Definition and Examples of Clang Association

Definition and Examples of Clang Association Clang association is word choice determined not by logic or meaning but by a words similarity in sound to another word. Also known as an association by sound  or  clanging. Clang association sometimes influences semantic change. For example, originally the noun fruition meant enjoyment, pleasure before its association with fruit developed the sense fulfillment, realization (John Algeo in The Cambridge History of the English Language: 1776-1997). Clang Association and Semantic Change Similarity or identity of sound may likewise influence meaning. Fay, from the Old French fae fairy has influenced fey, from Old English fà ¦ge fated, doomed to die to such an extent that fey is practically always used nowadays in the sense spritely, fairlylike. The two words are pronounced alike, and there is an association of meaning at one small point: fairies are mysterious; so is being fated to die, even though we are all so fated. There are many other instances of such confusion through clang association (that is, association by sound rather than meaning). For example, in conservative use fulsome means offensively insincere as in fulsome praise, but it is often used in the sense extensive because of the clang with full; fruition is from Latin frui to enjoy by way of Old French, and the term originally meant enjoyment but now usually means state of bearing fruit, completion (Rex, 1969); fortuitous earlier meant occurring by chance but now is generally used as a synonym for fortu nate because of its similarity to that word. (T. Pyles and J. Algeo, The Origins and Development of the English Language. Harcourt, 1982) President George W. Bushs Clang Associations [George] Bushs spontaneous public statements also suggest that he listens to and uses words based on their sound, not on their meaninga practice known in psychology as clang association. This accounts for many of his famous malapropisms: commending American astronauts as courageous spacial entrepreneurs, referring to the press as the punditry, wondering whether his policies resignate with the people, warning Saddam Hussein that he would be persecuted as a war criminal after the fall of Iraq. (Justin Frank, Bush on the Couch. Harper, 2004) Clang Association in the Language of Schizophrenics [E]arly investigations into the language of schizophrenics (see Kasanin 1944) came upon the phenomenon of a spate of talk being touched off by the sound of some word in a prior utterance (so-called clang association), a phenomenon which students of conversation will recognize as not uncommon in ordinary talk. But having found it through the close examination of schizophrenic talk (talk which could be so closely examined by virtue of its speakers disgnoses), it was taken as specially characteristic of such talk. So also with childrens talk, etc.(Emanuel A. Schegloff, Reflections on Talk and Social Structure. Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. by Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman. University of California Press, 1991) The Lighter Side of Clang Associations All right, Cranberry said. Your trouble is, you cant pass a word up. Youre a compulsive punner. . . .There is something we call Klang associations. Its a sort of chain punning, and is characteristic of certain encysted types. Your pattern is a complex and refined variation of these word salads.It is also, I answered coolly, if I am not mistaken, the method by which James Joyce constructed Finnegans Wake. . . .At length, my habit cleared up. . . . [W]hen a dinner companion exclaimed that she had glimpsed three wedges of southbound geese over her rooftop in one day, I [did not] succumb to the temptation to murmur, Migratious!(Peter De Vries, Compulsion. Without a Stitch in Time. Little Brown, 1972)

Third Writing Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Third Writing Assignment - Essay Example Other than the domestic powers, the President also has broad rights over foreign policy. He can appoint ambassadors. The president with the aid of the Secretary of the State can maintain all contact with foreign powers. In many cases, the president can personally be present in Summit conferences where all heads of state assemble for direct consultation. For instance, President Woodrow Wilson represented his country in the Paris peace conference after WWII was over. Since then, US Presidents regularly meet with world leaders for discussion of economic and political matters to reach bilateral and multilateral agreements. The President’s job is also to protect the Americans abroad and look after the foreign nationals in America. The President has the right to approve new nations and government, and enter into treaties with other nations which is however subject to approval from two-third of the Senate. The President also has the right to enter into â€Å"executive agreementsâ₠¬  with other nations which do not need approval from the Senate. The President also acts as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces since only with power over the army he can add credibility to his foreign policies. He has the power to decide when to intervene abroad. For instance, US Presidents have intervened during wars in Korea and Vietnam by deploying troops as required (â€Å"Presidential Powers†; Watts, 99). The power of the Congress is concerned with collection of taxes, duties, excises and imports. The Congress also allocates funds for the defence and general welfare of the country. According to the US constitution, the Congress has the power to frame foreign policies. The laws passed by the Congress, or the treaties and nominations that the Senate agrees can have impact on the country’s interaction with other nations. Although the president has the right to establish and implement foreign policies, it is the Congress who has the right to approve fund

