I fully agree with this idea that as the country and its relationship with guns changed so did its gun laws. When we needed men to fight they were required, and when it was a safety issue they were taken away. I believe this same concept should be applied to those gun laws today. There is a mass shooting issue in america so a counter reaction is needed. I am not saying take all the guns away but an extreme level of gun control is needed.

I fully agree that while the language may support the ability to bear arms it is the governments duty to keep Americans safe. The current problem concerning guns in America is the improper use of guns. Mass shootings are at an all time high and while the problem at the time of the founders was whether or not the federal military was going to take over were facing something different now. In 2018 there were 120.5 firearms for every 100 people in america. The need for every American to have a gun is a new revelation and has caused our country so much loss. While the original purpose of the second amendment is to protect states from a federal overtaking now we need protection from ourselves.

The difference between the trimesters is not a matter of the imagery or guilt that comes with a later trimester abortion but the viability of the child. Up until 24 weeks a fetus is considered nonviable. Any birth that happens at that point would result in the child not surviving and barely being alive in the first place. The viability aspect allows for us to consider the liberty of the fetus. Allowing liberty for the mother and the fetus is far easier to do when the fetus is viable and able to live. But giving liberty to a nonviable fetus whilst stripping a grown woman of her's is a different story.

Before the 24 week mark a fetus is considered nonviable. Meaning that if that baby were to be born at that point it would not survive, it would barley be alive to start with. The what if statement that surrounds abortion such as what if the baby becomes a star athlete or rocket scientist, is almost contradictory to the concept of abortion. In the state in which the fetus would be terminated it would be nonviable while the mother is a human with a future. What if that mother could go on to also be an incredible member of society and she was prevented by a baby she can not support? The wondering around what that person could have become applies to many unfortunate circumstances and doesn't prevent things from happening then. So why should it stop a woman from attempting to better her situation?

This is a great argument to bring up especially because the American foster care system is not the best. Many children get stuck in and out of bad homes. Stats show that foster care does not lead to successful, happy adults. A study from Ifoster.org shares "Within four years of aging out, 50% have no earnings, and those who do make an average annual income of $7,500"

Whether or not a woman gets an abortion is up to that woman. She can form her decision based on her situation and her own personal beliefs but that decision is not to be made by another person, organization, or other body for her. Laws put in place to limit the ability of one to get an abortion not only single women out but also breech the level of control the government should have over one person. Reasons to get an abortion vary by situation and having a blanket law over all women who get abortions convey that abortions are a simple yes or not subject when they are not. Making abortions illegal does not create less abortions. Women who desperately need or want an abortion will find a way to have one, usually ending in an unsafe abortion that leaves them severely injured or possibly dead. According to a study at the Guttmacher institute 7,000,000 women and girls are injured or disabled due to unsafe abortions each year and 22,000 women and girls die as a result of unsafe abortions.

In the question of the legalization of pot, it should be in the hands of the federal government. Right now the country is in a weird area for this issue because while it is legal in many states it is still illegal at the federal level. This leads to citizens constantly being at risk even though it is legal in their state. If a citizen works in the mary jane business or partakes in the use of ganga they can be completely safe and legal with their state government but still be arrested and charged if a federal officer "catches" them. At the state level they aren't doing anything wrong, but it is still a federal crime. A level of consistency is needed for this issue. While personally I believe it should be legal for many reasons, at the bare minimum it should be a consistent law. The inconsistency at different levels essentially makes it pointless for the substance to be legalized at the state level.

Although some would see the Taco Bell dumpster as more appealing because they like Taco Bell food more, the food at Taco Bell has the ability to be far more disgusting and messy than the food at Mcdonald's. In the question of which dumpster to swim in I would rather swim in the Mcdonald's dumpster. Mcdonald's mostly sells foods meant to be eaten with your hands and not get messy. Most food items at Mcdonald's such as fries, buns, and chicken nuggets are dry and would most likely not get all over you in a dumpster situation. The Taco Bell dumpster on the other hand would have items such as liquid cheese, ground beef, and beans that are far more messy and would be bounds worse to swim in. Despite still loving Taco Bell food, once transferred to a dumpster the food would be a far worse experience than Mcdonald's food.