Though I don't feel too strongly about gun rights and restrictions, if I had to choose a side to argue, I would say gun restriction is more ethical. Attached below is a link for a firearm transaction paper. All that is needed in the state of Mississippi, to purchase a firearm, is that transaction form, a clean criminal record, a valid ID saying your 18, and enough money. Guns are this accessible because they were made a part of American culture from the second America was founded. America was fought for by a militia. American was won by a militia. With that being said, laws had to be put in place to ensure that the people, since any peoples could join a militia, could obtain and keep their guns. When the second amendment was being placed to ensure this, though, the author more than likely did not take in to account the probable evolution of the musket. Guns went from firing 1 (maybe) effective bullet every half a minute, to firing 30 round clips in under a minute. I believe that people should be able to keep their guns, but with the evolution of guns taken into account, I think guns should be more difficult to obtain than they have been for the past several decades.

I just have a question. Do you believe in life at conception or birth? Because if you agree with life at conception then they would terminate your stance on preventatives such as plan B and birth control. If you believed in life at birth, however, that would terminate your stance on the unborn's rights. In the 14th amendment it states that rights are given to those born and naturalized in the United States. Though I believe that the words born and naturalized are very concrete, I will provide the fluctuation of belief of life at conception. All I am saying is, is that both can not be present in the same argument.

"135,000 children are adopted each year so 99.999% of the time there is always a better option than death"

This statistic is just wrong. Currently in foster care are 400,000 kids. Of these kids about 52% are likely to be lucky, or unlucky enough, to get to go back to their family. Only 26% get adopted. This leaves an entire quarter of this foster care system unaccounted for. I understand that this viewpoint may be easy for you to comprehend, but the fact of the matter is, it's not easy. In foster care, you are without a mother, a father, siblings, grandparents, etc.. Things such as this is what leads to the significant increase in risk of foster care children obtaining mental and physical health issues. If one can claim that taking an unborn being out of this world is immoral, they must also account for the immoralities of putting them in.

Though I’m not religious, nor do I pretend to be so, I understand where people may base their opinion of abortion on religion. With that being said, a religious opinion is invalid in the case of prohibiting an individual’s rights, especially in the United States. After withdrawing from Great Britain, who enforced specific religion and tyranny, the founding fathers established the Constitution. In the 1st amendment of this Constitution, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It has been evident since the early beginnings of the U.S. that separation of church and state would be put into place. With this separation of church and state, it would be difficult, and shouldn’t be possible, to pass a law outlawing something along the lines of such morality. On top of this, citizens in the United States are allotted the unenumerated right to privacy. If someone’s private choice is infringed upon by jail time or scrutiny, it could cause serious issues. The final point to be made is on the matter of the Citizenship clause. This is found in Section 1 of the 14 amendment and it reads,"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If a child has yet to be born, and therefore yet to be naturalized, it is technically not subject to due process which was being argued in the original case of Roe v. Wade. The complete outlawing of abortion is shown to be difficult and improper on the basis of the Constitution.

Gun control should be kept as a state issue. In the constitution, American citizens are given the right to bear arms. Other than that, guns are not regulated in the document. In the one area where the right to regulate gun control would be permitted to the government, Article I, Section 8, it is left unmentioned. Though it can be debated that it is “Necessary and Proper” for the federal government to regulate guns, guns do not directly infringe the nation’s ability to carry out the laws of the land. If gun control did begin to become an issue in certain areas, though, a more involved and tight-knit government, such as the state government, would know how to best control the issue. This is the favorable option as opposed to a federal restriction because a federal restriction would have to level the playing field on gun control. In this instance, an area where gun violence is a huge issue would result in strict gun control for it as well as the rest of the country. That would be like saying that because one student hit another with a stick, no student in the rest of the school could play with sticks. As a state issue, gun control laws would be allowed to be more particular. Certain states or counties in need of gun control would be able to have them imposed, without affecting other areas. On top of this, certain counties could have different restrictions than others, and the issues specific to one state could be represented.

Meat is also much more likely to fall out of a taco than a burger or chicken nugget. Therefore, one is much more likely to swim with loose meat in a Taco Bell dumpster.

Although McDonalds and Taco Bell are equally gross and unhealthy, the McDonalds dumpster is much more trustworthy because it is a larger corporation, much more artificial, and throws away many more boxes. Because McDonalds is a much larger corporation, it is expected that they are more strict on following FDA guidelines; therefore things on their property would have to be reasonably sanitary. Their food is also much more artificial, meaning that it would take more time to produce mold and obtain bacterial infections. Lastly, McDonalds has a much larger variety of food, which they sell a lot of; in correlation, the amount of boxes they would have to throw away would be much larger, so their dumpster would be filled with boxes and not aged food. Though McDonalds has made a name for being gross, dirty, and inconsistent, the best McDonalds' dumpster would be a much better option to swim in than the best Taco Bell's.