Modern globalization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Modern globalization - Essay Example One most important effect of globalization is power discourse. Globalization refers to the process that takes place around the globe and that creates remarkably significant effect on the position of power among the nations (Cavusgil, Knight and Riesenberger, 2013). This shows that the term globalization does not relate to any single concept that might be encapsulated within a definite frame at a defined point of time. It is a process with a long history. Although globalization is regarded as a recent phenomenon, several environmentalists, economists and scientists univocally claim that this process has its beginning in the distant past and it cannot be clearly predicted whether it has any definitive end. While most of the activities of the modern world are shaped under the effect of globalization, several activities are recognized as the ‘bad effects’ of this process (Sassen, 2000). After a prolonged period of time, scientists have seen signs of this process of globaliza tion to weaken in the current international economic and business scenario. These effects also cannot be determined as absolutely good or bad. It rather depends upon the way in which the term has been defined in a particular context and the level of impact that this phenomenon has cast on the performance of the sector or firm. Thus, in popular discourse, the term holds varied meanings. Hence, it is imperative to distinguish between the two types of concepts of globalization; one that is viewed as contemporary ideology of modern politics and the other that is related to as structural globalization. The current wave of globalization is the outcome of large scale interaction within dense networks of individuals and institutions around the world. International trade has increasingly become a function of global production of goods and services and their distribution (Chase-Dunn, Kawano and Brewer, 2008). Various arguments made by different economists, policy makers and environmentalists can be presented in this context. Some of these arguments support the positive impacts of globalization while others support the negative impacts of globalization. Arguments for and against globalization At present, the economic development of the global economy is highly dependent on the waves of globalization. With the beginning of the 21st century the world has moved on to a higher level of networking and interconnectivity. This is applied to all the aspects of society and economy. There has been structural reformation in the fields of technology and knowledge transfer has become more advanced (Hipsher, 2006). The fragmented dimensions of the economy in different parts of the globe of the globe get interconnected with smooth flow of technology and better networking. The different parts of the world are becoming more interconnected with one another and socially as well as economically. This structural reformation lays emphasis on the integration of diversities imbibed in the cultu re and practices of the different nations. On the other side of the coin, the process of globalization takes into account the diversities or differences in culture. Hence, it implies that this process leads to unification of the different ideas, cultures and practices among the nations. Under this process the world is considered as a single unit or economy that runs by following a uniform system. This leads to the formation of one single society. However, there are also certain drawbacks of the global integration.

