paper for school what do you think
#1
paper for school what do you think
Argumentative
April, 28, 2009
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
“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.” Those words live in the heart of every American whether you believe in them or not.
Our constitution gives certain unalienable rights. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution 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 states a person or militia has the right to keep and bear arms be it a single shot, hunting, rifle, or a semi-automatic AR15 defense rifle. This right was given to the people by our founding fathers not out of fear, greed or a want to control the people. This right was given to the people as a tool to aid and keep a safe and just government. Our founding fathers knew that without the people’s right to bear arms there would be no Free State.
Over the years there have been many debates over the 2nd amendment. Some feel it is the right of a well regulated militia not the right of normal citizens. Most recently the U.S Supreme Court ruled on this issue. In the case of District of Columbia V. Heller
It stated that
“THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C.
CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH
ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND
OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES?
CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning
private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-7041”
This opinion by the court stated that the people’s right to keep and bear arms was not a right to militias and militaries but a right for every American citizen. This opinion was one need for many years as it was one of the few if not the only one to state the people’s right to keep and bear arms was a right to every person not just to militias.
On May 1, 1982 the city of Kennesaw Ga. passed a city ordinance stating every head of house hold was now required to own one firearm with ammunition. This law was passed with a amendment that allow those with a moral objection or those lawfully banned from owning a gun to not own a gun. It also did not have a penalty for not following the law. Gary Kleck, a criminologist attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. Kennesaw proves that gun bans do not lower crime rate in fact it is the complete opposite gun ownership lower the crime rate. A lot of people will tell you guns kill too many people and should be ban. My answer to that would be guns do not think or act there a machine being controlled by a person. An answer to that would be to ask them if cars kill too many people and should be outlawed.
On the other hand there are way too many criminals with guns. Every year too many people are shot and killed by people who should not own firearms. At the Virginia Tech College student Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people along with his self, and wounded 23 others. It was later found he was a competed to a mental hospital but due to gaps in the N.C.I.C background check it was not know when I bought his two semi automatic handguns.
#2
RE: paper for school what do you think
On April 3, 2009, a gunman entered the American Civic Association building and started firing at people in the building. Fourteen people were shot and killed including the gunman who took his own life. At first it was said the gunman was using a high powered assault rifle, But later it was found to be a handgun.
Even though many deadly and evil things happen when we allow criminals get their hands on guns. Our United States Constitution still states “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.”
Even though many deadly and evil things happen when we allow criminals get their hands on guns. Our United States Constitution still states “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.”
#3
RE: paper for school what do you think
Throw out all personal opinions on this issue and understand if you take away the 2nd amendement what will keep someone else from taking away the 1st. 3rd, or 4th. So next time you say we should outlaw guns maybe yhour should think about or right to free speech or or right to protest.
#4
RE: paper for school what do you think
sorry guys i had trouble getting it all in one post it took three for some reason. If someone can tell me how or fix it please by all means. Odd thing is on the third it would not post it copy paste but it let me retype it then post it
It keep saying this page will not display it takes a login to acess.
It keep saying this page will not display it takes a login to acess.
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: paper for school what do you think
What grade are you in, what class is this for, and what was the purpose of the paper (what were you supposed to achieve by writing it). If you can fill us in on that information, offering you relevamt criticism will become much easier.
#6
RE: paper for school what do you think
sorry I am a freshman in college my first semester. This was a argument essay for english. We were to argue a point good or bad plus we had to be balance sop i had to argue about banning guns[:@]
ORIGINAL: MagnumMan308
What grade are you in, what class is this for, and what was the purpose of the paper (what were you supposed to achieve by writing it). If you can fill us in on that information, offering you relevamt criticism will become much easier.
What grade are you in, what class is this for, and what was the purpose of the paper (what were you supposed to achieve by writing it). If you can fill us in on that information, offering you relevamt criticism will become much easier.
#7
RE: paper for school what do you think
The Constitution does not give rights, it does protect some of the creator-given (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) rights from any infringement by the federal government. Basically, all power to govern originates from the people. The individual right to keep & bear arms is one of those so protected, as you noted.
Overall, a good paper.
Overall, a good paper.
#8
RE: paper for school what do you think
I'd proofread before turning it in...
Note that the constitution does not "give certain inalienable rights". It protects rights which pre-exist under natural law from infringement by the government.
I've highlighted some things in red and inserted suggested revisions, comments, and questions in green.
Good luck.
ORIGINAL: bigtim6656
Argumentative
April, 28, 2009
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
“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.” Those words live in the heart of every American whether you believe in them or not.
Our constitution gives [change to "protects"] certain unalienable [change to "inalienable"] rights. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution 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 states a person or militia has the right to keep and bear arms be it a single shot, hunting, rifle, or a semi-automatic AR15 defense rifle. This right was given to the people by our founding fathers not out of fear, greed or a want to control the people. [Change to "Recent administrations have sought to limit the right out of fear, greed or a want to control the people." and then move to end of pargraph.] This right was given to the people ["protected from infringement by the government"]as a tool to aid and keep a safe and just government. Our founding fathers knew that without the people’s right to bear arms there would be no Free State.
Over the years there have been many debates over the 2nd amendment. Some feel it is the right of a well regulated militia not the right of normal citizens. Most recently the U.S Supreme Court ruled on this issue. In the case of District of Columbia V. Heller
It stated that
“THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning
private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-7041”
This opinion by the court stated that the people’s right to keep and bear arms was not a right[reserved] to militias and militaries but a right for every American citizen. This opinion was one need for many years as it was one of the few if not the only one to state the people’s right to keep and bear arms was a right to every person not just to militias.
