He was one of the officials in the Florence Republican and was given a post to deal with military and diplomatic affairs. He was one of the most influential philosophers of the western politics. All other political theorist who came after him referred to him directly of indirectly in his or her work. His writings, like The Prince and The Discourses of the First Ten books of Titus Livius, are well remembered by many authors and politicians who came after him (Soll, 34). Through his creativity in politics, therefore it was possible to predict what he would have said on the second amendment on the United States’ constitution. This amendment was adopted in 1791 together with bill of rights. This amendment was to protect the United States citizens with the right of keeping and bearing firearms. However, Noccolo Machiavelli would have different opinions on this right to keep and bear arms. Machiavelli would support it and on the other hand, he would deny the rights giving different reasons. The second amendment grants the United States citizens to keep and bear firearms (Spitzer, 23). This right was given due to many reasons. Possession of the firearms was important in the following ways, it helps to repel dangerous invasions, grants one the right of personal defense, and it enables people in organizing militias. Machiavelli would have supported this amendment because in his writing, he said that before anything else, each person must be armed. He advised that military service should a responsibility to every citizen. Therefore, every citizen should have a possession of some firearms to ensure that the society is secured from any invasion. He supported possession of arms giving reasons that good men do not make war the only profession neither can a good government can allow its citizens to make war the only profession (Soll, 37). He advised that each government should practice the art on war during the time of peace but war should occur when it is necessary to acquire glory. He believed that every citizen is considered a good man when he uses those arms in a correct way that is meant for. In addition, a government is considered well government when it uses its military to serve that society in a wrong way. Therefore, he would support the second amendment of the constitution. Furthermore, Machiavelli would support the second amendment of the United States’ constitution, which grants citizens the right of possessing firearms by claiming that this right would show that the government thrusts its citizens. Failure to grant the citizens this right, it will show that the government lacks faith to the citizens. This would make the citizens hate the government. However, the citizens should not be disarmed to ensure that the relationship between them and the government is kept in touch. This shows that Machiavelli would support the second amendment of United States constitution. There are some reasons that would make Machiavelli oppose the second amendment of the United States constitution. As the constitution would give rights to the citizens to keep and bear firearms, Machiavelli will oppose it just in case the citizens will use the firearms in a wrong way. He would oppose it is saying that only good citizens would use the firearms during the necessary times to prevent invasion from other people. Those who will not follow this should be dealt accordingly. He said that not all people do good things all the time. This is because their minds change like tides and at times, they can cause arm without realizing what they are doing. Therefore, keeping and bearing of firearms should be abolished since it will cause a lot of harm if the citizens use them in a bad way. He would argue this idea that not everyone
Niccolo Machiavelli was a well-known political theorist born in 1469 at Florence, Italy. Many political authors considered him as the father of the modern political theories. Machiavelli was a famous historian, diplomat, philosopher writer and a humanist who did his work in Florence. …
This policy paper is addressed to the US congress which is the authority that can approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The congress should be aware of the adverse consequences that the pipeline might cause to livelihoods of many US citizens.
Also addressed is the manner in which common sense reality can be influenced by the theoretical constructions of both intellectuals and ideas from other merchants. The paper is therefore focused on handing out an understanding of a reality that makes up the core of the empirical science of sociology
There is an increasing body of literature examining the original meaning of the Second Amendment and boiling debate over the desirability and efficacy of the gun control legislation (Lund, 1987). Despite this, Lund (1987) stated that no one has attempted to develop an interpretation of the Second Amendment that fits comfortably within the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence of individual rights.
When many nations of the world have this objective and the other group of nations tries to protect their territory from these nations, it would result in World Wars. Along with these two major objectives, many other factors would also push nations to initiate World Wars.
Many authors contend that individual gun ownership is arguably one of the oldest and perhaps the most notable uniqueness associated with the American culture. Gun ownership has been constitutionally been protected for nearly above two hundred years by the “Second Amendment” giving American citizens the opportunity and right to “keep and bear arms”1, however, governing legal provisions that define control is not similar in all Federal States and they shift from State to State.
The concept of travelling through cars came into existence during the 20th century when the industry of automobiles started developing (Peterson, 1987, p.1). It is true to state that automobiles such as cars have helped Americans in several ways and have brought a positive change in their life.
However, present day sociologists have not been critically analyzed. This paper shall give an in depth analysis of two important theorists in this day and age. It shall compare their theorists and how they can be related to world as is known today. In the end, the paper shall choose the preferred theorist between the two.
United States of America, argued on same day and decided by same court on a single day.
Federal agents had a supervising eye on the activities of Mr. Roy Olmstead, who was a suspected bootlegger. He maintained an office in the basement of his building. The federal agents
atic relationship between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the United States has changed from one of adversary in 1975 to one of ‘significant partner’ in 2010. Today both nations freely exchange trade and tourists while also agreeing on many significant diplomatic