Hi I am writing a college essay on something regarding violence. I am interested in guns/gun rights and think it would be easy. He wants us to focus on something and he think gun rights is way too broad. He suggested something like the mentally ill having gun rights.
Do you guys have any ideas? Preferably interesting with a lot of research or details of it?
I will award 10 points thanks!!
IM OPEN TO OTHER IDEAS THAT DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GUN RIGHTS! So any suggestions!
IM OPEN TO OTHER IDEAS THAT DONT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GUN RIGHTS! So any suggestions!
Recently, there was an article about blind people being given gun permits. I’ve linked to it.
I think this is a great segway to launch into how people cannot be denied their fundamental rights, such as gun ownership, even though common sense should dictate otherwise.
You should reference how the 5th Amendment does indeed allow our liberties, such as gun ownership, to be taken away, but only after due process of law. And since being blind is not a crime, there is no constitutional basis to take a disabled person’s rights away.
I was just wondering, since a gag order prevents you from speaking publicly about a case, couldn’t you counter it with a violation of your right to free speech? Suppose you posted information anonymously?
Free speech is not and never has been absolute. The right to a fair trial is also important.They have to weigh the right to free speech to the rights of the accused and the victim in a case. By issuing a gag order, they are protecting both – victims from being bullied and harassed and criminals from having so much pretrial prejudice they can’t get a fair trial. A gag order is rarely issued and only with good cause.
If it’s a civil case, it’s what the parties agree to – so no one is deprived of free speech.
Free speech can be restricted with due process, which is what is happening. An anonymous posting is NOT anonymous and it wouldn’t take long for them to track you down. And put you in jail for contempt.
John McCain is circling the proverbial wagon on behalf of his fellow RHINOs and other Democrats and blocking any Senate Debate on ObamaCare.
Why is this? Why don’t they want a reasonable debate on such a potentially harmful new law that threatens the well being of so many Americans?
Because we already heard the debate on Obamacare, then they passed a law, the SCOTUS said it was constitutional, then we had another election which resulted in Obama winning and the Senate still with a democrat majority.
Losing those elections and then demanding a do over is kind of weird.
Tensions are high as NSA leaker Edward Snowden officially submitted application for temporary asylum in Russia on Tuesday. After Russian and international human rights advocates and lawyers met with Snowden at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport on Friday, the US said it was disappointed in Russia for considering the whistleblowers asylum. During a daily press briefing State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki was given a thorough grilling on the Snowden affair by journalists, including AP’s Matthew Lee and CNN’s Elise Labott and was left lost for words at almost every turn.
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT
RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Duration : 0:24:3
You can have your gun, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter.
** Music at the end is called “My Revolution” by 2MX2 – https://soundcloud.com/2mx2/7-my-revolution-ft-deconomy
Duration : 0:4:55
#NJSEN New Jersey Final Senatorial Debate: Steve Lonegan vs. Cory Booker at Rowan University (10/9/2013) Special Election is on Wed., Oct. 16, 2013
Duration : 0:57:48
US Presidential Election Results,1789 – 2012
1. Where are the Democratic-Republicans?
“Democratic-Republican” is an anachronistic term, used today to differentiate the early “party”, if you would call it that, founded by Jefferson and Madison, from the contemporary Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. In the 1790s and 1800s, the Democratic-Republicans were more commonly called Republicans, and to a lesser extent just Democrats. To be historically accurate, I have chosen to call them Republicans in this video. One need only read Jefferson’s words for proof, for in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, he explicitly states, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” In this video, these early Republicans have been colored green, to delineate from today’s Republican Party, which is colored red.
2. What is the significance of the colors?
There is no significance to the color scheme chosen. American political parties do not have official colors, unlike parties in, say, the UK. They’re simply employed to distinguish candidates’ state victories. The Red-Blue, Republican-Democratic schematic is a relatively recent phenomenon. I’ve maintained that in this video, but those are by no means either party’s official color.
3. Why is Washington a Federalist?
While very technically it’s true, Washington belonged to no party (and in 1789, during the first election, he is shown as unaffiliated), parties do very quickly develop, albeit loosely, in the ensuing four years, so that by 1792, one can legitimately label Washington a Federalist.
