Although these ideals seem simple to many people, they are lost on the majority of the Democratic Party in America. The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that "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." This right to keep and bear arms entails a right to own weapons for the sole purpose of defense. It is important to note that the word “Arms” does not apply strictly to firearms, but rather to any armament. This gross oversight has been the core fallacy to many gun control campaigns.
About a month an a half after the tragic attacks the United States government passed a new law called the USA Patriot Act, signed by President at the time George W. Bush. The USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act (gpo.gov). The PATRIOT ACT posses a greater threat to American liberty than terrorism itself. This is true because the PATRIOT ACT gives the government undemocratic power that is immoral to society, it directly violates amendments and there have been actual cases where the PATRIOT ACT harmed innocent people and was used unsuccessfully. Firstly, if the government of the United States tried to pass the PATRIOT ACT of 2001 today, they would have a much tougher time.
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). But how could we interpret this amendment? Does this mean that we have the right to have only one gun, or we have the right to have as many guns as we want? Every right has its limitations and this right is not the exception. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights).
Gun Control Laws in America Firearms should not be restricted, nor should their accessories or capabilities. Placing laws that take away from our right to bear arms would only give negative effect on the safety of the general public and the amount of crimes committed. People need guns to protect themselves from the people who want to corrupt their lives by using guns, regardless of the law. Gun control laws vary from state to state. In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country.
Because people differ in their interpretation of these rights, conflicts arise that need to be settled by the Supreme Court. The Right of Privacy The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, Supreme Court decisions have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right. By virtue the basic human right is protected by the Ninth Amendment - certain rights cannot deny or belittle others. In addition to this amendment, the right to privacy is by the very nature a part of the Third and Fourth Amendment that protect against search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment that protects against self-incrimination.
There is not an objection concerning the validity of gun violence, but that is and needs to be seen as an entirely separate issue. It is our right as Americans to bear arms as it has been since our very existence, but that does not mean that by taking our rights away will absolve our country of this issue. John Lott has exceptionally demonstrated the true power of research and statistics. Before coming to a conclusion by opinions that sway an individual or society one way or the other it is imperative to do the research. Lott explains the importance of this in his message to his readers.
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
Concealed Weapons The U.S. Government cannot guarantee our safety, protecting ourselves and our families is our personal duty. The government should not affect the ability for responsible citizens to protect and defend themselves and their loved ones. One may feel safer being armed, even if they never need to draw their weapon. I feel we should have the right to carry concealed handguns, because we deserve the right to protect ourselves and our families, especially when the government cannot. According to a report by statistician, William Sturdevant, “A majority of adults who legally carry concealed handguns are law-abiding citizens, who do not misuse their firearms”.
Question: Do you think the spying procedures that the NSA performs should be different for Americans versus foreigners? In my opinion, the NSA should definitely perform different procedures when profiling Americans and foreigners. Spying efforts should be focused more on those from other countries, not the United States citizens. Although Americans may be just as capable of performing terrorist acts, it is difficult to work around the Constitution, and the United States’ biggest threats and attacks have been from other countries anyway. First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution.
Democrats in no way wish to undermine the right to the second amendment but do wish to establish strong laws to who can and cannot bear a gun for example restricting guns to be issued in the hands of previous criminals, stalkers, person going under mental services, background checks for gun sales, etc. not that someone doing right in society isn’t capable of doing such harm but that crime may be lessen in society this way the right is not taken away but