North America Geography Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

North America Geography - Research Paper Example The Northern half of North America remains sparingly populated and covered largely by Canada, except by North East part occupied by Alaska. The central and southern sections of the North America continent are represented by Mexico, United States, as well as several states situated in Caribbean and Central America. Canada, Mexico, and the United States constitute most of North America’s land mass and share the continent with 34 other island countries in the Caribbean south of Mexico. The paper explores the physical, economic, cultural, and historical geography of North America. The physical geography of North America Physical features frequently impact on the manner in which people select to settle areas and utilize the land. Physical geography can be categorized into three core areas of emphasis, namely: climatology (weather patterns and climates); geomorphology (physiography and landforms); and, biogeography (fauna and flora). The surface physiography of any region draws huge influences by the underlying rock structure. Geologic evidence demonstrates that, from 200 million years, the continent of North America altered its course and started drifting away from Pangaea. The earliest recorded history of any civilization dates back 5,000 years ago (Meinig, 1989). The physical features of North America entail Northern section of the American Cordillera comprising of the geologically new Rocky Mountains (located in the west) and older Appalachian Mountains to the east. The North features several glacial lakes formed within the last glacial period such as the Great Lakes. North America’s prominent continental divide (the Great Divide) runs north and south via Rocky Mountains. The prominent watershed largely drains to the east including the Mississippi/Missouri, St. Lawrence that drains into the Atlantic, and Rio Grande, which drain into the Gulf of Mexico (Meinig, 1989). North America can be categorized into five major physiographic regions, namely: Can adian Shield; Appalachian Mountains; Atlantic Coastal Plain; North American Cordillera; and, Interior Lowlands. The Coastal Plain and the principal North American Cordillera belts largely extend to the south in Mexico to join the Transverse Volcanic Range (a region comprising of active volcanic peaks south of Mexico City. The biggest portion of North America rests on the North American Plate anchored on the Laurentia craton. Some sections of California and Western Mexico form the partial edge of the Pacific Plate, which meet along the San Andreas Fault while sections in the southern portion of the Caribbean and sections of the Central America constitute relatively small Caribbean Plate (Brescia & Super, 2009). Mexico equally manifests highly varied topography that comprises of rugged mountains with high elevations, high plateaus, low coastal plains, and deserts. Mexico’s climate can also be regarded as variable mainly dominated by tropical or desert climate (Colby, 2011). Nor th America Climate The core factors that impact on climate include continentality, latitude, surface physiography, and air masse possess huge impacts on the climate of North America, which in turn, possess direct influences the bio-geographic distribution of the natural vegetation across the region. The core factors that influence vegetation patterns entail temperature and humidity (precipitation). The climate that manifest in North America is

