The reasons why being pro gun control is effective in achieving peace

No one came expecting to make only a token resistance. For me to point that out is to invite immediate denunciation as a false patriot, provocateur, traitor, etc. Second, British oppressors understood that arms are the guarantor of liberty, and that to prevent liberty, they had to prevent arms, ie, enact gun control.

City-dwellers are victimized by gun crime at much higher rates, and are far more likely to support stringent gun control. Some of them were unfamiliar with the concept of enumerated powers.

They engaged in various criminal activities, and then wanted to use the Constitution to justify their misdeeds. Politely refuse to be searched.

Rural residents should not have to weigh their desire to own hunting rifles against the possibility that urban youth will use handguns to shoot each other.

Firearm Localism

Following is my effort to approach the matter from a historical, Constitutional, Biblical, and common sense approach. But the geographic differences are nonetheless striking, and the historical evidence is at leastas comprehensive and longstanding as that supporting other Second Amendment rules like the felon carve-out.

The militia was standing ready to engage the feds, should the church ask for their help. But the more serious problem with achieving political compromise is that the debate is not simply one about policy analysis. This Part argues to the contrary that the Second Amendment need not be blind to the reality of our gun cultures, that urban gun control should receive increased deference and, symmetrically, that rural gun rights are entitled to increased protection.

Trespassing is not a sufficient cause to shoot someone. If we are going to act without support from large sectors of the population, it is because we have given up on them, and have decided to live out the maxim "Better dead than red.

Other potential questions and objections can be answered preemptively by clarifying what this Article does not argue. The feds would not have been able to seize the property, if everyone had been determined enough.

This final Part considers both the federal constitutional backdrop and the state statutory foreground. Let him have a chance to appeal, and so on. Randy Weaver never fired one shot. Indeed, proximity to individuals acquiring firearms is inversely correlated with feelings of safety, and densely populated urban areas obviously involve greater proximity to other people, including those acquiring firearms.

Spread the word as rapidly as possible to as many people as possible, not forgetting to use the media, even though they will put a bad spin on our resistance.

Look at the civil rights movement. A sufficient non-violent resistance could have been made that would have prevented takeover of the church, if, 1 they had followed through with the initial stand they took to not surrender the church, 2 they had escalated the situation to bring to bear more public support.

At some point during their march toward Lexington, it became obvious that the British intended to seize the militia arms--cannon, muskets, ball, shot, powder, wagons. According to their testimony, on April 19, they were attacked by charging BATF agents who opened fire without provocation.

It works against them as well as us, and it beats the heck out of shooting someone. Running also amounts to turning over our rights, our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and everything our forefathers and all that the veterans have died defending to the enemy to be destroyed, since we will not stand to defend them.

They understood that government must be restrained with the chains of the Constitution. As far as I know, no one shot back. Sue the dickens out of them later if they search you anyway. Nobody was being disarmed. We should meet deadly force with deadly force if and only if that is necessary, and only if it is the only way to stop them from what they are doing.

After awhile, the situation would feed itself as more people found out, and knew that the church was going to hold the line no matter what, and help was needed immediately.Is violence required to cause change?

57% Say Yes 43% Say No Violence is the answer for change. roles that violent and nonviolent dissent both had throughout the battle for civil rights were important for different reasons – both accomplished things in different ways and in different places (violence being more effective in the South.

The refusers (% of all cases) are closer to gun owners than non-gun owners in having a hunter, being less supportive of gun control, living in a rural area, and having a male respondent.

Missing cases (% of all cases) show a more mixed pattern being closer to gun owners on opposing gun control and living in a rural area, but somewhat. Aug 12,  · No doubt, this can be effective, and if everyone could be persuaded to forswear violence, peace would prevail.

But even those who would like to reject violence should be wary of those not as Author: Benjamin Ginsberg. The Reasons Why Being Pro-Gun Control is Effective in Achieving Peace PAGES 3. WORDS View Full Essay. More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University.

Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @. Gun Quotes from BrainyQuote, an extensive collection of quotations by famous authors, celebrities, and newsmakers. a Peace Corps volunteer bringing clean water to a village, or a relief worker stepping off a cargo plane as floodwaters rise.

Colin Powell. Water, Peace, America, Face, Rise, Clean. Gun control means being able to hit your. A Few Biblical Reasons Why We Should Not Flee To Another Country To Escape The Coming Confrontations.


gun control Essay Examples

by David C. Treibs ([email protected]) please read it and send me your feedback! What's the big deal about gun control? Why should we hazard our lives to stop it? And, where is this tyranny?

The reasons why being pro gun control is effective in achieving peace
Rated 5/5 based on 44 review