Arguments on Gun Control A lot of people feel that some forms of gun laws are needed to lower the level of gun related violence and crimes in the US. The opponents of gun control feel that it would be an infringement on their second amendment rights. The outcome of gun control has strong political implications because it determines the present day meaning of the Second Amendment. Each side has strong points to their arguments but I feel it should be the right of every person to make their mind up for their self. In the1800s the supreme court made the decision that the “right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution” followed up with a decision that states are “free to regulate the rights of citizens to bear arms”.
This theory is not as totally outlandish as it may initially seem. Of course when first hearing it, one could wonder why would the man so close to the president and in a seat of such power have the president killed. Well, although the vice president is supposed to protect the president, LBJ definitely had his reasons for wanting JFK assassinated. Firstly, with Robert Kennedy as the Attorney General, LBJ who had been in politics for a long time did not want some young lawyer who was new to the position and didn’t quite know how to do the job yet. Also, there may have been a great fear of a Kennedy dynasty.
“Analyzing the Text” Michael Levin’s, “The Case for Torture” argues that there are various reasons for allowing torture in the United States of America. Michael Levin believes that torture is justified when victims are at risk, claiming that torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. The author makes hypothetical scenarios in which people’s lives are in danger and preventing future events from occurring. Then stating his position on torture when people’s lives are placed in danger. 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.
The motive would be that despite the mafia’s major role in Kennedy getting elected, the president had Marcello deported just after he entered into office. Marcello then threaten JFK to get a “nut” to kill him. Despite this the mafia wouldn’t have used someone as inexperienced as Lee Harvey Oswald to do the job. Also the mafia couldn’t have gotten away with the job by itself so this theory doesn’t explain why the government covered it up. Possibly theory’s to the cover up have been: that the mafia black-mailed the government or in exchange for the cover up they would kill Castro.
The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security. Free speech, free thinking, and a free American lifestyle cannot survive in the climate of distrust and constant fear created by the Patriot Act. The words that Bush once said about protecting civil liberties have been forgotten. Undoubtedly, The Patriot Act takes away individual privacy rights and liberties from American citizens in exchange for the “greater good” of the country. The first reason of how the Patriot Act negatively affects our society is by taking away freedom of speech and the right to express and communicate ideas.
This act reduced the restrictions for U.S. agencies gathering information and intelligence within the United States. Many people argue that the government’s ability to spy on us whenever deemed necessary is a violation of their Civil Rights. This type of intelligence and the capabilities to monitor people however has been around for a while, it is known as the ECHELON program. “The NSA inherited the ECHELON program from AFSA. This global spy network, known as UK-USA, was a
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.
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.
Criticizing Bill Clinton Speech Essay “If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign” William J. Clinton,1974 Introduction: Critics should pay a very special attention to the Bill Clinton apology speech. The speech of the ex-president Bill Clinton was a bright example of how perfect rhetoric techniques might fail to deliver the message of a president to a mass audience if it goes about his morality. In his speech, Clinton, actually confesses he had a private relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It is a rule that such a confession and especially from a person of the highest position in the society means the end of the career. It took William Jefferson Clinton seven month to realize that people need apologies not for the deed, but for the lies.
Why Fear National ID Cards? Dershowitz makes the concept of national identity cards seem so simple when in fact it is not. What makes him so sure that a national identity card would stop a terrorist from being a terrorist? Although I can attest that it would be a great idea to have national identity cards, I do not suppose that they would decrease the likely hood of another terrorist attack or increase the level of security in our society. In the essay “Why Fear National ID Cards?” by Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz elaborates his views on national identity cards and the benefits of having one.