US Arms Monopoly Summary

The American society has for long struggle with the debate and issue of private gun ownership. There are the advocates proposing lenient laws to allow more gun possession while the people against it calling for stringent laws to control the situation. For many centuries, since the enactment of the Second Amendment and even during the slavery period, gun ownership remains an issue to debate. The negative effects have been the harassment of the minority and the vulnerable as well as increased crimes. On other hand, it has helped promote the security of the people and ensure there is no violation of people’s rights to own guns as required by the Second Amendment. As such, gun control and ownership remains a controversial and hot topic of discussion

"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.

The American “way of war” is primarily based on the American interpretation of the national fundamentals and values to include capitalism and basic freedoms surrounding financial enterprising as applied in the democratic system. Along with these ideals concerning free marketing and democracy, the American “way of war” seeks to reinforce alliances with nations that uphold similar concepts and values through international trade and commerce. In doing so, the United States intrinsically denounces political ideologies that are contradictory, such as communism.

Last, no one else can provide national level security. A monopoly on the expert work that is to be performed is true of all professions. Caslen states that the American people “expect us to stand in the gap between the evil that is out there and our Nation’s values and our citizens themselves…”. This overwhelming charge is true to the profession of arms and can only be expected of experts in our given field.

One characteristic of American culture trough out the years, has been its affinity for diverse weaponry, particularly guns. However, many do not realize that America’s relationship with guns is engraved into the very frames upon which the country was established. In the eightieth century, as a means for hunting and self-conservation during the American Revolutionary War and the American Indian War, it was established with the enactment of the American Constitution 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”, also known as the Second Amendment. (Constitution)

Fourth, the amount of arms in a Nation’s possession must be limited “to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety” during diplomatic crisis. This point was directly related to America, because during the development of the European “powder keg”, America was extremely out-armed. Wilson believed that if each Nation had substantial arms to defend during crisis, peace negotiations would be made much easier.

This partnership inherently erodes the safeguards and checks intended to exist over each group by placing the key to the well being of one party in the hands of the other eliminating any incentive to perform each party's duty in favor of self preservation. As it plays out, the arms industry places its manufacturing centers in key congressional districts such that they ensure congressional approval and contracts by playing on the limitation of the democratic system. Because each representative in these districts has to be reelected to office, each election cycle produces the possibility of being voted out of office. One essential component in a reelection bid is to ensure the economic prosperity of the electorate, therefore if a congressmen were to limit, reduce or in any way infringe on the arms industry they would risk the economic sufficiency of their electorate and with it diminish their possibility of reelection. Thus, a mutual benefit between Congress and the arms industry

A standout amongst the most warmed and talked-about about issues in this day and age is that of weapon control. In recent past years, there’ve been many cases reported in light of gun use. Since then there are debates going on either there should be gun control bills. There have been high quantities of passing’s including guns in the United States, and individuals are starting to stand firm against the savagery and search for approaches to take care of the issues. Firearm control is exacting stricter and more brutal directions on owning and conveying guns, which numerous individuals accept is the answer. In any case, arguers trust that the privilege to have firearms is a piece of each American 's sacred rights. Gun laws are the reason for much rough wrongdoing in America, and they should be changed to make it less demanding for Americans to buy handguns, convey them as hid weapons, and better protect themselves.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Next came global imperialism during 1893, which “was simply an extension of the way American had ‘won the West’” (Schultz, 2012, para. 3). Politically, American imperialism can be traced back to the 1870s when the United States began to compete with European powers to “conquer vulnerable resource-rich regions” that would provide “substantial profits and a worldwide network of commercial and military bases” (Schultz, 2012, para. 7). In 1883, the United States began to build upon its military through the replacement of wooden sailing ships with “powerful all-steel, steam-driven battleships, armed with the latest long-range artillery” (Schultz, 2012, para. 19). This also meant that the United States needed naval supply bases to aid the naval fleet in maintaining American territory overseas. As for why America was building a global empire, this was done to support American economic development and to establish the United States as a world power worth reckoning with.” The United States also worked to build a global empire “because many Americans believed the United States was destined to share the benefits of democracy and white civilization with the rest of the world” (Schultz, 2012, para. 90).

Throughout the invasion between Russia and Cuba, guns were used as a mean for defense. Guns were conveniently available for families to utilize for defense, and they were prevented from any gun hindrances, including gun policies. Due to no drawbacks being present, the second amendment clause “the right to bear arms” was heavily enforced. For example, the federal government was unable to protect its citizens from an invasion and was easily defeated (Reynolds, Milius, 1984). Because of lack of collective control, citizens had to fend for themselves through gun ownership. For instance, during the invasion, teenagers and fathers easily accessed their own guns in order to protect themselves. (Reynolds, Milius, 1984) The concept of gun control limiting ownership of arms plays a role due to the supposed likelihood of war and the absence of the federal government. This goes against the notion of gun control because through surveillance and regulation of guns, the federal government has

The implication of gun control laws, meant to protect the nation, has been the spotlight of controversy for hundreds of years. Advocates claim their effectiveness is maximal, and they genuinely benefit the populace. Evidence contradicts these contentions, showing that gun control laws have been proven to be disadvantageous in their intentions. The absence of gun control is safer for the general public and ensures the rights of the citizens.

(5) You should not sell arms to an evil regime EVEN IF others will sell them if you don't.(Cf the case of George in Singer,85)

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.