3th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh Essay Example for Free

3th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh Essay Sandy Hook Shooting: Is It Time to Change the Second Amendment? Sandy Hook Shooting Is It Time to Change the Second Amendment About 80 million Americans, representing half of U.S. homes, own more than 223 million guns. The debate about the Second Amendment has been fierce, but after the horrible atrocity that just happened in Newtown, Connecticut, the time has come to rethink the amendment and change it. The change of the amendment in terms of availability of weapons, and who has the right to possess them, would create a safer society and lower the gun homicide rate in the U. S. — a figure that currently makes the U.S. the highest in the world. The change would include a certain necessary procedure in order to get a license for possessing a gun. Moreover, this procedure should include medical checks, full criminal history, and a police interview to prove they actually need a gun. Atrocities like what happened today could theoretically be prevented if it were more difficult to come into possession of weapons in the U.S. At this moment, there is a widely accepted misconception about the history of the amendment and its purpose within American society. When the founding fathers implemented Second Amendment the main idea behind it was to provide citizens with a way to oppose possible tyrannical government. However, today it is widely believed that the Second Amendment is there to provide you with a way to protect yourself from other individuals. The debate is also present over whether the Second Amendment provides for collective or individual rights. However, in 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller case before the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 26% of American citizens said they would support the handgun ban. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years. Americans have shifted to a more pro-gun view on gun laws, with record-low support for bans on handguns, assault rifle bans, and stricter gun laws in general. This remains true even as high-profile incidents of gun violence continue across the United States. The reasons for this ideological shift do not appear to be reactions to the crime situation, and are probably rather related to a widespread acceptance of guns by the  American public. It is widely believed that having the right to bear arms contributes to higher security. By enabling a great number of people to carry weapons, the society as a whole will not benefit from greater security. Moreover, it will become more unstable. The control of the weapons must be toughened and the right to possess and bear them restricted. The cases of shootings on American campuses and in schools are numerous and an argument that stricter gun control laws should be enforced stands strong. With medical and background checks, people who want to possess a gun won’t be stopped. However, the chance that someone with a mental disorder will have access to arsenal gets lower. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership and of gun homicide in the developed world, it can definitely be argued that the amount of guns present the homicide rate will also be reduced. In 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed with the U.N. to set a timetable for the regulation of the arms trade between the states. The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to further regulate gun trade around the world. Many in the U.S. have seen this treaty as an introduction to domestic firearm control, even though this is wrong. In order to change the Second Amendment, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required and at this point chances of changing that happening are slim. Throughout the world there are different regulations about gun ownership. Great Britain banned private ownership of guns in 1997; Australia also followed the same path. A 1999 Harvard School of Public Health study revealed that, Americans feel less safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns, and that 90% believe that regular citizens should be prohibited from bringing guns into most public places, including stadiums, restaurants, hospitals, college campuses, and places of worship. We should not have the illusion that the world can overnight become a safe place where guns are not needed. These are dark times for those who demand sane regulation of gun ownership. The courts come and go. Public opinion and political power, like the common law, changes and evolves. Guns must not be accessible to all and they must be restricted. By restricting the gun availability, the possibility for situations like the Newtown massacre would be dramatically lowered. Even if we assume that one day a tyrannical government may come to power, under the current circumstances, with the U.S.  government in possession of tanks, airplanes and drones, one can argue that the light weapons held by the citizens would not be enough. The argument of the founding fathers therefore becomes obsolete and the amendment must be changed to ensure the greater safety of American citizens. The Second Amendment Eleven years later, after the war for independence had been won, our Founders assembled once again to draw up a plan for governing the new nation. That plan would be ratified two years later as the Constitution of the United States of America. To understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment, it is important to understand the men who wrote and ratified it, and the issues they faced in creating the Constitution. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, there was significant concern that a  strong federal government would trample on the individual rights of citizensas had happened under British rule. To protect the basic rights of Americansrights which each person possesses and that are guaranteed, but not granted, by any governmentthe framers added the first ten amendments to the Constitution as a package. Those amendments have come to be known as the Bill of Rights. They represent the fundamental freedoms that are at the heart of our society, including fre edom of speech, freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The History of Our Rights The British people did not have a written constitution as we have in the United States. However, they did have a tradition of protecting individual rights from government. Those rights were set forth in a number of documents, including the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights drew many of their ideas from the traditions of English common law, which is the body of legal tradition and court decisions that acted as an unwritten constitution and as a balance to the power of English kings. The Founders believed in the basic rights of men as described in written legal documents and in unwritten legal traditions. One of these was the right of the common people to bear arms, which was specifically recognized in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689. However, the Founders also recognized that without a blueprint for what powers government could exercise, the rights of the people would always be subject to being violated. The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to specifically describe the powers of government and the rights of individuals government was not allowed to infringe. 