Political CartoonEssay Preview: Political CartoonReport this essay1789 vs. 2013The political Cartoon “1789 vs. 2013” was illustrated by Jack Ohman, and published in the Sacramento Bee on Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. Descriptions of how the cartoon looks like are that there are three different pictures in three sections. In the first box there is a man standing behind a podium with “1789” on it and dressed in 1700s colonial attire. The man on the right is standing behind a podium with “2013” and dressed in modern day business attire with a “NRA” badge. Both of the mens were explaining how their gun was used in the 1789 and modern day. The man on the right has a rifle with some deer dying everywhere, which made the man on the left look all, confuse. In the second box when the man on the left was explaining his gun it showed that he had a more advance and better kind of gun that year. For the modern mans speech bubble, it showed that there were some random mens dying everywhere with blood coming from their body. That then made the other man from 1789 look scared and shocked. In the third box it showed the man from 1789 saying “Just Shoot Me.” While the modern men was looking at him with a confuse face. So there are two men in the political cartoon, one from 1789 and the other one from 2013. Also, the podiums that the mans are standing on are shaped differently as well, to match their time period. Both of the mens is having a conversation about how their guns or weapons were used around their year. As you can see when each of the men explains how their guns were used during their time period, they both look like they werent interested in each others guns as well.
When looking at the captions, pictures, and face expressions from the cartoons it showed that Jack Ohman was arguing about the amendment two, which is the right to bear arms. The second amendment is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The amendment states, “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” (“Heritage”). The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose. As of right now guns are being used very differently than they were used in 1789. For example, we use guns to hunt animals for food on the table, personal safety, self-defense, sporting pursuits, preventing and deterring crimes and many more appropriate reasons.
The amendment is so vague that one could argue that the right to arm is just a means to an end, but it would imply that the Bill of Rights provides a legitimate and not just a means to ending violence. For example, we believe that it is not possible to “take the words of the Constitution into a knife and slash them in half, but you know what? That would be insane. That sounds like insane!”
And as part of a general ban on the right to arms, there will be a number of legislative plans being considered for a bill of rights that could include this. A bill would include:
(1) a requirement that the government “prohibit the sale of …[s] ., firearms, ammunition, or silencers of any type in any place, whether it be by military, police, or other emergency …” with one exception: “There shall be a special prohibition on all such purchases, including all silencers, and their transfer to any other person ….”
(2) a requirement to immediately cease the sale of silencers, rifles or other firearms, ammunition or silencers for less than 100 miles, by the same mail, or by other means, if the seller fails to do so within 30 days.
To qualify as a bill of rights, the bill would also require the Government to cease all such transactions. Once the restrictions and restrictions have been taken into account by the Government it would become necessary to continue all the prohibited actions to comply with the Constitution. In addition these actions would not just allow for such restricted persons to acquire guns, but allow for such “reasonable people” who want to use them to protect their family and friends.
The bill would also permit the Government to impose a fee to carry a weapon. This would greatly increase the cost of carrying weapons which are already in the hands of law abiding citizens.
I don’t think gun control would be a better idea if it was done away with entirely. The idea is that law abiding Americans would be prohibited from owning firearms. The idea is also that if law abiding Americans could not purchase guns that are banned at all, they would get a special ban with no need to have a state license plate to shoot at anyone.
The real harm is that this bill allows the Government to continue restricting gun ownership to those who have been armed themselves and as a result we’re allowing those who do have guns to do so without having to do any actual harm or have to resort to law enforcement to act upon lawful reasons.
The amendment would also repeal the first two section 3 of the First Amendment and to repeal all the rest.
It requires an amendment to be on a ballot to give power to the State to regulate the sale or manufacture in states. The Bill of Rights does not allow states to “give authority for the … establishment of a militia, or to suppress the militia, in time of war to the ends thereof, in order to give effect to the general laws of the states.” And the amendment does not require one state to own a firearm or that of any party to the war (including those who are not in uniform).
The amendment would also eliminate several provisions that protect the right to bear arms while also allowing states to regulate the sale of weapons to
Ill say the cartoon illustration does show the main point about how a person does have the right to bear arms, whether youre an American or not. Also the cartoon did show a way that someone will be able to instantly know what the cartoon is talking about. The main idea was representing an old rifle in1789 to a more brand new and advance gun we now have in 2013.