History of Liberalism in Western Europe

History of Liberalism in Western Europe Liberalism originated in Western Europe during the struggle against absolutism and spiritual domination of the Catholic Church (16-18 cc.). The ideology of liberalism was founded by representatives of the moderate wing of the European Enlightenment. Economists Physiocrats formulated popular slogan  «laissez faire, laissez passer » (in French: do not disturb function), expressing the idea of laissez-faire and which in the 19th century was one of the basic principles of classical liberalism. Social environment that fed the ideology of liberalism in the 18-19 centuries was mainly the bourgeoisie. More radical wing of liberalism associated with democracy, has played an important role in the American and French revolutions. However, in the late 18th century. there has been a conflict between liberalism and radical democracy (Rousseau, and later the Jacobins). During the Restoration in France B. Constant, F. Guizot and other first character of liberalism gave more or less formalized p olitical doctrine based on certain historical and philosophical background. For the political doctrine of European liberalism of the first half of the 19th century. typical preference ideas of individual freedom was the idea of democracy and constitutional monarchy the republic. Later, with the expansion of suffrage, the differences between liberalism and democracy smoothed. In the late 19th century. Early 20th century. in relation to socio-economic changes, the growth of the labor movement, and so on. n., liberalism survived the crisis and was forced to give up some of the basic principles of their doctrine, including the principle of laissez faire. Liberalism in each country had the characteristic features due to its historical identity. In France during the Restoration liberalism took the form of a certain doctrine, versus how feudal reaction and democracy .The fall of Napoleon and his regime, the return to the throne of the Bourbons did not stop one of the class struggle that unfolded in France since 1789 for the approval of the countrys new, capitalist relations. Aristocracy continued to defend feudal beginning, though she was forced to go on the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, the recognition of the major economic, political and legal gains of the revolution. Industrial and commercial bourgeoisie struggled against the restoration of the old order, class privileges, protected individual freedom and equality of all before the law. Anti-feudal ideology of the French bourgeoisie in the first half of the XIX century was expressed by many political thinkers, among which were B. Constant and A. de Tocqueville. Most of the work on policy, the authorities of the State of Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), which researchers believe was even the spiritual father of liberalism in Europe, was written in the period between 1810-1820 years. (The course of constitutional politics). The ancient Greeks and Romans had the possibility of every citizen to participate directly in the affairs of state. However, the freedom that was common in antiquity, was combined with an almost complete subordination of the individual public authorities and left very little space for the manifestation of individual autonomy. Constant was sure: people being free, are able to independently and intelligently implement themselves in life. They are able through their individual efforts and without the influence of any transpersonal forces to secure a decent life. Guided by these ideas, Constant seriously corrects Rousseau thesis on the necessity of the omnipotence of popular sovereignty. Its borders must end where begins the independence of the individual and private life. The presence of such a framework makes the deterrence power and control over it in the cornerstone of the political and institutional structure of society. Constant’s political ideal were never passive and low-power state. The modern state is to be in shape, as thought Constant, a constitutional monarchy. In the face of the constitutional monarch of the political community becomes neutral power. She beyond the three classic of government (legislative, executive, judicial), independently of them, and therefore is able (and obliged) to ensure their unity, cooperation, normal activity. The King is quite interested in the fact that no power is intended to subvert the other, but rather that they mutually support each other and act in unison and harmony. Tocquevilles political concept has developed in a fair degree under the influence of Constant, the views of another prominent liberal French Pierre Royer-Collard. Important role in its formation has played a prominent historian Francois Guizot. The subject of his greatest interest amounted to theoretical and practical aspects of democracy, in which he saw the most significant phenomenon era. Democracy is interpreted broadly. It represents for him a social system, which is opposite to the feudal and knows no boundaries (birth or prescribed by the customs) between the upper and lower classes of society. The core of democracy the principle of equality, inevitably triumph in history. Tocqueville believed that the triumph of equality is not an absolute guarantee of freedom of accession. In other words, universal equality, taken by itself, does