Saudi Arabia and Iran Relationship

Saudi Arabia and Iran Relationship Syria and Lebanon: the main scene for Saudi-Iranian rivalry Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran are characterized by religious-ideological antagonism and competition for regional influence. The current turmoil in the Middle East is often reflected in the hostility between the two states as their struggle over the character of the region has escalated and intensified.[1] The potential negative implications of the Arab spring, along with the initial Iranian attempt to consolidate regional achievements, have largely roused Saudi Arabia out of its relative passivity in foreign policy and led it to attempt to promote a new inter-Arab alignment as a potential counterweight to Iran. Saudi Arabia perceives Iran as a main threat for several reasons. The first relates to Iran’s desire to promote a security system in the Gulf free of foreign involvement—particularly that of America—in which Iran will assume a greater leadership role. The second refers to Iran’s view of itself as the more genuine representative of the Muslim world and as the state that is challenging Saudi Arabia’s role of dominance (alongside its Wahabi religious establishment) within the Muslim world, as a depiction of the Sunni–Shia rift. Iran’s pursuit of military nuclear capability and the potential impact this capability would have on shaping the regional agenda also threatens Saudi Arabia. Iran’s ambition and its military capabilities might be used, in a Saudi perspective, to further Iranian influence over OPEC and over the Shiites minority population in the Saudi kingdom.[2] The Sunni-Shiite conflict plays a critical role in relations between the two opposing sides of the Gulf in general and between Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular. Saudi Arabia has committed intense efforts to draw pro-Iranian Middle East players into the Saudi-Sunni camp and to establish a multi-national front, based upon sectarian divisions, against Iran’s regional ambitions. Saudi Arabia’s relations with Syria, Iran’s main ally have deteriorated due to the violent suppression of the protests in Syria, which began in March 2011. Even prior to this, Saudi Arabia failed in its attempt to rescue Syria from the clutches of Iranian influence and create a united anti-Iranian bloc composed of Sunni states. The protests in Syria gave the kingdom a new opportunity to promote its agenda. By weakening the Assad regime, the Saudis hope they will help reduce the power of the â€Å"Shiite axis†.[3] In this vein, the Saudi media has regularly criticized Iran’s less-than covert attempts at supporting the Syrian regime. Saudi Arabia’s current policy constitutes a change in its attitude toward the Assad regime. After the rift between the two states in the wake of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Al-Hariri in 2005, King Abdullah led a policy of relative openness toward Syria in an attempt to drive a wedge between it and Iran. As unrest in Syria grew, however, he recalled his ambassador back to Riyadh in August 2011. This, along with its support to quell Shiite insurgency in Bahrain, is evidence that Saudi Arabia intends to stand up to the radical front headed by Iran.[4] Saudi Arabia, together with Qatar, has also taken action in order to further weaken the Iranian-Syrian axis. The two nations, for example, worked together to suspend Syria’s membership in the Arab League and continue to provide financial and military support to different elements within the Syrian opposition.[5] These measures fit with the approach Saudi Arabia has adopted since the beginning of the Ar ab spring, which is both more assertive than in the past, and expresses its attempt to reshape the map of alliances in the region in accordance with its interests. Over the years, Saudi Arabia have preferred to avoid confrontation, focusing on attempts at mediation in the Arab world for the purpose of eliminating dangers while attempting to avoid being aligned with any side.[6] In the case of Syria, the kingdom has preferred American leadership. When this did not materialize, however, Saudi Arabia, with its large coffers and affluent Sunni Islamic influence, entered the resulting vacuum. As noted its previous attempts at distancing Assad from the Iranian axis were unsuccessful, but the rebellion against Assad gave the Saudis an unusual opportunity to weaken Iranian influence in the area. The Arab world began to adopt a tougher stance vis-à  -vis Assad in the summer of 2011, when the Gulf Cooperation Council called on Syria to stop its â€Å"deadly suppression of citizens, followed by an unusually sharp statement by Saudi King Abdullah, who demanded that Syria â€Å"stop the killing machine†.[7] This new tone resulted from the King’s frustration with the Alawite minority regime (which he considers heretical) regarding Saudi attempts at mediation, combined with the realization that Syrian opposition achievements are likely to tip the balance against Iran. The King’s anger increased following the killing of members of cross-border tribes that were the tribal lineage of his mother and two of his sisters, and the widespread killing of Sunnis during the holy month of Ramadan. Since then, Saudi Arabia, with some coordination with Qatar (which has since cut back on its involvement) and the United Arab Emirates, has been aiding rebel forces that it regards as suitable for the Anti-Iranian cause in Lebanon and the Syrian opposition sometimes without taking into account American restrictions on armaments.[8] The strategic goal of overthrowing Assad (and weakening Iran and Hizbollah) currently spearheads Saudi Arabias foreign policy. Its aim is to strengthen elements among the rebels, so that if and when Assad falls, those elements will gain control over what remains of the Syrian state. The Arab Gulf countries tried to persuade the United States that the Assad regime had crossed the red line announced by President Obama in August 2012 and again in March 2013 concerning the use of chemical weapons. According to the Wall Street Journal, Saudi Arabian intelligence found proof that this weapon was used already in February 2013, and presented this evidence to the United States.