Anyone caught doing either can be arrested for vandalism” (Hayasaki). Graffiti crew has the right to freedom of speech against street art, but they... ... middle of paper ... ...ocieties and local governments agree that graffiti is not art because it is violating the law. And graffiti is vandalism because it destroys public area, and many people cannot accept graffiti as art. Works Cited Block, Carolyn Rebecca, and Richard Block. "Street Gang Crime in Chicago."
As a loyal citizens, we should always stand up and as for our rights. Nobody should agree with unjust laws. But he would not like my thesis, because unlike Martin Luther King I am against breaking the laws. I do not thing breaking the unjust laws is a solution. He broke an unjust laws and went to the assembly without certain permission and the consequence was that he got arrested.
Creating strict laws with harsh punishments to ban guns will force society to get rid of their weapons and to help make a safer country. There are many issues that come with allowing concealing weapons and because of that it is not ethical to pass the laws to promote society to have weapons. There is no reason that the public needs weapons and or hand guns and that is why gun control laws must be put into effect.
There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and the teenagers are liable for property damage and intimidating a family, but the charge brought upon them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts. The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to limit or prohibit it any manner, as that will only further enrage people as they feel they are being stripped of their constitutional rights, which they indeed are. Control over hate speech is not going to be a successful deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for their beliefs, even if they are contrary to the majority’s. To argue against the limitation of hate speech is not automatically equivalent to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, specifically minority targets, but understanding the manner in which our Constitution operates.
Although this law says you can defend yourself if you are being threatened people have different views on how they are threatened. A simple cuss word or a little push should not be considered as a threat and requiring the victim to kill or shoot the other person. The reason this law is not good is because people will find the littlest thing t... ... middle of paper ... ...t like how the bad guys are armed (Sullivan). Although, I see where their side is coming from they need to consider how this law is not being used for the right reasons and people are getting away with countless crimes due to this law. In conclusion, the Stand Your Ground Law does not help out our society in any good way and is also letting more criminals off easily.
These new laws and banning of certain guns will not stop the criminals or these that are committing these crimes because they are not getting the guns from stores but rather stealing them or getting them on the street. Only the upstanding citizens will be affected by it and talking guns out of their hands leaves them vulnerable to the criminals because they will not have any way to protect themselves. The Sandy Hook shootings the media affect us micro structurally, as individuals we are all affected differently and have our own thoughts and views. Some individuals were so influenced by the sandy hook shooting that they wanted to give up the guns that they... ... middle of paper ... ...61(6), 1335-1374. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/articles/Cole-Dioso-Villa.pdf Shelton, D. (2008).
In conclusion, banning guns in the US will not lead to a safer country because it will not keep guns away from criminals, it will hurt safe gun users, and may leave citizens at the hands of a tyrannical government. The right to bear arms has been intact for over 200 years and should not be taken from us now. Guns are all around and could be stolen by a criminal even if they are banned. People who use guns correctly will be punished for doing nothing wrong, and tyrannical governments have usually begun after gun control was put into effect in other countries. Banning guns from the US is a terrible idea; even though it might seem like a good idea it will not do anything to prevent criminals from doing what they want to do.
Many of you are probably wondering, “will Students for Peace end up in jail or will they be freed from blame?” We heard arguments from both sides of this important case that show if they are found guilty or not. After much careful consideration, the side that was more persuasive in their arguments was New York City. New York City did a great job at presenting their different arguments that show that Students for Peace was disturbing peace. They declared that Student for Peace was using violent fighting words that disturbed the young kids around them. NYC clearly showed that it was the wrong time to protest this violent topic in front of young children.
The media takes this news focuses on the protestor’s violence and showcases them as the ones creating a scene. The media then showcases police as the ones that have to deal with the situation by detaining citizens, thus making them look like the good guys. The mayor and chief police also take away from the citizen’s freedom by allocating a 7pm curfew and a 25 block ‘no protest zone’. So if individuals were to not follow the set curfew they can be detained even if they had nothing to do with the protest. Police started attacking citizens even before curfew, which stripped citizens more of their freedom and liberty to protest.
The Nazi force was breaking the law throughout this whole tragic experience. Torturing these people was against the law, and the law should not have been broken. The Jewish people should have fought back to save themselves and seize this bad practice. Many of the people did not know what to do when someone would show up at their house one beautiful day to take them away; however, this would never have happened if the law had been enforced. The people should have argued this situation.