not automatically lead to the establishment of a political system that firmly protects the autonomy of the individual, excludes arbitrariness and neglects the right of the authorities. Freedom and equality, according to Tocqueville, are the phenomenon of different order. The relationship between them is ambiguous. And the peoples attitude to them, is different too. At all times, says Tocqueville, people prefer equality freedom. Neither equality nor freedom, taken separately, are self-sufficient conditions for a truly human existence. Just being together, in unity, they find such quality. Tocqueville Democracy outstanding theoretician and simultaneously consistent liberal deeply comprehended the truth that liberalism has to go towards democracy. This in the era of mass yield on the socio-political scene, in the era of the cult of equality saved supreme liberal values freedom. Ideas and idealism are still relevant in France. Ideologue of modern liberalism was sociologist Raymond Aron. And also operates a number of parties with a liberal platform. For example, the New Centre party (fr. Nouveau Centre), or the European Social Liberal Party (fr. Le Parti social libà ©ral europà ©en, PSLE) French centrist political party, sticking social liberal position. The new center was created by former members of the Union for French Democracy in 2007, not included in the organized Francois Bayrou Democratic Movement. Leader Hervà © Morin, Minister of Defense and former leader of the Union for French Democracy in the National Assembly. In Germany, liberalism was closely associated with the desire for national unity. Liberal Movement on German soil began in the early decades of the XIX century. On the eve of the revolution of 1848-1849. in Germany it reached a considerable height. Both in terms of scope and organization, as well as in terms of ideological and theoretical maturity. Early German liberalism one that originated and approved in the pre-revolutionary period was primarily a constitutional movement. In the framework of developing and offering a variety of desirable model for the German states of political and legal order. They sought social support in the bourgeois middle layers. But to a large extent they are expected to use common sense and monarchs, who will be able to heed the dictates of time and become spokesmen for particular interests, as guardians of the common good. German liberalism of the first half of XIX century was represented by Frederick Dahlman, Robert von Mohl, Carl and Carl Welcker Rottek, Julius Frobel and others. Their views and activities appreciably affect the political and intellectual climate of the time in Germany gained fame as the Pan-European in the first place riddled with liberal ideas work Lorenz Stein. Lorenz Stein (1815-1890) belongs to a series of fundamental studies on the society, the state, law, management. Liberalism Stein clearly expressed in the fact that at the heart of its socio-political doctrine, he raised the question of the individual, his rights, his property. The main motive that drives the individual, is seen by Stein in the quest for self-realization, the essence of which extraction, processing, manufacturing, and increase the benefits. Every good produced by a person, belongs to her, identified with her and because becoming as untouchable as herself. This immunity is entitled to benefits. United through to the right person at the same inviolable whole benefit of a property. A man cannot be engaged in productive activities alone, being isolated from other people. It entirely depends on them and therefore is forced to live with their own kind, to interact, cooperate with them. Thus arises the problem of Stein human community, society. He paints a society where human being is a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, an irresistible desire for complete domination over the external world (over the material and spiritual wealth), on the other a very modest capabilities of a particular individual as a separate limited in their potencies being. The starting point is a unit of any society, in Stein, the division of property. Owners of the latter, owners and people working, always linked in a special way with each other. The law of social life is inherently permanent and immutable order, depending who does not own, from those who own. The existence of these two classes cannot be resolved and overcomed. Steins views on society and the state, and their ratio under the obvious influence of the respective ideas of Hegel. The concept of society Stein appears as a separate and in their own personalized social education. From the simple amorphous set of individuals it distinguishes the existence of such an integrating factor as a constant-round dependence of people from each other. Feature of society is also something that everyone in it is guided only by its own will. In view of these circumstances in the society, according to Stein, there is no ground for freedom Hence his categorical conclusion: the principle on which society rests – un free. The highest form of society is the state, which at the same time has a different organization and different goals than the society. It establishes the organic unity of a variety of individual wills and actions of people forming the society. Society and the state (because they are based on diametrically opposed