The book titled "Guns in America" written by Helen Strahinich defines gun control as any las that restricts the ownership or sale of firearms(Strahinich 2). The history of the gun control debate can be traced back to colonial times when guns were being outlawed to keep them out of the hands of the poor. Today, the subject still remains so controversial that many politicians fear touching the subject. Will banning guns eliminate crime? Will criminals still be albe to obtain firearms? These are two of the most controversial questions that fuel the fire in the debaate spotlight. tThese following two examples best illistrate how easily one can put forth arguments either for or aginst gun control.In 1995, a gang of four masked theives armed with Tec-9 semiautomatic pistols brok into Marsha Bealty's home in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The thieves were supprised when they were confronted by Marsha and her roomate armed with 9mm pistols. The immediately fled when threatened by the two women.(Blackman)
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.
The Elizabethan era was a time of literary discoveries, military victories, and religious developments. History tends to focus on the military achievements of the time, such as the successful defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, or the religious developments of the time, such as the overthrow of the Catholic Church in England and the implementation of the Protestant Church. Literature historians focus on the emergence of Elizabethan authors like Shakespeare and Marlowe. Ian Mortimer, the author of The Time Traveler’s Guide to Elizabethan England, focuses on the social history of the era. He explains the lives of the people of England in the 1600s. Mortimer describes their laws, their medicine, their eating and dressing habits, and their
Gun control is an important issue in the United States. The big issue with gun control is some people want stricter gun laws. On the other side of the argument people that supports the usage of a firearm thinks that it is an individual’s right under the Second Amendment and guns are needed for self-defense.
“If a college education has value, why give it away?” (Luebke). Most everyone wants to have higher education because it has value in this day and age. It opens up more career options, and lets them have more freedom to pick the career they want. With higher education being tuition-free, students might take their college education less seriously because they don’t have to pay for it (Should College Be Free? Pros, Cons, and Alternatives). Because of this, graduation numbers might drop, or the people who do graduate may not be as well prepared for the workforce. Yes, there are still entry requirements that limit the amount of students allowed into the school, but much of the drive for the students comes from the fact that they are paying a lot of money to be there. Also, giving away college education would almost certainly do the opposite of what people want it to do, which is give more money to students from richer families than from poorer ones. It isn’t that they want to necessarily take money from the richer families, but they want to give poorer families more opportunities to get money. “Without a dramatic overhaul of how we understand student benefits, making college more or entirely free would most likely boost the wealth of college attendees without securing any important egalitarian gains.” (Bruenig). This is because students from well-off families already enjoy a disproportionately successful future than students from poor families,
First and foremost, Trade Schools, Colleges and Universities states, “After all, more and more of today's jobs are knowledge-based or require advanced technical skills. So a better-educated workforce would help fill many of the skills gaps that prevent America's economy from growing faster.” If more people attended college then there would be more jobs to fill in America’s economy. There have been droughts in America’s economy, but with free college tuition, droughts would decrease. It would not be fair that someone who could be successful at the job would not be granted the ability to get the job because they don’t have a piece of paper with a signature on it compared to someone who does average or mediocre at the job and had the opportunity to go to college. Making college free also comes with consequences. So graduation numbers might drop, or the people who do graduate might not be as well prepared for the workforce. Also, with more people choosing to attend public colleges because of their tuition-free status, many schools might have to create wait lists or expand the ones they already have. State budgets could become strained, which might lead to cuts and decreased access to the programs that students want to take. Here is the weakness, although it benefits many students, the nation's existing
As a main part of the de-Stalinization process, Khrushchev decided to rename all the names Stalin had changed to their original ones, and to alter any symbolic gesture of Stalin. In 1961, the city of Stalinabad, capital of one of the SSRs, was reverted back to its original name of Dushanbe. That same year, Stalin’s “hero city” was reverted back to its previous name of Volgograd to reduce the personality of Stalin throughout the city. During Stalin’s reign, the National Anthem of the Soviet Union had been a reference to Stalin, but this was changed by Khrushchev (britannica.com). Due to his work in de-Stalinization, Khrushchev is considered one of the greatest leaders that the Soviet Union has ever seen. The Soviet Union improved significantly under his leadership, and his decision to begin de-Stalinization was a significant turning point in Soviet Union history.
