The Seventh Of March Speech.

March 7th, 1850

Source: Shoemaker.121-130

“I hear with distress and anguish the word “secession,” especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic,and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see the miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffing the surface!”

 Secession is defined as the process of withdrawing or separating from a nation or state and becoming independent. In the article “ The Seventh of March Speech,” Daniel Webster expressed his disappointment with members of the Senate of the United States concerning his support to the compromise with the  Fugitive Slaves Act of 1850. An act which required federal officials to recapture and return runaway slaves to their owners.

  Webster was a member in the senate and a main supporter of the Fugative Slave Act and he strongly believed that slavery couldn’t be “abolished” but that it was a matter of historical reality rather than moral principals. Webster firmly believed that captured slaves should be returned to their rightful owners as they were considered to be the owners’ property. Webster was also against the Abolition societies as he thought they were useless and that they caused tensions between the blacks and whites over the last twenty years and that nothing good or valuable came out of it. Webster argued that laws should be abided and that no one should get around the Constitution, or embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Constitution as stated in the article.

    Webster speech is an outreach to the other members of senate insisting that a secession is unpatriotic and could never be peaceful when there are different views towards the Fugitive Slave Law. It would be the fall of the government and an embarrassment  to the United States of America. It would be considered a disruption of the normals aspects of life and that things wouldn't be the same.

    In my opinion Webster was mainly looking out for his interest. The livelihood of the slaves was not of importance to him because he didn't see beyond that fact that they were running away to get away from the unjust and inhuman treatment that they were receiving. Probably he himself was a slave master and was protecting his interest and seeking profits. It isn’t uncommon for individuals in certain areas of the government to work together and manipulate their power to get a desired and profitable outcome. What is also ironic to me is that the law seems to be considered for these individuals when it seems to be in their benefit. For instance, his claim sought to mobilize the nation to follow the law. He stated that there would be penalties and punishment for such actions for citizens who do not abide by the law. However, there seemed to be no equal consideration for the freedom, justice and liberty for all…that everyone should be equal.

Another Stab To The U.S Constitution - “Revisiting the Constitution: Do We Really Need the Second Amendment?” by Melynda Price 

The  Second Amendment (Amendment II) states: to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment give individuals the rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

    

“This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.”

  “ In writing the Second Amendment, the Framers didn't envision the kind of gun toting that is permitted across this country today.”

I choose both quotes, because what the author is stating is that when the constitution along with the second amendment  was written, it was considered a time of change. The implementation of these laws was seen as a way to bring peace, unity and equality between all races. It’s intentions were  to be a  guide for a new and brighter beginning, it was a guideline to follow, to prosper as citizens of America as the past was to be left behind along with all the painful memories and hurt. However, once again man has taken it upon himself manipulated the second amendment to his own needs.  

 The world has changed, times have changed and there is so much evolvement and influence by the government on today’s society that has made such amendment a danger to society due to lack of proper control.

    Freedom to bear arms, or to give individuals opportunities to purchases guns and ammunitions as if they are on a battle field shouldn’t be allowed.  Implementation of a stricter process of obtaining and owning firearms should be considered. Firearms are easily  obtainable and often gets into the hands of innocent children and mentally unstable individuals. I believe federal law should increase the age limit (which in most states is 18) where an individual can purchase a licensed firearm. Someone who is eighteen or twenty-one years of age in my option still  possesses childlike qualities and may not be mature enough to handle a weapon effectively and safely. They may often make irrational decisions, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to purchase or have a firearm in their possession .

There should also be back ground checks on everyone who purchases  or attempts to purchase a firearm ensuring that they don't have a history of mental illness or have any criminal  offenses or records in the past or present. These checks should be done state wide since most time people with criminal records tend to move from state to state, either trying to start a new clean life or just trying to evade being caught where they are known in a familiar environment. 

Federal officers should also impose laws for gun shops and shooting range owners making sure that the best measures are used when selling or practicing the use of firearms. Those owners should definitely be held accountable for misuse of weapons that are placed in known criminals hands.  

    Gun control is indeed important, as too many innocent lives have been taken away due to guns that are readily available and placed in the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals. Innocent children being shot at schools - a place that is considered as safe and naturing.  Sacred places of worships are entered by gunman, while members of the congregation are praying for peace - they end up losing their lives in the process. Parents end up mourning the loss of a baby who gets shot by a stray bullet while playing in his/her crib in the comfort of their own home.  A teenager who constantly being bullied at school not having someone to talk too decides to end his/her life with his/her father’s firearm which was left unsecured, or worse, takes the same firearm to school and shoots the person or persons involved in bullying. There are countless other examples, examples which should cause us to stop and think whether we should really allow any and everyone to have personal weapons like guns.