Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Essay

Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry - Essay Example The second amendment brings about a huge debate regarding the intended objective of this amendment. Some Americans and scholars alike are of the belief that this amendment brought forth an individual constitutional right for American citizens to keep arms (Maier 21). On the other hand, other scholars are of the opinion that the language of the amendment, with focus on the words, a regulated militia was intended at trying to restrict the United States Congress from legislating against a US state’s right to defending itself (Whitney, 42). On the idea that the amendment’s intention was to give Americans the constitutional right to arm themselves (Maier 21), the constitution of the United States tries to restrain legislating against citizen’s right to possess firearms. This school of thought explains that an amendment to denying citizens the right to own firearms would, in fact, be unconstitutional and therefore null and void (Halbrook 36). On the other hand, the sch ool of thought advocating that the amendment was meant at restraining the US Congress from legislating against the rights of US states to defend themselves argues that the local, federal and state bodies are the ones that are entitled the right of bearing arms. This effectively locks out private citizens and individual from the right to bear arms (Whitney, 42). In the case of United States, V. Miller before the Supreme Court of the US in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not enjoy the right to arm themselves and thus interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the US Congress could, in fact, come in and regulate against the rights of private citizens owning firearms (Halbrook 44). The above case became a precedent until the year 2008 when another case on the same issue of the second amendment came before the US Supreme Court again. In the 2008 case, the court, in the case of District of Columbia against Heller determined that the constitution of the US had indeed esta blished the right to own firearms by individual citizens of the United States. As the plaintiff in the case, Heller was in court to argue against the legality of the ban on handguns in the state of Washington DC. This piece of legislation had been around for the last 32 years. The US Supreme Court, therefore, found the law to be unconstitutional and a violation of the right that US citizens have to bear arms. In addition to the ruling, the court also ruled that the US constitution could in no way refuse to let the mentally ill, as well as criminals, bear arms. The ruling brought about the increased debate as to the real meaning of the second amendment and what the framers of this legislation had in mind when they developed this piece of legislation. In the year 2010 in a case also related to the second amendment, in McDonald against Chicago city, the Supreme Court decided to adopt the argument that the second amendment was aimed at ensuring citizens enjoyed the right to arm themselv es (Halbrook 78). The court determined that the second amendment meant that American citizens enjoyed the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense. One judge dissented on the ruling, but a majority of the judges and indeed the ruling was that the handgun ban of Chicago that prohibited private individuals from bearing firearms was against the spirit of the constitution (Whitney 22). According to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the year 2008 and 2010, the aim of the second amendment was to enable private individuals to bear arms.

Research and Development at Thomas Company Essay

Research and Development at Thomas Company - Essay Example The principle bases on the cause and effect correlation (Millan, 2005). If no cause to effect correlation exists, accountants show an expense when the cost expires. According to U.S. (SFA No. 2) the expenditures are expensed by firms hence reducing net earnings of year in progress while IFRS capitalize such expenses leaving year in progress earnings unaffected (IASB, 2008). Even if the two small expenditures (R & D) are alike in their nature, their observed benefits vary significantly based on accounting handlings of such expenditures. It should be noted that small expensed intangibles are often viewed to be more auspicious to investors than small capitalized intangibles. When the expenditure is treated as the asset, significant expenditure is more beneficial than the small expenditure. Nevertheless, when the expenditure is expensed, there is no significant discrepancy between the large and the small expenditures (Sougiannis, 2014). Fundamentally, Intangibles that are acquired internally are to be expensed. Spending that from explore is recognized as cost when it sustains. The validation of this is that there should be insufficient inevitability as to whether future commercial benefits will occur or not (IASB, 2008). Similarly, the IAS 38 states that development costs shall qualify for the recognition of being intangible assets so long as the following criteria affect. The predominant criterion is the availability of plentiful technical and financial assets to accomplish the advancement. Hence, new product development $300,000 will be technically feasibly recognized in the statement of comprehensive income. Companies that adhere to IFRS classify intangible assets based on their lives. This results into assets with finite lives while others have indefinite lives (Millan, 2005). Tangibles with limited lives should be depreciated over