First, free college can encourage students to go to college to get a degree which leads to a high paying career. It can fulfill those students that are having a hard time financially, and fewer students will be in debt. Second, with free college, colleges will be more likely to help students that need the guidance to stay on track and get a diploma. Clayton and Bailey mention, "If we want to significantly improve educational outcomes, we need to make college more affordable so more students can enroll, and make the reforms needed to en-sure community college students can succeed in their courses, complete their program, and grad-uate within reasonable amount of time" (Clayton and Bailey). Finally, free college can help the U.S. catch up to the rest of the countries with higher education. For example, it can help the United States surpass Russia, where more than half of adults have a diploma. Frohlich explains, “More Than 53% of Russian adults between the ages of 25 and 64 had some form of higher edu-cation in 2012, more than in any other country reviewed by OECD” (Frohlich). Although free college is an attractive idea, it will leave the United States in a bigger debt which will be hard to recover from and more students will be unmotivated to
It has been nearly three decades since the last time Congress reformed our immigration system. From the Reagan era to the Obama administration, the country has undergone financial, social and political changes yet our immigration policies continue to be the same. Since the implementation of the last immigration reform in 1986, the United States government has spent nearly $187 billion ($220 billion when adjusted to 2013 dollars) in immigration enforcement agencies and programs alone (Meissner, Kerwin, Muzaffar & Bergeron, 2013). The high costs and the increasing public concern has led Americans to recognize the brokenness of our current immigration system and how it has not kept up with changing times. Research has shown 71% of Americans say undocumented immigrants should have a pathway to remain in the country legally (Pew Research Center, 2013). Although Congress and the White House have had numerous failed attempts to pass immigration reform in the past, H.R. 15 proposes an updated bipartisan system that can further secure the borders and solve problems surrounding immigration (Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, 2013.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
Donald Trump, a current Republican front-runner, is well known for his presidential campaign and its harsh policies on illegal immigration between Mexico and the United States, which are largely similar to the 1930’s repatriation movement. His policy on Mexican immigration states, “The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans… to earn a middle class wage.” This is almost identical to a claim that was made during the Great Depression, and his plans for solving the crisis are also identical to the efforts made during the Repatriation; welfare refusal to immigrant families, job denial, and mass deportation of roughly 11 million Mexican immigrants. Though the thought of these plans going through may seem unachievable, history shows that they can be --and have been --
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
One of the worst nations to suffer from Stalin’s great purges in the Soviet Union was not the Russians. Fascist sought to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity which individuals are bound together by ancestry, culture, and blood which are all super personal connections. However, even though Stalin did enforce Russia of the Soviet Union the main enemies of his were the political opponents and their followers. His most ferocious acts of terror “The Great Purges” took place between 1934 and 1939.
While most people want college to be free, the U.S. should not make tuition free for all citizens. There are a number of reasons like taxing families who already have it hard, quality in education, rationing, and if people see that they do not have to pay it may lower the value in which they won 't take school seriously. Tuition free college is impossible because at the end of the day someone will have to pay for all those students attending. For example, “In college I was invested, I was paying,” The former student said, “Once it entails a cost, it’s not easy to just say, Oh, let’s not go to class today. You’re just hurting yourself” (qtd, in Make College Affordable, but Not Free). Student who barely made it
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 constitution promised the Soviets freedom of speech, conscious, press, assembly, and demonstrations in conformity with the interest of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system.”20 In fact the Soviet people never saw any of these rights. The Constitutional rights could only be used to support the regime, not to criticize it.
There is no doubt that college is expensive, price tags for some universities go over a quarter of a million for just a bachelors degree! (That’s if you graduate in four too). The extravagant price for college is no doubt crazy. Trying to better yourself and your future shouldn’t cost $250,000 plus. If public universities were to be free a plethora of problems could be solved instantly. According to Forbes the National student loan debt has surpassed 1.2 trillion dollars (Denhart )! This number is growing exponentially as more students enroll in to college. Why question then whether college should be free? Well, this number is the total amount of student loan debt from all students that have exited college. Some of these students are freshly graduated while some are aged with the wisdom trying to pay their loans back. If public universities were to be free and funded by our federal government, our government would pay this amount within ten years. Relatively a short amount of time considering that the student loan debt is an accumulation debt from students that have graduated more than ten year ago, also this also greatly increase with the following years as well.