1. Does the Second Amendment Describe An Individual Right? Some people claim that there is no individual right to own firearms. However, anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded will recognize this claim`s most glaring flaw: in America, rightsby definitionbelong to individuals. The Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of individuals. The freedoms of religion, speech, association, and the rest all refer to individual liberties. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear  arms is no different. When the first Congress penned the Second Amendment in 1789, it took the wording, with some style changes, from a list of rights introduced by James Madison of Virginia. Congressman Madison had promised the Virginia ratifying convention that he would sponsor a Bill of Rights if the Constitution were ratified. The amendments he wrote would not change anything in the original Constitution. Madison repeatedly insisted that nothing in the original Constitution empowered the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, specifically including the right of individuals to have guns. In constructing the Bill of Rights, Madison followed the recommendations of the state ratifying conventions. Though they ratified the Constitution, several of those conventions had recommended adding provisions about specific rights. Five conventions recommended adding a right to arms; by comparison, only three conventions mentioned free speech. Members of Congress had no doubt as to the amendment`s meaning. They and their contemporaries were firearm owners, hunters and in some cases gun collectors (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson exchanged letters about their collections). They had just finished winning their freedoms with gun in hand, and would, in their next session, pass legislation requiring most male citizens to buy and own at least one firearm and 30 rounds of ammunition. The only reason there is a controversy about the Second Amendment is that on this subject many highly vocal and influential 21st Century Americans reject what seemed elementary common senseand basic principleto our Founding Fathers. The words of the founders make clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important: Thomas Jefferson said, No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. Patrick Henry said, The great object is, that every man be armed. Richard Henry Lee wrote that, to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. Thomas Paine noted, [A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the  plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Samuel Adams warned that: The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the rights of the people and to the powers of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase the people, which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to the people are without question the rights of individuals. Dozens of essays have been written by the nation`s foremost authorities on the Constitution, supporting the traditional understanding of the right to arms as an individual right, protected by the Second Amendment. 2. Isn`t the well regulated militia the National Guard? Gun control supporters insist that the right of the people really means the right of the state to maintain the militia, and that this militia is the National Guard. This is not only inconsistent with the statements of America`s Founders and the concept of individual rights, it also wrongly defines the term militia. Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term well regulated militia to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose. America`s Founders defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee wrote, A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . . Making the same point, Tench Coxe wrote that the militia are in fact the effective part of the people at large. George Mason asked, [W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the  whole people, except a few public officers. The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia who had to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied adult males. The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the Militia of the United States. The other part included other able-bodied adult men, plus some other men and women. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent well regulated militia remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry. 3. Have the Courts or Congress ever studied the meaning of the Second Amendment? On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess firearms for individuals, and not just a right to have them as part of a militia or the National Guard. The Court also held that the Second Amendment is not meant to protect a â€Å"state’s right† to maintain a militia or National Guard. The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in usable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying a person a permit to carry a firearm within his home on without cause. Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, can be found here: /Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235issue=010. The Court ruled that â€Å"[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.† And went on to explain: â€Å"In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’† Put plainly, the Heller decision says that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for legal purposes, including for sporting use and for self-defense. In coming to this conclusion, the courts examined the meaning of the words in the Second Amendment, including the meaning of â€Å"arms† the phrase â€Å"to bear arms† and to â€Å"keep â€Å" arms. The court also carefully considered the meaning of â€Å"militia† and the relationship between the militia and the â€Å"right to keep and bear arms.