The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment makes it legal to burn the American Flag. Lastly, flag burning should not be illegal because, if it were to be, Americans would have their right taken away. As Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stated, in a flag burning case, "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so
MLK advocated for civil disobedience and positive tensions within a community to create a basis for negotiation. Socially he wanted people to be able to communicate their opinions and views across without coming off as a physical or violent threat to the public. He believed in peaceful protesting and boycotts which acknowledged the fact that there were also white Americans who fought and marched right along them for the same cause. Unlike MLK, Malcolm’s view was quite different in contrast because he believed that one should fight fire with fire, which only burns both parties. His teaching could not be as effective because he neglected the influence the white members would have on the movement, by resenting them as a race, therefore handicapping his popularity and likelihood of success within the various white communities.
In Chitra Divakarun's article Live Free and Starve, he compellingly asserts that we must stop this bill, which will ban imports from countries with child labors; from passing because it adversely affects the children it is supposed to help. The article discusses the benefits and repercussions of the stopping particular imports and then urges people that we must continue to import or risk hurting the children. This article has a persuasive and compelling tone, which attempts to accomplish the author’s goal by convincing the reader of the repercussions of banning imports from these countries. The author provides a personal anecdote, which enables the reader to relate to an experience emotionally, pointing out fallacies in opposing arguments,
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
The argument is usually the same: one side insists that if officials eradicated guns, thus abolishing the Second Amendment, gun violence will somehow go away. Contrarily, the pro- gun side argues that this invades our rights as humans to protect ourselves. It seems ironic that a debate about the morality of building and owning bombs doesn’t flare when a mass bombing kills dozens, sometimes hundreds. For the argument of fairness, one could suggest that purchasing the materials to build a bomb of any kind could be punishable by law regardless of knowing the intent of the individual. Just as a law abiding American citizen seeking to purchase a gun might potentially be prosecuted if the Second Amendment is dropped from the Constitution.
One side to this ongoing argument is that all guns in the United States need to be banned. Many Americans feel this way, believing that, “violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They should all be banned- the sooner the better.” To be exact nearly three out of four Americans, 73%, believe that guns need to be under a lot more control. The second amendment says “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.” (Bill of Rights).
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
When you think of gun control, you automatically think of someone trying to take away your right to express the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms); however, this ideal is wrong due to our lack of knowledge about the term. Gun control refers to the laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. (In other words, they are the glue that allows us to exercise this right, but in a safe way). The term above does not lead us to do away with our democratic rights, but rather provides a protection to the lives of people in our own land. Every single day someone dies here in America due to guns, whether it is by suicide, school shootings, or just even children playing around at home with an open gun at home.
Is it really freedom of speech? Did our soldiers die in defense of our county so we could desecrate a sacred symbol of America? There are always two sides to a story, and in this case both sides have a valid point. Bottom line, burning the flag is desecration, it shouldn’t be covered by the first amendment, and it undermines the integrity of America. "Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.
Gun control ENG/102 8/11/10 Brian Kevin Gun control 1 Introduction: Gun control advocates have cried foul, because of the Supreme Court 2010 ruling they believe will damage the chances gun control laws to reduce crime. While many people consider gun control to be too restrictive, advocates are of the mind that we should remove all the guns, at all cost. The Supreme Court ruling has mandated that state and city governments have no choice but to respect the Second Amendment of their citizens. While the ruling does not completely abolish current gun restrictions, it does weaken the ability of the local government to