Persuasive Essay On Popcorn

It’s easy to understand why some of the parents and faculty members of the students at Oak Creek High would not agree with an open-campus lunch. They may believe that the student body is not ready or capable for handling the privileges of an open-campus lunch program. Yes, there’s the risk of students skipping out of school for the rest of the day with no return, if they have the privilege to leave campus for lunch. Also, some students may abuse the privileges of an open-campus lunch and skip out even if they don’t have a pass ID or parental consent. When those students deciding to skip without a pass get stopped and questioned by a school resource officer, they may get a loitering ticket depending on where they go when they skip, as well as a truancy

Students are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right granting the freedom of speech. However those freedoms are limited as Justice Fortas explains as follows:

According to student blog “Munchy’s Bans Students!” The last time the blogger was at Munchy’s, ALL the noise came from loud, annoying business people who were either on their cells or arguing with each other.This proves that there is no such thing as “quiet lunch” because Mr.Jones is making wrong assumptions about teens and adults.This is a problem for students because if they are banned from Munchy’s, most students may not have a place somewhere to eat for lunch if they do not or can not eat school lunch.Even though some businesses prefer not having teenagers around their business, teens should not be banned from Munchy’s because they will lose money, everybody is different, and it's a discrimination on the basis of age.

Wandering kids. Bumper to bumper traffic. Drug dealing. Is this the picture drawn when local students have fifty minutes of freedom during lunch to do whatever they please? Students should not be allowed to leave their school campus during lunch. An open campus would lead to truancy, disturb local businesses and neighborhoods, and cause crime.

Allowing guns on campuses has to be one of the most absurd solutions conceived to regulate safety. Firearms have no place in the hands of staff and students on campus. The idea is totally blown out of proportion because many universities actually considering concealed carry believe the impact will be less crime and more safety, but what exactly does it mean to allow a weapon on college property? People that are for campus carry argue that those with a firearm will be able to defend themselves against any incident that is bound to happen, but what happens when they pull out a gun? How will students, staff, or law enforcement react? Guns on campuses are not a good idea due to the fact students aren't fully mature enough to carry a weapon, they will become inhibited in

Based on my knowledge of first amendment law I believe the courts will rule in favor of the school. The reason I believe this is because you cannot just allow students to hand out whatever they wish because of the First Amendment. While what they handed out in this instance was mostly harmless, and it was not reported that other students had a problem with it, other things may not receive the same reaction. If students are allowed to hand out whatever they wish, some students could take to far, to a harmful level. This ruling also needs to set a good example since many times judges look at previous cases in order to rule on their current case.

Imagine being a teen and walking into Munchy's and they see a sign saying that “teens are not allowed from noon to 3pm. Teenagers should be allowed to eat where they want. This issue affects all the teens who like to eat at Munchy’s, but are banned. Even though adults need silence, Munchy’s should not ban teens because adults are just as noisy, Munchy’s won’t get as much money and adult’s/parents will get angry because they won’t allow their teens.

and university campuses has become a national issue. Currently, almost all college and universities prohibit the possession of

Allowing concealed weapons on campus has been around for several years now. Sides such as, Students for Concealed Carry, who advocate for the right to carry on campuses and the other opposing such thing. Former, Students for Concealed Carry Director, David Burnett wrote an article about the reasons as to why students should be able to carry on campuses. Burnett was the director for the group in 2011, he wanted to get the word out about this cause during his time. Burnett wrote several articles about the reasons to why students should be allowed to carry on campus. Also the websites states, “state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else.”(1) Burnett states this into his article because under the new law, only those who have a concealed handgun license would be able to carry. Those with licenses can freely carry in movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, shopping malls and even churches so why should a

Every student should feel safe when stepping foot on campus, but allowing concealed handguns on campus grounds brings forth fear and doubt. A new Texas state law allows license holders to have concealed handguns in college buildings and classrooms. I firmly believe in the second amendment, which provides the right to bear arms: this means that everyone has the right to protect their selves, families, and land. However, I stand completely against the new state law (which moves into effect in Aug. of 2016) that is allowing license-carrying gun holders to carry their weapons to and from classes in universities. With this ruling moving closer into effect, many faculty members and college students are now realizing the dangers that this will bring forth. This bill was passed to help protect and defend students from possible school shooters, but in reality, it only jeopardizes the safety and trust of many students and faculty members.

As the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech to all Americans, there needs to be some sort of limit on when students go overboard. There are many different types of speech in which it can cause disruptions in the classroom when teachers and students state their own opinions that don’t always go with what the others agree with. Things such as the place of where they speak these things are affective to whether their claims are legal or illegal on any school campus. When students cause a disruption, even across the street from a school supervised event while promoting illegal drug use like Joseph Frederick did, it needs to be stopped as soon as possible whether it goes against the freedom of a student's speech or not.

While the bills concerning open carry and campus carry of handguns are expected to be

It also poses a danger to police if there is an incident involving a shooting on campus. With students being able to carry guns, police officers would have a hard time determining who is the aggressor and who does not pose a threat.

Why spend money that is really needed for other things? Why live uncomfortably? Why be trapped in this hole called a home that belongs to another person? Why not live free and peacefully? When a person rents he or she usually throws away money that could be used to purchase something that belongs to them. Money is not easy to come by so why pay out hundreds toward something that is not benefit to the person paying it out. There is no good explanation for making a decision like this. The best option in a situation like this is to buy a house. Buying a house is a better option than renting an apartment.

Having escaped rule from a tyrannical British government, the United States was founded on ideals of freedom and equality for all people. These fantasies of universal egalitarianism turned out to be merely that: fantasies. American history is full of stories of the oppressed struggling to get the rights they deserve and of the controversy over these issues that consequently ensues. “The Hypocrisy of American Slavery” by Frederick Douglass and “We Shall Overcome” by Lyndon B. Johnson are two speeches made confronting two of these issues. Douglass’s speech, delivered in 1852, condemns the institution of slavery and maintains that slaves are men and are therefore entitled to freedom. Johnson’s speech, on the other hand, was written in 1965 and discussed the civil rights movement. In it, he implored local governments to allow all American citizens, regardless of race, to vote. Despite the significant gap in time between these two addresses, both speakers use similar persuasive techniques, including ethos, pathos, and parallelism, to convince their audience that change needs to be implemented in America.