† In the majority opinion, the court clearly rejected the idea of a â€Å"collective or group right, that is, a right held by the states. The court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The full impact of the Heller decision is still not known. States and cities with restrictive gun laws are now facing challenges to their specific laws and future court cases will continue to define the how the Second Amendment protects individual rights and what types of gun laws will be allowed. Before the Heller decision, the most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the 2001 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson. In Emerson, the Appeals court devoted dozens of pages of its decision to studying the Second Amendment’s history and text. It began by examining the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which individual rights opponents claim supports the notion of the Second Amendment protecting only a â€Å"collective right† of a state to maintain a militia. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. â€Å"We conclude that Miller does not support the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.† The court then turned to the history and text of the Second Amendment. â€Å"There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words ‘the people’ have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And as used throughout the Constitution, ‘the people’ have ‘rights’ and ‘powers,’ but federal and state governments only have ‘powers’ or ‘authority’, never ‘rights.’† The court concluded, â€Å"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.† Four times in American history, Congress has enacted legislation declaring its clear understanding of the Second Amendment`s meaning. Congress has never given any support for the newly minted argument that the amendment fails to protect any right of the people, and instead ensures a â€Å"collective right† of states to maintain militias. In 1866, 1941, 1986, and 2005, Congress passed laws to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it. The Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 was enacted to protect the rights of freed slaves to keep and bear arms following the Civil War and at the outset of the chaotic Reconstruction period. The act declared protection for the â€Å"full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and . . . estate . . . including the constitutional right to bear arms. . . .† The Property Requisition Act of 1941 was intended to reassure Americans that preparations for war would not include repressive or tyrannical policies against firearms owners. It was passed shortly before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which led the United States into World War II. The act declared that it would not â€Å"authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport,† or â€Å"to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms. . . .† The two more recent laws sought to reverse excesses involving America’s legal system. In the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, Congress reacted to overzealous enforcement policies under the federal firearms law: The Congress finds that the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution; to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies. . . . And in 2005, as a result of lawsuits aiming to destroy America’s firearms industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to end this threat to the Second Amendment. The act begins with findings that go to the heart of the matter: Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. 4. What are gun control laws? Gun control is the popular name for laws that regulate, limit or prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms. Gun control laws are usually  proposed on the grounds they will stop the criminal misuse of firearms, but they are almost never actually targeted at criminals. Supporters of gun control most commonly call for laws that restrict law-abiding people, the only ones who will obey them. Laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm are unlikely to stop a person willing to commit robbery, assault or murder. On the other hand, honest citizens who respect the law will submit to the gun control laws, even if the laws do not make them safer.

Hockey Lockout :: essays research papers

Players Behind Bars The National Hockey League (NHL) has a great history. Many think the ‘original six’ was the beginning. This is not so. In 1917 it consisted of five teams, namely the Montreal Canadians, Montreal Wanderers, Ottawa Senators, Quebec Bulldogs and the Toronto Arenas. Toronto was the only team with artificial ice. During the 1923-24 seasons a franchise was granted to the first American team, the Boston Bruins. As can be seen the first six team NHL occurred in 1924-5 but varied greatly from the six teams promoted today as the original six. In the 80 years since the original six teams were in place, the league has grown extremely rapidly, presently having 30 teams. [NHL History] Hockey is the Canadian game, but has also turned into a profitable business. The current commissioner of the National Hockey League, Gary Bettman, may have ruined the league for years to come. Bettman and the rest of the NHL owners are locking out the players demanding what they are calling "cost certainty." Their method for this is a salary cap. The owners are clearly at fault for the crisis at hand, and are the cause for the cancellation of the 2004-05 seasons. The owners caused each and every one of the problems they now wish to solve; they were not very welcoming to negotiations, and were not willing to bend from their unreasonable proposition of a ‘hard cap’. The owners have been the masters of their own demise. The New York Rangers, in the last few years have had an incredible pay role. Who is it that is trying to buy a winning team, by tripling salaries? Not the players – the Rangers owners. Consistently as the league grew from the original six to the thirty teams there are now, the salaries of the players grew with it. The owners did not buy franchises for the love of the game, but to make money. To make money the team must win. Owners have been constantly spending more money to buy their players. The players dedicate their lives to the sport, are constantly on the road, and sacrifice their bodies for the game. The player’s goals are to be the best that they can be. Did the players make the contracts? No – the only wrong they have committed was signing the dotted line on the bottom. The owners then take this action against the players to try to protect themselves from their own check books.