principles) confront each other and are constantly at each other influence. And the company is committed to construct the state in his own image and likeness, and the state and to create their own social system pleases Him. This, which are under control of spontaneous, unbridled elements of society and between social classes to maintain a balance. Towering over the society, the state must remain master of his and mentor. His main role is to be able to fulfill, the conviction of Stein, when the executive power in the state will be true and reliable to serve the legislative authority. This subordination a guarantee of transformation simply state to state legal and bail them preserve this quality. Stein a supporter of law, in which the right of management is based on the constitution and there are legal distinction between laws and regulations. Optimal form of legal state Stein sees a constitutional monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, in which the executive and to faithfully serve the legislative authority, the central figure of the monarch ought to be, since he could not prevent the prevalence of particular interests in society. Only the monarch to provide dominance in society common to all people of interest. Together with its officials monarch should stand alone against the will and the natural tendencies of the ruling classes of the lower elevation, first socially and politically subordinate class. Stein expects constant progress in raising the status of education and lower strata of the population, to achieve a higher level of productivity of their labor, a higher level of consumption, the higher life opportunities. Stein’s ideas regarding the state of the social reforms in favor of the workers to improve their material and cultural conditions, caused a backlash from supporters of the revolutionary way of satisfying the interests of the proletarian masses. Liberal ideas have not lost their electorate in Germany. Free Democratic Party (FDP) is one of them. This is a liberal party in Germany, founded December 11, 1948 Member of the FDP was the first German President Theodor Heuss. In 1859 he founded the German National Association, in 1861 she collapsed on the German Progressive Party and the National Liberal Party. In 1880, of the National Liberal Party split off its left wing formed the Liberal Union, in 1894, GLP and the Liberal Union merged forming the German Freethinkers party, but in 1893 it broke on Freethinkers Peoples Party, and free union, but in 1911 they teamed up with German Peoples Party, founded in 1868, in the Progressive Peoples Party, and in 1918 after the merger with some leftist member of the National Liberal Party, it was renamed in the German Democratic party, in 1930 it merged with Mladogermanskim Order in the German state party, part GFC members formed the Radical-democratic Party. In 1918, the National Liberal Party after the merger with the leftist members of the Free Conservative Party was renamed the German Peoples Party. One of the biggest parties of Germany, the third largest (after the SPD and CDU / CSU) party of the country adopted a liberal policy: reducing taxes, reducing state influence on economic policy, the promotion of large and small businesses. Economic FDP motto So much of the state, as necessary, but as little as possible. The main support is among the entrepreneurs and managers of large companies. After appearing in the political arena Green Party FDP role as kingmaker significantly decreased. New elections in 1998 won a coalition of the SPD / Green led by Gerhard Schroder, remained in power until 2005, when Gerhard Schroder announced early parliamentary elections. In the elections of 2005, the FDP has shown excellent results in 11 per cent in fact, the FDP was the only one of the four leading parties, which showed growth in the number of votes. However, this victory was a Pyrrhic one: because of the fact that the allies of the FDP, the CDU / CSU led by Angela Merkel scored significantly fewer votes than expected, the coalition of the CDU / CSU / FDP not typed in the amount of 50% plus one vote needed to forming a government. After lengthy negotiations with the SPD CDU / CSU coalition with the FDP terminated and formed a government of so-called grand coalition, the CDU / CSU / SPD. In federal elections in 2009 the FDP received 14.6% of votes and 93 parliamentary seats 0 single-seat constituencies and 93 on the party list. The party enjoys less support in the territory of the former GDR. The main difference between the new doctrine began to redefine the role of the individual and the state in society. Social Liberals believed that the freedom of individuals should not carry unlimited nature, individuals must coordinate their actions with other members of society and their actions should not cause them harm. Expand the functions of the state in society, which was to take care of its citizens, provide them with equal rights to education, health care. Both liberal and humanistic doctrines were reformist; Liberals rejected the revolutionary way of transforming society; were supporters of gradual progressive reforms. A number of liberal ideas was borrowed by conservatives and socialists. In contrast to the liberal parties who are experiencing some difficulties in modern history, the liberal doctrine is an important component of modern political culture.

