There are many people who may ask, “What is really the difference between the Republican, and Democratic party?” Some will give the most common answer; Republicans support the rich people, and Democrats support the poor people. That simple answer hardly gives me a complete answer. I want to know more about how the Republican and Democrat are different. The Republicans and Democrats have different beliefs about many things, such as: the economy, education, and national defense. I know that I don’t want someone running the country that we live in until I know a little more about them.
I am not saying they would not get them, but it would be more difficult to find them. Cons for gun control are that if they ban some clips for a .22 rifle, I would not be able to keep my magazine unless they rule that a big clip is smaller than a certain number. Some people would disagree that having any kind of gun control is bad. The big gun enthusiasts think that nothing is going to change except for the temper of the
As citizens of America it is our right to own a gun as stated by the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights. Adding more laws to our pre-existing ones will only continue to make the task of obtaining a gun harder and harder until eventually people will give up because they won’t want to deal with all of the new restrictions. It would also make the task of getting a gun for someone who would use it in the right way, such as for protection, much more difficult. Lastly, the belief that more gun control laws would reduce the murder rate is not true as most who murder with guns have gotten them illegally from trade. Even if it did while it may reduce murder from gun crime criminals would still have the option of other deadly weapons.
The first issue was that of what people would be involved in the government. This problem was centered on the idea of different classes of people that were in the nation. By limiting the types of people in the government however, it would limit the types of personalities that would play a role in the government. Some argued that the private men, the working class individuals who represented the majority, had no business being involved in politics and government. Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
Bobby Wrench National Government September 18, 2012 Gun control The definition of gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and use of guns or other firearms by private citizens. Most commonly the guns in question are personal firearms, typically handguns and long guns. I am for gun control because I feel that guns are not for everyone. Certain people cannot handle firearms and certain individuals tend to misuse them. Firearms are not something to be played with.
He wanted them to be able to fix their problems themselves and let the government do more important jobs and have to worry about them less. He wanted them to become strong, independent people, but when America’s situation was as bad as it was nothing the people did could get them out of that situation. The government needed to step in and help them get out of the hole because they were too far in to pull themselves out. This concept had good intentions, but failed miserably. FDR’s Liberal ideas set new ground rules for the coming presidents to follow and his spirit and work ethic were going to be the top bar the next Presidents would have to compete with, even still
He even questions himself when he says “I wonder sometimes how things might have turned out had those ads actually run. Not so much whether I would have won or lost but rather how the voters would have perceived me…” (133) Obama just stated how he cares more about how the people views him rather than his endorsements and rather than him losing or winning. Obama has been very blunt about his passion of serving the people of the United States of America time and time again, and he believes every politician should hold that component lose to their hearts rather than taking these offers from endorsers and expecting “special interest” out of them. This can be prevented in the future if politicians would focus on the big picture of the people and how to better the country and the people rather than their political race. Not only focus and care about the people, like Obama displays, but also for the politicians to change their attitude and views.
If the USA joined the League, it would mean agreeing with the colonies and empires idea and it would also mean that the League would be in control of Britain and France. The Legislative doesn’t want us being under control of France and Britain because we are more powerful than both those countries and we have pride in our country. Being the under the League’s control could cost us anything. The League could force us to give money or soldiers to help sort out other countries’ disputes. USA is powerful because of our isolationism from other foreign countries and if we joined the League, it would mean that we would be under control of Britain and France and we would be like dummies; doing whatever the puppet master told us to do.
The reduction of the crime rates following the reduction of gun-related violence can be used to justify gun control. However, the official statistics does not support this assumption. The reasoning that guns cause crimes arises numerous disputations, as it does not consider that guns are just another mean of committing a crime. Pro-gun advocates usually assert, “Guns do not kill people; people kill people.” The Vice President, Wayne Lapierre argued that the best solution to the Newton Massacre was to allow citizens to own guns. He stated”The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Spitzer,