The idea of competent authority dictates that only those authorities give power by the public may wage war (Just War Theory). This is because judging the justifications of war cannot be fully realized if war is not waged in a society in which justice and a clear definition of justice have not been established. Cue, right intention. Force and violence may only be employed if the causes are truly just and are enacted for that purpose (Just War Theory). Again, this principle is potentially problematic.
How does the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guards against tyranny because of the power being shared, government branches, and checks and balances. I know this because of the documents in the DBQ I also knew it from the questions based on what I read. First of all, the power is shared. This can guard against tyranny because when one person gains too much power, then tyranny is almost guaranteed because there would not be an easy way to stop them from doing only what they desire.
David DeGrazia proposes a moderate control of guns meaning that only individuals with a need for self-protection be allowed to own a gun and only after a complete course in safety (Hsiao and Berstein). DeGrazia also believes that owning a gun increases the likelihood that a person will be killed in their own home whether accidentally or intentionally (Hsiao and Berstein). The Democratic Party believes that stricter background checks will deter guns from being purchased by the wrong people. That might be true, but will it stop a violent person from committing a
Mills explains Utilitarianism as achieving life’s goals, it is what everyone wants or seek for. He further explains that utilitarianism promotes the quality of life. Furthermore, utilitarianism is connected to happiness, because we all seek to achieve different goals in life, and those goals are what makes up happy. We all want certain things in life, or want to achieve certain things. Utilitarianism promotes happiness, happiness exclude pain, suffering, struggles, stress, and anything that makes one ‘unhappy’ or ‘sad’.
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
When we aware somebody’s need, we either prefer to help or we prefer not to. If we sympathize with them, we will offer kindness and at the same time a gracious connection is made. This is the positive power that each of us possess. Moreover, this is the most powerful act of generosity because true generosity is pure and giving any without expectation and no demand to be repaid. Random acts of kindness are the essential and vital to human well-being as they set us free from isolation, egoism and selfishness.
The major theory of ethics that this argument relies on is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism (U) is characterised by carrying out an action to produce the greatest amount of good (or “utility”) for the greatest number of people, regardless of whether or not the action is right or wrong. The word “good” is defined as a sense of satisfaction, gain or welfare – according to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Alternatively, the theory focuses on reducing the total amount of harm imposed on the greatest number of people. Viewing this theory from either perspective will generate an overall positive outcome.
Administrative Detention is any arrest of individuals by the state without a trial. This is mainly used for security purposes for people such as terrorist. Even though they have racial profiling laws, people who are not white are more susceptible to be humiliated and targeted. Having racial profiling be a problem, “will inevitably lead to an erosion of the public’s civil rights” (Kaenel). This being that citizens will have rights taken away from them and would lose the trust of those that the community count on the most to keep them
The second amendment states that there should and will be no possession of firearms for anyone with a felony and/or a mental illness. Yes, the second amendment protects individual gun ownership but is it not obvious that people should not sell firearms or weapons to anyone that seems challenged or incapable of keeping their community safe with a gun? Amendments of course make your liberty excessively known but it should not get
Pointing out appearances can be effect by freedom speech. In conclusion, everyone should have freedom of speech limitation, because it won’t be fair to rest of them, so if they are presidents, leaders, and queens, etc. It is necessary to aware how harmful those terrorists are against the journalist, if they are succeeding or not .Also the journalists should avoid from that or they will be killed. If we look rest of the world they have a freedom of speech, but it is not that safe. My point was to tell the world-wide the negative impact that freedom of speech has.
The meaning of the right to bear arms is so that the people have weapons to protect themselves but in the hands of mentally unstable people, others are in danger. I think that if the people’s safety are at risk, the constitution and all the amendments would be completely disregarded, security comes first and foremost for all and I’m afraid that’s the only line that is holding the constitution
We the people should stand up against gun violence. Life is a natural right. Killing is against the law, so why is it we give the "proper authorities" the right to kill those they feel threatened by? Why is it that it 's ok to kill someone if they did something against the rules? Killing them won 't change anything!