4. Isn’t Andrew Jackson a Democrat?
Yes, Andrew Jackson is the first Democratic president. He helped create the modern-day Democratic Party. But this was only when John Quincy Adams became president in 1824-25, despite losing the popular vote. The furor this and the subsequent “corrupt bargain” with House Speaker Henry Clay caused throughout the countryside, particularly among Jacksonian farmers, was cleverly cultivated for four years until Jackson ran against Adams again in 1828. By then, the Democratic Party had been formed to channel that passion into electing Jackson to the presidency. However, in 1824, during the end of the Era of Good Feelings, everyone was technically a Democratic-Republican, which I have labeled Republican, per the aforementioned point.
5. Where are John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur?
These men were never elected to the presidency. They were only elected as Vice Presidents. This is a video of election results, not presidential succession. Thus, they only appear whenever they’re on a national ballot. I’m not including 1841, 1850, 1865, and 1881, as transition years, since these are about election results.
6. State Designations. Between 1789 and 1824, the map in this video displays the electoral vote allocations per state. Beginning in 1824, when popular vote numbers began to become more widely tabulated, the map shows each state’s popular vote winner. Therefore, Maryland in 1908 is colored Red for Republican because William Taft carried the state very narrowly by popular vote, despite W.J. Bryan collecting 6 of its 8 electoral votes. There are exceptions. For years, South Carolina did not use a popular vote system, but continued to have state legislatures choose electors. In these instances, I simply colored the state for that particular electoral vote winner.
7. Where is Ralph Nader? Or other, minor third-party candidates?
Yes, although Nader may have cost Al Gore some votes in certain states in 2000, which ultimately meant the election, he was historically not a major third-party candidate. My criteria for this was simple: they had to crack 6% on the popular vote OR carry at least one state. In some instances, a third-party candidate nabbed a handful of states, without breaking 6%, such as Strom Thurmond in 1948, but in other instances, a candidate like Ross Perot could receive 18%, without winning a single electoral vote.
8. Where are the faithless electors?
I didn’t find it of particular relevance or importance to note the faithless electors. Additionally, if a state allocated its electoral votes to a candidate that was not of the top two parties, nor one of the listed third or fourth parties, but was just a protest vote, they were colored grey for “others.” This is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list of electoral vote allocations, but merely a five-minute presentation of US electoral history.
Also note, excepting the earlier elections, where portraits are few and far between, each image of the candidate was chosen as close to the election year as possible. I think it gives the election a greater sense of accuracy. The two notable exceptions are Washington, whose portrait is from 1797, and JQ Adams, whose is from decades after his presidency. I found those pictures to be the most suitable.
Duration : 0:5:9
Earlier in the day, on Thursday, two parliamentary committees investigating the Westgate terror attack had defended security forces who took part in the rescue operations at the mall against allegations of looting. The chairman of the parliamentary committee on national security Asman Kamama and his defence and foreign relations counterpart Ndung’u Githinji dismissed the claims leveled against the forces, instead accusing the traders who had taken out policies on terror of fabricating the claims to enable them obtain compensation from insurance companies. The two committees argued that the evidence obtained from cctv footage had convinced them that no looting took place during the security operation.
Duration : 0:2:18
I just would like to know what other peoples opinions on gun control and gun rights are. This is coming from someone who believes in owning guns but cutting down on stuff such as full auto machines and rocket launchers.
We don’t need gun control we need to do more so we would not need guns to protect ourselves..
Criminals prefer unarmed victims!!.
When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.
Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!
**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**
I was convicted of domestic violence five years ago. It was a misdemeanor. That’s all that is on my record. Can I get it expunged and restore my gun rights? I want them for self protection as well as hunting with family. Please do not answer if you are a gun control supporter. Thanks!!
For the record… I’m not some white trash wife beater. I’m 25 and female and was in a very abusive marriage. There was no proof of me "hurting my ex husband" he was mad because he said it took me too long to get home from Albertson’s, so I must have been cheating. He flat out said he would plot his revenge and two weeks later I got a letter from the prosecutor to show up for court. The report was made that night (he beat me up so I stayed at my sisters house) I was terrified and deathly afraid of my ex husband. I had never been in trouble with the law, so I took a conviction and received 12 months of "probation".
The only way you loose your American right to bear arms is if you are convicted of a felony. Even then you may have it restored after successfully completing probation, if it is a non violent crime. I am telling you this as a 2x convicted felon that goes hunting with guns in my possession legally. every year.