Between 1820 and 1860

Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? BY beckY10036 Between 1820 and 1860 there were a few fundamental differences between the economies of the North and South. How far do you agree? Between 1820 and 1860 there were problems in America that resulted in the civil war in 1861, the economy affected the North and South during the civil war, and some major differences helped win the civil war. However this does not mean that the economy had many undamental differences.For example the methods of earning money were different, but overall both earned roughly the same amount of money. Firstly, the main difference was that the North relied much more on money from industry and manufacturing, as they had more connections with foreign countries, and more factories were built. In the North in 1860 there were 74,000 factories producing two thirds, of goods for America. Whereas in the South there were only 2 major factors: Textiles factory in South Carolina and an Iron works in Virginia set up in 1840.Although they had fewer factories, the Iron works was vital, as it supplied the North with weaponry during the Civil war. In 1850 the South only produced 10% of the nations manufactured output. However the South did lack the industrialisation because their agricultural methods were so effective they had no need for change. The South was also very traditional and disliked change, whereas seven out of eight immigrants had chosen to settle in the North, and they had seen new ideas in other places in Europe so were welcome to change.This is shown by the South's labour orce being reduced from 82% to 81% over 60 years, on the other hand, the North's labour force was reduced from 68% to over the 60 years. This is however not a reflection on the North rapidly reducing agriculturally, because they still relied on agriculture, and a lot of the North was still rural. Around the urban areas, the popu lation was increasing as towns and cities were developing swiftly.As the North had smaller but still prosperous farmers known as yeomen, they did not earn as much money through agriculture, because they did not have many or any slaves at ll, so they could not produce the high quantities that the south did. Farmers that had lots of land were called plantation owners; there were many more plantations in the south, and when the cotton gin was created in 1793, there was a boom in cotton, and the benefit of having slaves increased. This made Southern plantation owners invest their capital in the Slaves, because they produced so much cotton, which was very lucrative. 5% of slaves worked in cotton which shows how much money was made out of it. The South needed to transport their goods to the North so that it ould be transported abroad, but there was a lack of transport in South, as they only had 35% of the train tracks, which affected them in the Civil war. This meant it was fairly expensi ve to transport the cotton, but they still received a good amount of money it hey lived near a train track. When the cotton arrived in the North the Lowell factory system meant the manufacturing of it was very cheap, which meant the North earnt a large margin on it.Although the danger of the South investing all their money in Slaves was that when slavery got banned, they lost a lot of money, which was partly hy they were so keen to keep slavery. However only one quarter of the population owned a slave, as they were expensive (in 1860 they were $1800 which was double the price in 1820). The North's economy was based on free labour whereas the South's was based on slave labour, which meant that the North's economy was more stimulated by the presence of workers with money who could buy products, which would make money for the company, which in turn would increase wages or hire more workers.The South's economy was largely devoid of this benefit. Essentially, the conomy in the South was weaker and only based on a few important exports (cotton, tobacco, and sugar). This made the South less diversified, as they focused their sales on cotton. Another difference is tariffs; in 1828 congress passes a controversial high protective tax. This majorly benefitted the North as they were the main distributors. However the South were very worried about this because they believed that if they stopped buying the expensive foreign goods, then foreign countries would stop buying their goods, as they would have tax on them too.This affected the economy ntil the tax was promised to be reduced after the law in 1833. In contrast the North and South didn't have many fundamental differences. They both created a lot of money, and were not lacking at all, the only difference was the method in which was used to make the money. The economic diversification was similar too, as 10% of Northerners owned 68% of the wealth, and the wealth was dominated by the plantation owners, called oligarchies , as there were few free-soilers. 12% of the plantation owners owned half the slaves.This shows that there were few farmers, ut the big plantations owned many slaves. Even though the North seems to be more industrial, the South also made efforts to modernise industrially, but they Just lacked because of the closed opinions of the southerners. Also not many people in the North and the South owned slaves, it was more of a rare thing, and the main owners, owned a large amount of slaves. However there was a larger need for slaves in the South, because there was cheap labour force from Europe settling in the North which meant slaves were more expensive so were not deemed as important.Overall I think there ere many differences between the North and South between 1820 and 1860. Some affected the outcome of the Civil war such as the transport boom, and the industrialisation in the North, but a fundamental point is that numerically they have equal amounts of income; there were Just different methods to earning the money. However the differences were major; the amount of industrialisation, and amount of agriculture, the manufactured output, and the need for slaves, was all very different for the North and South. The main similarity was the economic diversification.

