Ask your own question, for FREE!
English 8 Online
OpenStudy (anonymous):

Can someone plez help me change up the words in this I will give a medal

OpenStudy (anonymous):

."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.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

"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 states that no soldier shall, in moment of peace or time of war be kept in any house without consent of the owner of said home; only in a manner prescribed by the law. The conflict for this situation would be that the troops would be close to the area of the disaster and would then be more effective in giving aid and keeping order. The argument against forcing people to keep unwanted guests in their own homes is an affront to the idea of personal property and privacy. A property owner should not be deprived of the right to enjoy his or her property as he or she sees fit; forcing troops into homes like previously stated would cause anger to the citizens and troops who would then not receive any positive aid from the locals.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@Sofitina one more plez if u can do it

OpenStudy (anonymous):

.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.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

"Citizens were denied the right to bring legally owned firearms to storm shelters." The quote mentioned is a clear violation to what the second Amendment states. The second amendment states that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Arguments for bringing firearms to storm shelters being in a safe area during a disaster, could bring people to think that violence is being brought into a place that is designed as a sanctuary. 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 to this argument, 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. There you go :) Also, I totally agree with you!

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Thank u @Sofitina

OpenStudy (anonymous):

No issue <3

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!