Manuals and instructions for everything

why do we burn the american flag

Gun control is a very controversial topic highlighted in the media for the past couple of years due to an eruption of terrible mass shootings, such as the 2016
in Orlando, Florida, the in 2012, the in Colorado at the premier of ". " And the most recent: in Parkland, Florida. Yet we still say, "This could have never happened here," and "I can't believe it," but over and over again, we are shown that the risk of a massive shooting can occur whenever and wherever. Instead of sending condolences because of mass shootings, we need to find a way to restrict the amount of guns circulating the consumer market for easy access, because this is where the threat initially forms. Instead of saying sorry, let's start to act and promote change. If you believe this is a true issue, don't say sorry Б say, "No, not again. " SEE ALSO: We need to band together as a nation, just as we did for all of the previous shootings. I firmly believe that we are not a part of a nation that just sits back and mourns. We are a global leading power that is not afraid to use our Constitutional given rights to promote change and advance. Together we have fought to end slavery, equalize genders and expand the definition of love, so we, too, can fix gun control. But, the answer does not lie in arming teachers. I understand that protecting children is a top priority when it comes to dealing with school shootings, but placing guns within the hands of those who are meant to teach is a terrible idea.

We are essentially changing the playing field from having guns in the hands of soldiers and officers, those trained to kill and strict to law, to guns being in the hands of civilians who not properly trained and are subject to bias. We commonly forget that we are only human, and with being a human comes with human flaws and human mistakes. We are not perfect nor perfectly unbias, therefore we can not expect a teacher to be perfect in conduct or with execution when armed. This was exemplified by the attitude of Arizona teacher, who stated on Twitter that the solution to immigration shouldn't be deportation; it should be their death. Similarly, a Florida public school teacher who was found to have recorded a white nationalist podcast, suggested that Muslims should be completely eradicated, and she also promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In northern California, a high school teacher with an armed weapon fired it in class, injuring three students. Events such as these continue and draw on, showing the danger that guns are in real life, nevertheless in classrooms near children. Guns are a threat, an innovation meant to kill. Placing more threats in schools when threats are a large fear already is not healthy for society nor students. Those who may be a threat to society and become future shooters would only have greater access to obtain a gun by stealing one from a teacher at school.

Guns are high risks to everyone present around them, so why even risk their safety? In order to truly feel protected, schools shouldn't harden their walls and showcase the front of being a fierce, strong institution to deflect drive off shootings; it should be the opposite. Schools should become more soft, more caring towards the students and stop those who are at risk of becoming potential shooters at the first signs exhibited. Tend to those with mental health issues, focus on individuals who may have dangerous tendencies and stop risks as they grow, not when they create. SEE ALSO: Some teachers have been found taking massively inappropriate actions on the job, such as and conducting wide-scale, so adding guns into the mix can only increase classroom danger. Anger affects everyone in different ways and placing guns in the hands of teachers highlights this risk. One "off day" could lead to the shooting of a student. Is this how we want to manage our education system? I suppose the answer lies in whether we choose for the legislation to arm teachers to be passed or not. But until then, I suppose we should continue to be scared, continue to grieve and continue to rewind our recorded condolences for the next mass shooting. It was shortly before the Fourth of July in 1989 two centuries after the Constitution of the United States took effect when the Supreme Court declared that the government could not stop citizens from desecrating the nation s flag.

The patriotic mind recoils, TIME s Walter Isaacson in the weeks that followed the decision. Reverence for the flag is ingrained in every schoolchild who has quailed at the thought of letting it touch the ground, in every citizen moved by pictures of it being raised at Iwo Jima or planted on the moon, in every veteran who has ever heard taps played at the end of a Memorial Day parade, in every gold-star mother who treasures a neatly folded emblem of her family s supreme sacrifice. Yet, he continued, that was precisely the reason why the court, in the case Texas v. Johnson, declared that federal and state laws that protect the flag are in violation of free-speech protections. The flag is so revered because it represents the land of the free, and that freedom includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest. Almost immediately after the ruling was made, President Bush a solution: a constitutional amendment that would exempt flag-desecration as protected speech. But the legislative branch struck first and the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it criminal to desecrate the flag, regardless of motive. Protesters responded quickly by burning flags, in an attempt to get the issue back to the Supreme Court. Almost exactly a year after Texas v.

Johnson, their wish came true. In United States v. Eichman, which was decided exactly 25 years ago, on June 11, 1990, the Supreme Court once again ruled that burning the flag was an example of constitutionally protected free speech. Further attempts to protect the flag with an amendment were batted about in the years that followed, but they never went anywhere. As Isaacson pointed out in returning to the issue the week after the Eichman decision came down, the 1990s fight over flag-burning came at a time when the nation was seemingly less polarized: Paradoxically, the willingness to scale back First Amendment permissiveness comes when the divisions in American society seem to be at a 25-year low. In the 1960s the battle between flag wavers and flag burners represented a traumatic schism over the Vietnam War and national morality in general. Even in those incendiary times, there was never a serious effort to pass a constitutional amendment. Now the issue has become, so to speak, less burning. With the ideological battles at home in abeyance and challenges from abroad less severe, it would seem that the nation would feel more secure about the glorious discomforts that come from tolerating forms of free speech even when they are as offensive as the antics of flag burners or the lyrics of 2 Live Crew or the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe. Read the full story, here in the TIME Vault:

  • Views: 39

why do violent video games cause violence
why do we need more gun control
why do we need gun control laws
why do we crave horror movies stephen king
why do violent video games cause violence
why do school shootings happen in america
why is there so much violence in america