Psychology Persuasion Essay Topics Secrets That No One Else Knows About

Psychology Persuasion Essay Topics Secrets That No One Else Knows About Vital Pieces of Psychology Persuasion Essay Topics If you can select the matter by yourself, it's possible to develop the issue of interest! At length, bear in mind that a huge portion of being effective in persuasion is the capacity to interest your audience's emotions. Even thought you may not think you're a master at persuasion, it is likely that you're much better than you believe. For some of them you will require help, while others it's possible to write by yourself. Occasionally, selecting a great argumentative essay topics will be quite tough. The more information you'll be able to gather about the subject, the better prepared you'll be for writing your essay. Selecting an excellent topic for your essay is among the most significant and frequently tricky parts for many students. There are several good persuasive essay topics to pick from. All scholars are requested to write down a persuasive essay in the plan of their scientific studies. You could be given the topic straight away by your professor, or you can be free to select the topic yourself. There are several persuasive essay topics to select from to finish your high school or college assignment. Following are a few of the suggested sociology essay topic for those students that are unable to pick a great topic for their assignment. Poetry comparison essays are extremely complicated to be written, so I would strongly advise you to hunt for paper writers for hire. Books never ought to be banned. If you don't have an idea what you're speaking about, you are going to end up looking foolish. Persuade your sister or brother to assist you talk your parents into something you would like to do. There are just a few things that define whether an essay you're working on is going to be a good one. If you're thinking that you require a person to compose my essay at the moment, you can merely rely on our honest reviews. It's important to understand that essay topics are just basic ideas that leave you pondering a notion that might be a huge deal to somebody else. Students need to be careful about posting on social networking. They are used to the fact that their professors give them the assignment's topic. Topics that you're familiarized with will make it simpler to get ready for the speech. The third step is to be sure that the speech is localized. The very first step is to receive a suitable topic for the speech. Still, figuring out the very best topic for your essay isn't your only concern for a student. What Is So Fascinating About Psychology Persuasion Essay Topics? Another good idea is to receive some absolutely free essay examples of different kinds and on various subjects to find a general idea of the way in which a prosperous debatable paper looks. Sure, with this kind of a tremendous number of topics to select from, picking just one may be challenging. To choose which subject you're likely to discuss, it's vital to see the complete collection of good persuasive speech topics from the specific area of study. When you settle on this issue and pick the position on which you will base your essay, the remainder of the job can then begin. Don't rush and research the topics which you find interesting and choose one that best satisfies your needs. Our reviews contain information like the score of the clients, our rating, starting prices, Discounts, and grade of the papers. Moreover, it would likewise be better to select one where you have some experience in. When you're selecting an essay topic, it is necessary to select one that has a lot of information and statistics to strengthen your standpoint, nor exaggerate any info that you've chosen to write about.

Gun Control And The Ethics Of Gun Control - 1306 Words

The tragic and horrifying news of a homicide or mass shooting immediately leads to the discussion of a longley debated issue, which has divided Americans for many years: gun control. About thirty thousand Americans die each year as a result of firearms (Doeden 7). People begin to question whether it is morally right for civilians to own guns, and if so, what types of restrictions should be placed on guns. This year, the deadliest mass shooting in American history occurred, leaving fifty-eight innocent people dead and over five hundred more injured. Stephen Paddock, the shooter, was found dead by police in his hotel room with numerous high-capacity firearms used in the assault on twenty thousand concert-goers (Lalami 1). Today, Americans†¦show more content†¦In an address, former President Barack Obama expressed his concern over the issue of gun violence and presented ways to prevent future crimes, like mass shootings. Although the former President of the United States believ es in the Second Amendment, he also believes â€Å"that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.† (Obama). Like politicians, citizens are also extremely divided among the issues concerning gun ownership and gun control. In the past two decades, the number of households with at least one firearm has vastly decreased. In a survey conducted by the General Social Survey (GSS), in 2014, thirty-one percent of American households that replied to the survey owned at least one firearm, as opposed to about forty-one percent in 1994 (Smith 3). A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center concluded that about sixty-seven of American gun owners bought the firearm for self defense (Parker). However, this survey does not include every gun owner. Gun ownership for protection is typically seen in homeowners who want to protect themselves, their family, and their property from criminals. However, there are many homeowners who disagree with owning guns, esp ecially those who are parents. This is true for parent and homeowner Debbie Danvers, who vows, â€Å"As long as I have kids, I said, there will be no guns in my home.