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. He sums it up by stating “A little less anonymity for a lot more security.” With that being said what makes him so sure that something as simple as a national identity card would make society secure? What would stop a person with a national ID from committing a crime or other acts of terror? Yes having one would make it easier to pin point a suspected terrorist but the reality of the situation is there would be no change in the level of security with or without a national identity card. Dershowitz makes it clear that he is skeptical about the idea of national ID cards and states that he supports national identity cards with chips matching a person’s fingerprints.
I think that this law is not good because no one should be killed just because the person stolen something. In my own opinion why this law should not be used today is because if someone steals property then that person should be put in jail and not killed and not the person that recieves the stolen property. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because the person that recieves the stolen property did not know that the property was stolen because the person that stole it did not tell them. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because no one should be killed just because they stole some property. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because of crimal justice.
Therefore, guns cannot be singled out and blamed for all of gun control. Instead of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, we should take them away from the criminals; and deal with the root of it all that causes crime and violence, such as poverty, discrimination, unemployment, etc. Guns are not the real cause of the problem, the people are. So now we need to find a solution to the problem and let’s figure out what we could do to control gun violence. One solution about the problem may be to speak up about the problem.
I believe the Bush Administration should not have done any of these things because if they had not done this, then we would not be in terrible situation. We would not be broke. None of the Americans would have lost their jobs and we would not be at war still. The first reason as to why the Bush Administration should be punished is because it had tortured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. In the article “A Body of Inquiries”, Jack M. Balkin wrote that punishment and
On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
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. Therefore, it is not recommended that we ban guns completely. The most pragmatic thing to do is to reduce the availability of guns and make it difficult to procure them by making sure that they are given only to people who are mentally capable of handling them. There is a definite need to ban guns since their liberal usage leads to large-scale public massacres, which are suited for the field of war, not civilized society. Weapons like automatic rifles and assault weapons are tools created with the purpose of mass killings.
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.
This makes no sense to continuously try to end violence with violence. This only incorporates in others the idea that “killing already incarcerated criminals can somehow solve the problem of violence in American Life” (Bessler). Many may not realize this, but capital punishment has only a corrosive influence on any society. Although many people feel that the death penalty is the solution to punishing criminals, it is not moral. Thus, nobody should ever turn to the death penalty as an alternative to punish these infamous criminals.
Banning guns would take this right away from us law abiding citizens “The constitution expressly forbids the government from limiting our second amendment rights in any way” (Debate.org,2013 p10) Guns do not kill people people do, and banning guns would just make things worse. Law abiding citizens would not be able to own a gun for personal protection and hunting. Criminals will always find a way to arm themselves leaving the rest of us helpless. According to Ellen Grace, Jones, author of “Why The U.S Should Not Ban Guns” (2012) “Australia and the U.K banned guns in 1997 yet murder rose by nineteen percent and armed robbery by sixty nine percent” ( p1). Here is another reason banning guns is not the answer, ”In the United States Chicago and Washington D.C have banned guns ; yet Chicago is the deadliest global city, and the murder rate is twenty five percent higher than last year” ( p1).
The bombs affected the children of the future, who are not to be blamed for anything that took place in the war. They also violate the Just War Theory, and did not give the US any tactical advantage in the war- the bombings were simply experiments to show the world America’s military standing. Along with that, US should not have taken revenge for Pearl Harbor on such a large scale. Some people argue that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified as the Americans had the right to take revenge for the attack that occurred at Pearl Harbor. This isn’t true.