws and whether they should be authorized. This political fight became a disputable issue among Americans. A source at the Smithsonian said, “More Americans thought it was important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than to control gun ownership.” Most Americans believe that their gun ownership is unrelated to someone else 's gun use in crimes. Many people want strict gun control but that won 't help because mass shooters don 't follow the law; strict gun laws won 't reduce violence and the removal of guns would leave people defenseless, especially in a time where terrorism is rampant. Making gun control more strict won 't really make it harder for mass shooters.
Fewer gun safety laws. Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country --they know that 's not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws -- including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.” I find that this perspective is what is most important to stop the gun violence. Yes our society’s view of masculinity is skewed and unrealistic, but to actively stop shootings from happening, we should be focusing on the guns.
People often wonder why guns are legal for citizens to own. Guns are put to blame for much of the crime that happens in the world but it is the people that do the crime not the guns. Gun control laws have been debated about and tried to be put in place for many years in the United States. There are laws restricting some types of weapons and where weapons can be used but some people want more laws controlling all guns and some wanting to ban all guns. Many people promoting gun laws are not educated on some of the statistics and ways that guns save and protect innocent people.
The Patriot Act allows for government investigators to share information on suspected terrorists with other branches of the government much easier than before 9/11 so that tragedy’s like this can be avoided in the future. While intense backlash has been received regarding the Patriot Act’s effects on immigration, and unlawful surveillance, the small negatives that have yet to been proven true much outweigh the good this law can do in protecting the lives of innocent Americans. With the Patriot Act countless lives have been saved without the masses without even realizing they have been saved. According to a speech given by President Bush three years after he signed the law into place, with the Patriot Act a one man terrorist plan turned into
We’ve got to find out what it is.” He does even show proof of this actually happening. According to Nicholas Kristof, the House Republicans are against the idea of taking in some Syrian refugees into the country because of the terrorist attacks. However, “If a terrorist group wants to attack America, it won’t wait two years to try to infiltrate as refugees.” It’s too long of a process; the 9/11 attacker entered the country as students and tourists. Also, many of the refugees are actually educated people and can influence America in a good way. Lastly, the government can use vetting to make sure that the refugees aren’t any harm to the
Religion has Nothing to do with Terrorism Due to the many terrorism attacks happening in America Kareem Abdul- Jabbar decided to write an argument where he says why Islam religion has nothing to do with these attacks. However, Kareem’s argument is missing some of the rhetorical strategies. Mostly, he uses logos in his argument such as the terrorist attacks, and the attack in Paris. He tries to persuade the public to believe him, however he fails to do so due to lack of evidence. He mentions that Americans have made mistakes, however he doesn’t mention the mistakes that America has done.
Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence. Although there are rules and regulations already in place there still is a lot of crime occurring, because laws on gun
Gun control endangers American’s constitutional right to bear arms. Politicians and civilians alike mistakenly think that revoking our constitutional right to keep and bear arms will ensure the end of gun violence in our country. Taking away our guns by criminalizing the purchase or ownership of guns will not keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals. If we criminalize guns the violent gun-slinging criminals we worry about would continue to purchase them illegally through the black market. Marginalizing our right to bear arms endangers civilians due to the fact that those laws only affect law abiding citizens, rendering them defenseless.
From the founding of the United States of America up until modern times there has been an estrangement regarding gun control laws. According to the article(Americans want strict gun laws) published by CNN by Eric Brandermore than half of the U.S wants stricter gun laws. Others think that bearing arms is part of their rights. While opponents of these laws typically cite gun control measures as an infringement on the right to bear weapons, supporters support that the Second Amendment does not limit the government from modifying the proliferation of firearms in the United States. However, gun control is highly ineffective in areas that gun control has been enacted in the country.
According to the Pew Institute for Research 52% of Americans believe that gun laws should become stricter. There is public support for politicians to change gun laws, yet they still have done little to address it. The last major gun law change in the United States was in 2004 enacted by President Bush (Fisher 1). However, the change was not a creation of new regulations rather it was a cut to the Assault Weapon Ban Enacted by President Clinton (Fisher 1). According to Slate this caused a great spike in sales of weapons such as the AR-15 (Fisher 1).
A very big topic in the presidential debates is the war on drugs. Joe Biden has many opinions on why they shouldn’t be legalized. Joe Biden 's views on drugs are that they should not legalized, he believes that marijuana is a gateway drug. “Marijuana is a gateway drug; legalization is a mistake” Source: CelebStoner.com Entertainment News , Dec 24, 2010 Immigration is huge for Joe Biden, Biden stated that he is in favor of the border fence more for the purpose of halting drug trafficking than stopping illegal crossings. Biden believes the immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed He hopes for a guest worker program as well.
Radley is also an author of a book named “Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces”. This editorial is targeted to persuade lawmakers and anyone else opposing meth being legal. Lawmakers passed laws that made it more difficult to acquire pseudoephedrine because they believed it would prevent meth from being produced. Several years passed and that clearly is not the case according to several
Nicholas Willoughby English Comp I Prof. Cook December 17, 2015 We Cant Eliminate It, But It Can Eliminate Us Gun control has been a hot topic in the past few years. Making guns unavailable is only going to cause more crime. Criminals will not stop trying to get their hands on them, illegal or not. The government should not be able to take away our “freedoms”; gun control is one of them. Choosing to remove our weapons will only make our America a more hostile environment to live.
government was warned numerous times about the future terrorist attacks. There were multiple attacks within the US before September 11, however none were as destructive as the attack on the twin towers. Not only this, but the CIA warned the Bush administration of very serious attacks, yet they were continuously ignored despite the urgency. The CIA even created a plan called the “Blue Sky paper” to try ending the Al Qaeda terrorist threats, but the administration refused the deployment of their plan in fear of a paper trail that they had received prior warnings. This begs the question of whether the Bush administration simply didn’t believe that terrorists could attack the U.S. on a large scale or if someone in the administration would benefit from the attacks.
Before this event, President George W. Bush had little involvement in the terrorist groups and inhumane behaviors going on in the Middle East. This tragedy led to a large majority of people to want some kind of military involvement in the Middle East, either for justice on the attacks or the belief the U.S. was morally obligated to end the cruelties in this area. We saw this again after Obama had the troops returned home, and became more concerned with internal affairs than foreign affairs. Soon afterwards near the end of 2014 we saw the rise of ISIS, Russian occupation of the Ukraine and Chinese leaders taking other countries territories. This lead to major changes in opinion and forced Obama to take a military route against ISIS in Syria, stating that it was our moral obligation to do