94%(34)32 out of 34 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 out of 2 pages.
Now that you have gathered your research, it is time to write an argument that addresses the discussion prompt:Consider the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Do you believe that the majority opinion or Breyer's dissenting opinion sets a more appropriate balance between protecting individual rights and safeguarding the public interest?Write a statement of one or two paragraphs stating your position. Cite points made in the opinionsand explain your reasoning. This section is worth 12 points.I believe that the majority opinion sets a more appropriate balance between protecting individual rights and safeguarding public interest. I believe this is so because it follows the, “right to carry weapons for self-defense, not just for military purposes.” Which is something that needs to be followed, but yes of course they do need some limitation on who can and cannot own a weapon. For instance the majority say, “Some people, such as convicted criminals and the mentally ill, could be prohibited from owning firearms.”I believe this is a good limitation to have because it protects the citizens as a whole. If someone who is mentally ill can have a gun; that endangers the community as a whole. Speaking for the public interest, we’d like the follow the majority opinion in wanting some sort of limit on guns to individuals. In your second post, respond to another student who took the opposing position to yours. Provide a counterargument to that student's position. If you're working alone, write a response countering your own argument.This section is worth 8 points.