Question

Can some help me and change up for what I have said plez I will give a medal

Answer 1

Hello Governor Scott



I think that Rights are not absolute because they can come into conflict. My right to life, for example, can come into conflict with your right to life, if I happen to try to kill you. If you resist my attempt to murder you with lethal force, my heirs cannot sue you for violating my right to life. Less dramatically, if you restrain me, I cannot sue you for loss of my right to liberty. The Constitution enumerates the rights of individuals, but it doesn't say a lot of about the limits on those rights, except to throw in an adjective like "reasonable" here and there, to make it clear the rights are not to be taken to absurd extremes. Most of the explicit and detailed reasoning on how the rights of individuals are limited has come from Supreme Court decisions over the years. That process is still going on, as more and more odd examples where lines need to be drawn come to the Court's attention. For example, the exact limitations on a citizen's Second Amendment right to carry weapons are still being debated and worked out.

"The government allowed federal and state troops to be quartered in private residences to assist residents and protect order".This violates the Third Amendment that says no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. The argument for this situation are the troops would be close to the area of the disaster and would then be more effective in rendering aid and keeping order. The argument against forcing people to keep unwanted visitors in their homes is an affront to the very idea of personal property and privacy. In my position a property owner should not be deprived of the right to enjoy his or her property as he or she sees fit. Also, forcing troops into homes like this would likely anger citizens and troops would then not receive any positive aid from the locals.
"Citizens were denied the right to bring legally owned firearms to storm shelters". This violates what the Second Amendment says 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. And also arguments for bringing firearms to storm shelters, being safety areas during a disaster, may bring violence into a place that is designed as a sanctuary. Argument against that most people are good, some are bad. A person who legally owns a firearm should be allowed a means to protect him or herself at any time in any place. In my position Firearms serve an important part in American society. They keep governments in check, they ward off some other citizens with hostile intentions, and they serve as a reminder that each one of us has the right and duty to protect the nation from our own government if necessary. Denying a person access to their lawful firearm is effectively giving ultimate power to government with absolutely no checks or balances from the people.



Than you for having the time listening for what I have to say governor Scott
Sincerely,
Eki1709

Answer 2

Very interesting...hmmm

Answer 3

Put quotations around the third amendment. Also you forgot the ks in thanks. Be sure to split the large paragraph into 2 so it's not all squished and confusing. i hope this helped you.

Answer 4

Otherwise, it's beautifully written.

Answer 5

I ment as change up the writing

Answer 6

@Princesskid

Answer 7

Okay...