Wielding the Sword of Truth

There is that famous saying that â€Å"pen is mightier than sword†. A common interpretation to this statement goes like this: a pen is a better weapon, may it be for offense or defense, than any weapon for destruction. But another interpretation is also apt for the statement: the pen of the writer, and the output it produces, shall be able to withstand any blow from any weapon, however destructive, that tries to destroy or repress the ideas it tries to share to the world.Throughout the world, through countries’ experiences of political turmoil and all the civil repression that comes along with most of it, time only seems to lend more and more credibility to this statement. â€Å"Didn’t you know that manuscripts don’t burn? † (Bulgakov, 1967), this is a much-quoted line from Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita. It was spoken by Satan (in the person of a foreign professor/magician named Woland) to The Master, a writer who burned his com pleted novel in an effort to keep the Soviet authorities from reading it.Being one of Bulgakov’s main theme in the novel, it highlights the important role of writers: observing and writing about the social situation, amidst all the threat of a repressive and controlling government, with the object of sharing to others what the writer has seen and not just putting it away, never to be read, out of fear of arrest or torture—to shed the light of freedom in the darkness of an unfree world. This theme was said to be based on Bulgakov’s personal experience of burning the early version of The Master and Margarita in fear of punishment from Soviet authorities.Thus it can be said that The Master has some autobiographical element from the author itself. The period when the novel was set corresponds to the time that Bulgakov wrote it: 1930’s, with the communist Bolsheviks reigning over all of Soviet Russia, and Stalin as the head of the said ruling party and of the country. This period was characterized by severe government control, not just on the economy, but on almost every move of the citizen of its country.And while in this time Russia is deemed to deliver good results, as it is considered as one of the superpowers of the world, internally, the system is mired with conflict and threat-and-control-subjected citizens. Those people who challenge the status quo and the government’s way of running the country are immediately taken into custody and sent to psikhushka where they are to be imprisoned as to stop them from â€Å"polluting† other people’s minds. Thus, to avoid imprisonment and torture, several writers, Bulgakov included, chose to destroy their deviant literary works.However, in writing the second draft of the novel, and with it having the abovementioned theme, it seems that Bulgakov has realized the futility and repugnancy of destroying one’s own work in favor of a trouble-free existence. This is reflecte d in the much-quoted line and in Woland’s returning of The Master’s burned novel. The scene and the theme corresponding to it signify the author’s revised stand that a person whose eyes had been opened and exposed to the truth has then the responsibility of spreading this truth to the society, no matter how much that person is to be oppressed.That person has to have the courage to bump through the walls that the oppressors build before them because he/she has been entrusted with a great responsibility. It is cowardly for that person to deny the world of his/her knowledge since with it; the person denies the world the chance to know what they ought to know. At the same time it is cowardly, destroying one’s own truth-revealing work is also futile since even though the output has been destroyed, thus removing any implicating physical evidence of deviance, the idea is still on the person’s, and perhaps of other people’s minds.Bulkagov, upon maki ng the statement about the futility of manuscript burning, sends a hopeful and encouraging message, most especially to writers to shed their fears and rally for truth even amidst the threat of retribution from the authorities who seek to repress the truth by repressing the writers’ and the people’s ideas. Knowing the truth, it is said, is a privilege of everybody. Therefore, those who have initially been exposed to it have to extend this privilege to others—the truth becomes their responsibility.And since this world of ours there are people who try to deny this privilege to persons other than themselves—those autocrats who usually believe that common people deserve to know only what they choose to divulge, however small a peek to the whole picture it is—the truth-knowing person, in this case, the writer needs to whip out his pen and use it as the weapon that shall thwart the repression of truth. True, the pen is mightier than the sword. But the pen is only as strong as the courage and nerve of the writer that wields it.By the bye, a pen is only a pen; a written paper is still only a paper; easily destroyed by fire or any other means, but the idea and observation of a writer, or any person for that matter, remains his/hers alone—irrepressible, and once acknowledged, indestructible by any controlling authority. Unless the writer sharpens his/her pen with courage for the revelation of truth, however sad to say, in that case, the pen shall forever lose to the swing, no, even from the mere presence of the sword of repression.