[9] However, American disinclination to get involved in Syria has caused the Gulf States to doubt the credibility of the US, their main â€Å"defense provider, to deliver. A manifestation, in their eyes, of Americas diminishing regional influence. It was reported that the Saudi king, frustrated with American policy in the region, sent Obama a message saying â€Å"Americas credibility was on the line if it let Assad prevail†.[10] Elements within the Gulf States, notably in Kuwait and the UAE, started privately financing different Sunni rebel groups – causing further radicalization and fragmentation within the rebel ranks in a rampant competition for funds and influence. The Saudis are reportedly providing 3 billion dollars as an aid package to the Lebanese armed forces, as a part of their effort to support Pro–Sunni factions in Lebanon.[11] These efforts are backed, according to Hizbollah members, by an unprecedented intelligence campaign, led by the Saudi prince Bandar bin Sultan to cripple the Shia organization’s infrastructure, target its assets and weaken Hizbollah’s political position within the Lebanese political arena.[12] This may very well be a Saudi attempt to force Hizbollah to allocate more forces back to Lebanon and away from Syria, while delegitimizing it on the home front as a destabilizing and a sectarian force. There are no Saudi illusions about a sweeping victory in Syria and Lebanon. They too are aware of advantage in weaponry, organization, and external support enjoyed by Assad and his allies. They hope, however, that the support they provide will tip the scales in their favor, bleeding their adversaries financially and militarily,[13] as an historical payback for supporting Shiite subversion over the years in Iraq, the gulf and in the Saudi kingdom. Their enemies – the Assad regime, Iran, and Hizbollah – have been weakened on a daily basis, and are suffering economically, with thus far at little to no significant cost to the kingdom. Concern based on past experience, however, indicates that ramifications of radical elements operating in Syria and Lebanon are liable to boomerang back to the Gulf and upset stability between Shia and Sunni communities in Iraq, Kuwait and the Saudi Kingdom itself.[14]Tensions between Shiites and Sunnis are joined by tensions between parties favoring stability and anti–Iranian hardliners within different regimes in the gulf. Along, with many in the Arab countries, the hardliners believe that the overthrow of the Assad regime could restrain Iran and restore Iran to its natural size, hopefully without leading to a frontal confrontation between Iran and the Saudis. This confrontation has been avoided until now. Those in the Sunni side vying for stability in contrast are alarmed at the possibility that by funding fighters abroad, they might be fueling extremists and Sunni radicals, such as Al Qaeda.[15] With these seasoned veterans bound to return to their Sunni homelands eventually, those concerns might be realized in the form of subsequent radicalization and implementation of terrorist tactics from abroad in the Saudi kingdom and across the gulf. The Saudis have at times acted as a revolutionary force and at times as a counter-revolutionary force, depending on their interests. They engineered the deal on the removal of Yemens President Saleh from office, were involved in consolidating the new regime in Tunisia, and helped to overthrow the Qaddafi regime. On the other hand, they used force to maintain the al-Khalifa regime in Bahrain and sought to keep Mubarak’s regime in power in Egypt. When this effort was unsuccessful, they gave billions in aid to the military regime in Egypt, which recently regained power. Saudi efforts in Lebanon and Syria to assist Anti–Iranian parties[16] are consistent with these trends. With the Saudis testing Iranian resolve to the limit, despite the kingdom’s inferior demographic and geopolitical position and Iran and its allies, cornered by a vast Sunni majority yet more than eager to fight,[17] it is unclear how and when this bloody deadlock will be resolved. 1 [1] Paul Aarts, and Joris Van Duijne, Saudi Arabia after US-Iranian dà ©tente: left in the lurch.Middle East Policy16.3 (2009), p. 70. [2]Vali Nasr When the Shiites rise.Foreign Affairs85 no. 4(2006): p. 59. [3]AdamEntousandSioban Gorman, Behind Assads Comeback, a Mismatch in Commitments.Wall Street Journal, 31Dec.2013 [4]MehranKamrava, â€Å"The Arab Spring and the Saudi-led counterrevolution†.Orbis, 56, no.1,(2012):101 – 103 [5] Assad: Our Battle With Saudi Is Open-Ended. Al Akhbar, 30 Nov. 2013 [6]HermanF. Elits.Saudi Arabias foreign policy.Diplomacy in: L C Brown (ed.)the Middle East: The International Relations of Regional and Outside Powers (London: I.B. Tauris,2004), pp. 238 – 240. [7]AdrianBlomfield, Syria unrest: Saudi Arabia calls on killing machine to stop.,The Telegraph, 8 August, 2011 [8]Kim Ghattas, Saudi Arabia to give Lebanon army $3bn grant,BBC,29Dec.2013. [9]Adam Entous, NourMallas, and Margaret Coker. A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works To Build Support to Topple Assad, Wall Street Journal, 25 Aug. 2013. [10] Ibid. [11]Anna Barnard, â€Å"Saudis’ Grant to Lebanon Is Seen as Message to U.S†, The New York Times, 6 Jan 2014. [12]Nasser Chararah, Hezbollah escalates rhetoric against Riyadh.,Al Monitor 10 Dec. 2013. [13]JobyWarrick. Syrian conflict said to fuel sectarian tensions in Persian Gulf,Washington Post, 19Dec.2013. [14]Elizabeth Dickenson,.Playing with Fire: Why Private Gulf Financing for Syria’s Extremist Rebels Risks Igniting Sectarian Conflict at Home. The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings (6 Dec. 2013), p. 6. [15]Ibid: 18 20 [16]Nasser Chararah, Hezbollah escalates rhetoric against Riyadh., Al Monitor 10 Dec. 2013. [17]Doyle McManus, â€Å"Syria and the perils of proxy war†, LA Times, 12 Jan 2014.