† (Japenga). Danvers believes that theShow MoreRelatedEthics of Gun Control1659 Words   |  7 PagesThe Ethics of Gun Control The phrase Gun Control means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that Gun Control means hitting your target. However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy. Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper Gun Control is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent ofRead More The Ethics of Gun Control Essay1770 Words   |  8 PagesThe Ethics of Gun Control The phrase Gun Control means different things to different people. One bumper sticker states that Gun Control means hitting your target. However one defines gun control, the mere mention of it brings controversy. Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper Gun Control is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearmsRead MoreEssay On Teenage Gun Violence1314 Words   |  6 PagesAbstract Teenage gun violence is on the rise. Gun violence has become a major problem for America. We have more privately owned guns than any other country. This could be one of the reasons that guns are being used by teens, because of the access they have to guns. The availability of guns to our youth is making the world unsafe. Although lawmakers are working on gun control laws, I wonder is the problem too far gone. Social Welfare Issue: Teenage Gun Violence Teenage gun violence is caused by individualsRead MoreThe Issue Of Teenage Gun Violence1320 Words   |  6 Pages1 Teenage Gun Violence Nicole Minor Union University . Abstract Teenage gun violence is on the rise. Gun violence has become a major problem for America. We have more privately owned guns than any other country. This could be one of the reasons that guns are being used by teens, because of the access they have to guns. The availability of guns to our youth is making the world unsafe. Although lawmakers are working on gun control laws, I wonder is the problemRead MoreReflective Letter:. What Worked For Me In This Assignment1153 Words   |  5 PagesReflective letter: What worked for me in this assignment was researching and learning more about gun control. what i found challenging was that i didn t know which sources to use for a majority of my information i used so i decided to break it up as evenly as possible. I don t know how well i did on this assignment i do know that when i think i did great i tend to do bad. I feel sure about summarizing and compelling, but i don t know if my research methods and strategies are working or are whereRead MoreGun Control Should Not Be Controlled As It Reduces Sense Of Self Defense1454 Words   |  6 PagesIntroduction Gun control can be defined as the entire laws that legalize the invention of firearms in a certain state. In other words, it is the regulation of distribution of firearms in a country. For a couple of years, government has struggled to reduce the rate at which firearms are used in a country. This has helped to reduce various crimes that were carried out by people who were said to own guns. Research shows that about 90% of deaths originate from use of firearms. For this reason, it isRead MoreThe Importance Of Gun Control950 Words   |  4 Pagespossibility of a mentally unstable individual attempting to take their own life away. This is why gun control is a crucial debate within our society. Today, my colleagues and I will inform you on the importance of gun control, historical events that further increase the need for gun control, and ways California has already taken steps to further increase safety for our society. Gun control is important because guns are extremely dangerous and have the ability to harm individual rights. Every single one ofRead More We Must Have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Essay1360 Words   |  6 Pagesinfringed† (States, 1789). Despite this amendment, gun control still remains one of the most highly-debated issues in the United States. While the Constitution clearly states our right â€Å"to keep and bear Arms†, the gun control lobbyists continue to challenge this right by using the media to convey misleading stories on how guns by themselves are the problem. By contrast, the real issues are not the guns but the people who use them. Therefore guns should not be used as a political patsy to avoidRead MoreGun Violence Essay1050 Words   |  5 Pages Gun violence should be addressed in the United States because it is one of the leading causes of death facing Americans. According to the Center for Disease Control, over 33,000 people die in gun related deaths each year, nearly two-thirds of which are suicides. Since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, there has been great concern for the safety of children in schools. Other mass shootings like the recent Las Vegas shooting are making all Americans feel that they are at risk of becomingRead MoreAn Informative Essay on Gun Control1289 Words   |  5 Pages Due date Informative Essay on Gun Control Introduction The right to possess guns is a fundamental element to American identity. The right to own and operate guns under certain circumstances is in fact guaranteed as part of the United States Constitution. Over the course of American history and particularly in the 21st century, there exists a great debate over the possession of guns of private citizens. Both sides of the debate argue with fervor. There are those that argue fervently for