America s Beer And Alcoholic Beverages - 1770 Words

Americans love their beer and alcoholic beverages. Alcohol tax was even a catalyst in creating this country by encouraging early Americans to fight for independence. Beer has been a common thread in our society for the past 200 years that brings people together to socialize. As our country modernized in the late 1800’s, breweries were constructed in every part of the United States. And of those breweries, three survived prohibition and raced to take their claim on the country’s market share. Our country was carved up by three large beer companies; Miller was popular in the North, Budweiser was popular in the South, and Coors was the choice in the Midwest and West. Adolph Coors was an American success story and the company he†¦show more content†¦In the 1940’s, the brewery introduced their line of premium beer calling it â€Å"Banquet Coors†, or as we know that brand today as Coors. Coors became the beer for many famous actors and politician s, which gave that brand prestige. The company took advantage of that prestige and centered their marketing campaign on average Joes drinking the preferred beer of presidents and actors. I will argue later in this analysis on how the brewery’s loyalty to this premium brand of beer decreased market share in the 1980’s. In the 1960’s, Coors profited by being one of the first beer companies to market their aluminum cans. This was very important for Coors because of their production process. They were the only large beer company that didn’t pasteurize their beer. This required them to get innovative with their delivery process. The beer industry was very saturated with competitors and Coors found their cash cow with their Banquet brand. However, in order to provide that unique taste their product was required to age longer and because they skipped the pasteurization process their product had to be shipped cold. I argue that if not for the innovative process of aluminum cans, Coors would not have enjoyed the success they did in 1960’s and early 1970’s. This was the peak of their innovative culture in the company. Their opportunities then were how to decrease carrying and delivery costs due to their unique brewing process and market aShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of The Movie The Beer Wars Essay1654 Words   |  7 PagesTHE BEER WARS DOCUMENTARY On April 17th, 2009, the much-awaited documentary, Beer Wars Documentary, was shown in many cinemas across the United States. It’s a documentary that discusses the grassroots efforts of the craft beer industry having been filmed similar to a Michael Moore style documentary. It is a self-styled documentary by filmmaker Anat Baron portraying the beer industry in America from the vantage of small artisanal brewers and specialty beer producers. During the 30 days preceding theRead MoreCase Study : Brisbane Brewing Company1485 Words   |  6 Pagesbe producing non-alcoholic drinks for the age group 15-35 and alcoholic drinks for the ages 18-25. The reason for this approach is to meet statutory regulations and to make sure that there is no alcohol consumption by the underage. We also believe that by limiting the age of an adult to whom our alcoholic drinks can be sold will help up solve the drinking menace that affects many families. Opportunities The craft beer segment has grown has been on a steady rise since the late 70’s and has never lostRead MoreLove Cork Screw Llc ( Lcs )1630 Words   |  7 PagesLove Cork Screw LLC (LCS) is a small, fairly new wine distilled beverages wholesaler based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The product line includes varieties that offer the sophisticated and novice wine enthusiasts a range of choices for any palate. Each sleek wine bottle is colorful, whimsical and fun. Additionally, LCS offers 2 types of Scented Candles, each with a unique name and the â€Å"Lampley† Cigar, a high end Dominican cigar that serves as the perfect complement to have a full â€Å"Love Cork Screw†Read MoreThe Temperance Movement Essay1374 