On May 1, 1982 the city of Kennesaw Ga. passed a city ordinance stating every head of house hold ["household" is one word.] was now required to own [add "at least"] one firearm with ammunition. This law was passed with an amendment that allow those with a moral objection or those lawfully banned from owning a gun to not own a gun. [I would say "that exempted those with a moral objection or those lawfully banned from the requirement to own a gun.] It also did not have a penalty for not following the law. Gary Kleck, a criminologist, attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. Kennesaw proves that gun bans do not lower crime rate. In fact it is the complete opposite. Gun ownership lowers the crime rate. A lot of people will tell you guns kill too many people and should be banned. My answer to that would be guns do not think or act. [I would simply say "But, guns do not think or act."] There [They are] a machine [replace "machine" with "tool"] being controlled by a person. An answer to that would be to ask them if [replace "if" with "whether"] cars kill too many people and should be outlawed.
On the other hand there are way too many criminals with guns. Every year too many people are shot and killed by people who should not own firearms. At the Virginia Tech Collegemassacre, student Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people along with his self, [I would say "and himself']and wounded 23 others. It was later found he was a competed ["a competed" doesn't make sense here. What are you trying to say?] to a mental hospital but, due to gaps in the N.C.I.C background check, it was not known when I [you mean when "he" bought, right?] bought his two semi automatic handguns.
On April 3, 2009, a gunman entered the American Civic Association building and started firing at people in the building. Fourteen people were shot and killed including the gunman who took his own life. At first it was said the gunman was using a high powered assault rifle, But [but] later it was found to be [determined that he had used] a handgun.
Even though many deadly and evil things happen when we allow criminals [to] get their hands on guns, our United States Constitution still states “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.”
Throw out all personal opinions on this issue and understand if you take away the 2nd amendement [Amendment] what will keep someone else from taking away the 1st, 3rd, or 4th? So next time you say we should outlaw guns maybe yhour [you] should think about or [our] right to free speech or or [our]right to protest.
Argumentative
April, 28, 2009
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
“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.” Those words live in the heart of every American whether you believe in them or not.
Our constitution gives [change to "protects"] certain unalienable [change to "inalienable"] rights. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution 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 states a person or militia has the right to keep and bear arms be it a single shot, hunting, rifle, or a semi-automatic AR15 defense rifle. This right was given to the people by our founding fathers not out of fear, greed or a want to control the people. [Change to "Recent administrations have sought to limit the right out of fear, greed or a want to control the people." and then move to end of pargraph.] This right was given to the people ["protected from infringement by the government"]as a tool to aid and keep a safe and just government. Our founding fathers knew that without the people’s right to bear arms there would be no Free State.
Over the years there have been many debates over the 2nd amendment. Some feel it is the right of a well regulated militia not the right of normal citizens. Most recently the U.S Supreme Court ruled on this issue. In the case of District of Columbia V. Heller
It stated that
“THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning
private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-7041”
This opinion by the court stated that the people’s right to keep and bear arms was not a right[reserved] to militias and militaries but a right for every American citizen. This opinion was one need for many years as it was one of the few if not the only one to state the people’s right to keep and bear arms was a right to every person not just to militias.
On May 1, 1982 the city of Kennesaw Ga. passed a city ordinance stating every head of house hold ["household" is one word.] was now required to own [add "at least"] one firearm with ammunition. This law was passed with an amendment that allow those with a moral objection or those lawfully banned from owning a gun to not own a gun. [I would say "that exempted those with a moral objection or those lawfully banned from the requirement to own a gun.] It also did not have a penalty for not following the law. Gary Kleck, a criminologist, attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. Kennesaw proves that gun bans do not lower crime rate. In fact it is the complete opposite. Gun ownership lowers the crime rate. A lot of people will tell you guns kill too many people and should be banned. My answer to that would be guns do not think or act. [I would simply say "But, guns do not think or act."] There [They are] a machine [replace "machine" with "tool"] being controlled by a person. An answer to that would be to ask them if [replace "if" with "whether"] cars kill too many people and should be outlawed.
On the other hand there are way too many criminals with guns. Every year too many people are shot and killed by people who should not own firearms. At the Virginia Tech Collegemassacre, student Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people along with his self, [I would say "and himself']and wounded 23 others. It was later found he was a competed ["a competed" doesn't make sense here. What are you trying to say?] to a mental hospital but, due to gaps in the N.C.I.C background check, it was not known when I [you mean when "he" bought, right?] bought his two semi automatic handguns.
On April 3, 2009, a gunman entered the American Civic Association building and started firing at people in the building. Fourteen people were shot and killed including the gunman who took his own life. At first it was said the gunman was using a high powered assault rifle, But [but] later it was found to be [determined that he had used] a handgun.
Even though many deadly and evil things happen when we allow criminals [to] get their hands on guns, our United States Constitution still states “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.”
Throw out all personal opinions on this issue and understand if you take away the 2nd amendement [Amendment] what will keep someone else from taking away the 1st, 3rd, or 4th? So next time you say we should outlaw guns maybe yhour [you] should think about or [our] right to free speech or or [our]right to protest.
I've highlighted some things in red and inserted suggested revisions, comments, and questions in green.
Good luck.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bushmaster_5bko
Whitetail Deer Hunting
4
04-04-2005 06:11 PM