Power consisting of force and strength has the capacity to alter the course of events. It can have a crucial impact on a government and the citizens living under that government. When the Revolutionary war ended, the new nation had to attain various political, social and economic changes. American colonists were no longer under the British government and loyal to the king. Consequently, the experience of living under a tyrannical government concerned the newly established states about the amount of power delegated to the government. Also, there have been certain scenarios where the government has attempted to take these rights away. In addition, throughout the history of the nation, there has been war and quarrel as to whether the government …show more content…
Based on evidence, the government has the right to take away basic unalienable rights and liberties granted in the Constitution. The government has the right to take away unalienable rights and liberties granted in the constitution. The reason is because in some cases the government has to restrict its people in order to protect them and create a better future for the nation. This can be supported by Source Two, "AR-15". For instance, it quotes "Those in favor of gun control point to the recent shootings for their justification and the high number of gun related deaths in America" This shows how one at times needs to give up their freedoms for protection. In various cases the government should be allowed to take away unalienable rights from its people in order to protect them. It is not fair for those people to lose their family only because some don't want to give up a weapon that has caused many deaths. Furthermore, in Source One, "Is Someone …show more content…
This is why the government should have the right to take away unalienable rights and liberties granted in the Constitution. On the other hand, there is evidence that the government should not have the right to take unalienable rights from its people. They point out the Bill of Rights. This can be supported in Sources three and four. For instance, in Source three, "Park51 Mosque" it quotes "In 2010, plans for the development of a 100,000 square foot Mosque blocks from ground zero of the 9/11 attacks created a great deal of controversy and debate in the United States, with many saying that the Mosque should not be built so close to ground zero." This shows why various American citizens believe that the government does not have the right to take away unalienable rights and liberties granted in the constitution. This people think that the first amendment is being broken because they are not allowed to built a place where they could practice their religion. Opponents of the Park51 project have said that establishing a mosque so close to Ground Zero would be offensive since the hijackers in the September 2001 attacks were Islami terrorists. According to Source four, "Boston Marathon Bombing" it states "The events that followed had some wondering if the Middletown's residents' constitutional rights were violated. Armored police vehicles and tanks moved through suburban streets. Heavily armed law enforcement moved door-to-door searching for
Valley Forge, was the toughest obstacle the Continental Army had to face during the Revolutionary War. For about nine months in the cold winter, these soldiers stayed in this area for them to"... be close enough to Philadelphia to keep an eye on the British"(Background). By the end of the war, the colonists were victorious in gaining their independence. Regardless, I would abandon my position as a soldier at Valley Forge. My reasoning are due to the multiple hardship they endure such as living in a harsh environment, sickness that lead to death and lacked numerous resources.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The document “The American Crisis” focuses mainly on the crises that America would face during the time of revolutionary war. Thomas Paine, in this article urged people to unite and to fight against Britain. He encouraged and inspires the colonialist’s soldiers to strive for independence from “tyrant and evil” colonial kings and its government. He believed wholeheartedly in the American Revolutionary cause but oppose violent practices.
The start of the American Revolution, described by Edmund Morgan as, “the shot heard around the world,” was the “Americans’ search for principles” (Bender 63). Although the world’s colonies did not necessarily seek independence much like the Americans, the world’s colonies were nonetheless tired of the “administrative tyranny” being carried out by their colonizers (Bender 75). The American Revolution set a new standard in the colonies, proclaiming that the “rights of Englishmen” should and must be the “rights of man,” which established a new set foundation for the universal rights of man (Bender 63). This revolution spread new ideas of democracy for the colonized world, reshaping people’s expectations on how they should be governed. Bender emphasizes America as challenging “the old, imperial social forms and cultural values” and embracing modern individualism” (Bender 74). Bender shapes the American Revolution as a turning point for national governments. The American Revolution commenced a new trend of pushing out the old and introducing new self-reliant systems of government for the former
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The Second Amendment and the right to personal gun use and ownership, is under attack in The United States today. Apparently the Second Amendment wasn’t clear enough when it 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" and politicians are calling for this amendment to be altered or even removed. Firearms have always been a big part of the American culture, and the ability to own a gun is detrimental to not only protecting one’s life and property, but also to keep the government in line. Author William Burroughs said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn 't do it. I sure as hell wouldn
If you take away a person’s gun it still will not stop them from finding another way to the crime they intend on doing. It would be just like making drugs illegal, people still have them even though it's illegal. “In the US, the right to private gun ownership is conditionally guaranteed by the US constitution” (Alpers 2016). This is stating that it is in the constitution that it is legal that any private individual can own a gun. The government can’t come back over 220 years later and try to change what is written in the constitution. Even if they were able to change what is stated in the constitution there is still no effective way of banning guns in the US.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United 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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making