Fallacies are a part of life whether they’re seen with the naked eye or completely invisible. They are in everything we see, hear, and read. There are numerous fallacies to last a lifetime nevertheless, one sticks out to me. That is the fallacy created by Donald Trump that suggested Hillary Clinton wanted to eliminate the Second Amendment. Donald Trump is famous for logical fallacies in his recent run for president. He has thrown out accusations that weren’t true, twisted his opponent’s words, and personally attacked people. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. However, I do not believe that all people should not be afforded the right to have a gun. Gun violence results in tons of injuries and deaths around the world daily, that’s a gigantic problem. I am a gun supporter, own a gun, and I appreciate the policies that ensure I do not get shot by someone who has no good intentions while in the possession of a gun. “Between 88 and 92 people a day are killed by guns. We’re better than this. We need to close the loopholes and support universal checks” (Hillary Clinton, campaign rally in Iowa …show more content…
Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away, and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” There was no evidence that reinforced this fallacy of annulling the right to bears arms. In fact, during the Democratic presidential debate in January 2008, she said “I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms.” Several sources claim that Donald Trump’s accusation isn’t true among other things he continues to lie about frequently to win debates. He also has made false claims that Obama was the founder of ISIS, which was also proven to be untrue according to PolitiFact, Washington post, factcheck.org, and many other sources. Clearly, he has the art of logical fallacy down to a science and he knows how to use it to stir the
environments. Bill Clede ideas in his article seem to be guild by the idea of
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important to our nation because it allows the people to protect their freedom and defend themselves and the common good against an overreaching government.
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
The U.S. should not have gun control laws. The Second 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 amendment has been around since 1791, and there has been gun control almost as long as it's been around. The National Rifle Association is an advocate of the Second Amendment and an opponent of those who propose restrictions on guns. Even Presidents Reagan and Bush are members, and Nixon, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were also members. Why do people feel the need to own a handgun? One reason is heritage. For as long as this country has been around, there have been gun owners, to defend themselves and to hunt for food. Buying, owning, or carrying a handgun doesn't hurt anyone. Until a person commits a crime, he/she is free to choose what he/she wants to do. Even if guns were completely banned from the U.S.A., people would still find a way to get them. Criminals would get guns. They would have their way, and there would be nothing we could do about it. We would have no way to defend ourselves. What is gun control to you? To me, it is the unconstitutional regulation and banning of guns to try to keep the crime rates in this country down. Does it work? Some gun laws are okay and they may work to some extent, but not to the extent that was intended. As for most of these gun laws such as the Brady Law, it serves no purpose. It is only there to make our lawmaking bodies and those of us who are too naive to see the truth feel better. Do you really think that the Brady Law keeps handguns out of the hands of criminals?
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views
We are entitled to the right to bear arms and taking that right away would be unconstitutional. Guns are not the cause for all the violence and crimes that have happened over the years. They do not increase the death rates. Children are more likely to die in a car or swimming pool accident then gun related deaths (VerBruggen). The weapons are needed for protection and hunting, owning a gun is not unconstitutional Taking the Second Amendment away or changing it would be unconstitutional and Un American, It is like any other right. This right is one of the reasons why we are the land of the free and home of the brave. “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” - Benjamin Franklin
The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
Gun control is a controversial issue that currently has no easy solution to please everyone. In an article written by Adam Winkler, a professor from the UCLA School of Law, he states that open carry is the answer to having fewer guns on the streets. His argument fails because it contains false premises throughout the article and is also inductively weak. First, he commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming a series of events will occur for doing one action. Second, he commits the bandwagon fallacy. The fact that other states have the open carry law in effect does not make his argument true nor does it make it a valid reason. Last, he neglects how there will always be people who do not follow laws. Gun control in the United States has been a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but Winkler’s point of view of the topic does not give a complete thought about why people should agree with him.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
Everyone in the United States of America has an opinion on gun control regardless of their age, race, or religion. From within those opinions arguments are formed. People are arguing about gun control at their jobs, at their schools, and sometimes at their places of worship. On one side of things there are the people that support gun control like certain politicians or political organizations, teachers, police officers, and so on. On the other side of things there are the people that are against gun control, people such as hunters and various types of criminals. When it comes down to sensitive topics like gun control, there are very few people that do not choose a side. The Second Amendment, like all Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are vague legal boundaries that have been set down thus far which answers some questions, but leave many more open (Sanders).
The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
The fallacies being used in this argument are Ad Hominem and Straw Man. Ad Hominem has to do with the way Trump verbally attacked Krauthammer, by calling him “boring” and a “clown.”