The Symbol of Ignorance
Political emblems and logos can symbolize various things to various people. People see the same image but they do not look at it the same. To some, the representation may be positive, while to others it denotes a negative connotation. The National Rifle Association's emblem conveys ignorant ideologies.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) founded in 1871 developed an icon that entails a n eagle grasping rifles in its feet while standing atop a shield painted like the American flag. To some, this icon displays pride and the rights granted to us by the United States Constitution. Some individuals are staunch believers that say gun control should have no restrictions and that anyone over the legal age should have the option of owning a firearm without questions asked. The NRA is comprised of these people who are under the assumption that they can justify their actions by shielding (like that the eagle is perched upon) behind the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution which 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." Despite this legal shield, gun control laws need to be enacted. "The right to bear arms" should be loosely interpretated. It was created in 1791 to protect the American colonists in times of crisis with either the Native Americans or the British soldiers. Instead, the members of the NRA take this right to the extreme and argue that any form of arsenal is appropriate to own. A few problems arise with this belief. No one can argue validly that owning a machine gun or an AK-47 is necessary. If a husband and his wife feel safer with a gun in the home in the case of burglary or other unsuspected catastrophes, by all means they should be able to have a hidden gun in their residence. If someone is an avid hunter, by all means they should be able to own a rifle. The key word in the last to sentences is "a." A small, hand-held gun would be appropriate for the family who lives in fear and feels safer and more protected. It is pure ignorance to argue that owning deadly guns is a "right" in the United States.
Amanpour, Christiane. "1979 Hostage Crisis Still Casts Pall on U.S.-Iran Relations." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
Because of Mossadeq and his contributions to the nationalization of Iranian oil, Britain and the United States felt the need to a quick solution for the dangers that t...
Watson, Stephanie. "Iranian Hostage Crisis." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 158-60. U.S. History in Context. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment 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 means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
“The Assault Weapons Ban: Questions & Answers.” Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. August 2002. Brady Campaign. Org. 3 Dec 2002
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
Storck, M. (2011). The role of social media in political mobilisation: a case study of the January 2011
Many people against raising the minimum wage create arguments such as, “it will cause inflation”, or, “ it will result in job loss.” Not only are these arguments terribly untrue, they also cause a sense of panic towards the majority working-class. Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has consistently increased, even when the wage has been
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
The introduction to Persepolis gives a great deal of background information to the unrest in Iran leading up to the Islamic revolution. Iran had been in a state of unrest for “2500 years” (page11). Iran was ruled by foreign nations and exploited by the western world for its rich expanses of oil. In 1951 the prime minister of Iran tried to take back his country’s wealth by nationalizing
10. Webster, D.W. Vernick, J.S.: “Support for new policies to regulate firearms.”New England Journal of Medicine(September 17, 1998) 339(12): 813-18
Through analyzing more than three million tweets on Twitter, content on YouTube and thousands of blog posts, a study led by analysts from University of Washington finds that social media played a critical role in shaping political debates in the movements during the Arab Spring and it inspired protestors through the Internet platform and spread democratic ideas and demands across the national borders.
Safranek, Rita. 2012. The Emerging Role of Social Media in Political and Regime Change. s.l. : Proquest, 2012.