Words   |  6 Pages1900’s. â€Å"’We Sang Rock of Ages‘: Frances Willard Battles Alcohol in the late 19th Century† (Willard). The author the of literary piece is Frances Willard and the literary piece is an autobiography. America shoul d get rid of alcohol because it ruins lives along with the family of that person who is an alcoholic. The article â€Å"’We Sang Rock of Ages’: Frances Willard Battles Alcohol in the late 19th Century† (Willard) reflects the temperance movement and the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920’s by banningRead MoreThe Latest Trends in Marketing Methods in the Brewing Industry4673 Words   |  19 PagesGROUPS OF THE BEER INDUSTRY Main Consumers of Beer Products Every product has a group that is labeled as it s main consumers. As shown in figure 1, the primary consumers of beer are males from the ages of 21-30. This age group annually consumes 58% of America s beer. The rest of America s beer is consumed by males in other age groups and females. Figure 1. Main Consumers of Beer Source: Primary ? Groups Targeted by Beer IndustryRead MoreThe Inintended Consequences of Alcohol Prohibition in The Unite States in the 1920s1680 Words   |  7 PagesSection A: Plan of the Investigation (114 words) What were the unintended consequences of alcohol prohibition in the United States in the 1920’s? In this investigation, the focus will be on the time frame 1920 to 1933, from when the 18th amendment was passed to when alcohol prohibition was repealed. The pros and cons of national prohibition of alcohol in the aspects of health, financial, and social results will be weighed. This will be done through the interpretation of statistics from before andRead MoreMillerCoors LLC - Organizational History and Current State of Affairs1702 Words   |  7 Pagesit to America. Miller immigrated to the United States in 1854 and in 1855 moved to Milwaukee where he purchased the Plank Road Brewery to brew beer from the brewer’s yeast he brought with him from Germany. In the 1880’s Miller began bottling his own beer and was one of the first breweries to pasteurize its beer. (MillerCoors LLC, 2011) Frederick Miller died in 1988, however, his family continued with the family business. Just four years later, Miller stopped fermenting and maturing its beer in cavesRead MorePoition Paper Driving Lisence Revoked for Drinking and Driving817 Words   |  4 Pagestwenty one getting alcohol-related offences and they have no idea how much their bodies can handle or the effect it has on them. For example, a high school kid is leaving a party and it’s the first time they have ever consumed an alcoholic beverage. They have two beers which would more than likely take them over the Florida limit of .08 and get pulled over. The student would not feel intoxicated but would get a D.U.I. When a person is under the age of twenty one I believe it would be an unfair consequenceRead MoreEssay about Alcoholism1398 Words   |  6 Pagesquot;Alcohol is a socially acceptable, legal drug that is consumed by the majority of Americans without problems to themselves or others (Milgram xiii).quot; M isuse of alcohol can lead to alcoholism, one of the most widespread and complex problems in America. The reasons some people become dependent on alcohol and others do not are unknown. Many health problems are associated with chronic alcohol abuse, including damage to the liver, brain, or central nervous system. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;AlcoholRead MoreAlcohol Is Bad, But Prohibition Is Worst848 Words   |  4 Pagesteenager’s drink alcohol as an act of rebellion, because as a young age alcohol is seen as the â€Å"forbidden fruit†. The prohibition for young adults to consume alcoholic beverages is the one causing the problem. The drinking age limit have many consequences for young adults. If at the age of 18 going to war and voting is allowed, drinking a beer should be allowed as well. The prohibition of alcohol drinking before 21 has led to rebellion, binge drinking and breaking the law with fake ID’s, building more