The Roman Republic Essay -- History, Republican Government, Politics

The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was â€Å"[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs† (Perry 105) This new Republican government, which was administered by the consuls, was not the easiest to transform. Because of the expansion in Italy, the government began to initiate political institutions. These institutions enforced laws and provided authority which were very similar to imperium. â€Å"The Romans had a clear concept of executive authority, embodied in their word imperium, or â€Å"the right to command† (Spielvogel 117). Since the Romans were very sensible in their actions, they made and implemented them only as needed. The most essential positions held were the few elected magistrates and the two consuls who were â€Å"chosen annually, administered the government and led the Roman army into battle† (Spielvogel 117). If the consul was otherwise occupied, either a dictator or praetor would assume responsibility for the time being. Due to the constraint of the plebeians, the council of decemviri â€Å"was created with the task of regularizing and publishing the laws† (Spielvogel 118). The outcome of this was the creation of the Twelve Tables, published around 450 B.C. which only â€Å"led to further agitation from the plebeians† (Spielvogel 118). The benefits of this were t... ...uing the belief in various gods and goddesses. After the expansion of Rome they started developing other forms of deities based on Greek culture, basically meaning â€Å"Greco-Roman† religion. Although many religious cults that were connected to Rome including Greece were often accepted, many were banished. Families were the basis of Roman society while the dominant males-paterfamilias, â€Å"held absolute authority over his children† (Spielvogel 129) and others in his household . Roman citizens were classified with three names to differentiate them from other families, but women were usually only known by one. â€Å"Females shall remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority†, (Spielvogel 119) upper-class women were never granted true freedom, but they started making breakthroughs and found ways around the â€Å"guardianship† of the males in their households.

The Saga Surrounding Assault Rifles

Gun control has been a touchy issue in the United States since a long while back. There has been much debate over whether guns should be banned in the country, the ownership of which is actually grounded in the constitution. In this regard, lobbyists of both sides have been pushing hard for a long time. A particular issue that now seems to have arisen from the middle relates to banning assault rifles. By the second amendment, every citizen of the United States has the right to bear fire arms for his or her own protection as well as the possible need for a militia in times of war (Kopel 1999).This is a remnant of the country’s history which had to endure a revolutionary war against Great Britain, a massive civil war as well as the ever present issue of slavery which always seemed to require households to carry guns. Since then gun control has become a touchy issue. In this regard, a ban was brought into place on assault weapons in 1994 which saw the end of a ten year reign in 2 004 when the Republican president George Bush refused to extend it (Carter 2009). Now most people argue that it is military style assault rifles that should be banned and not handguns or those used for hunting and sport.Assault rifles such as AK-47s can be used to shoot multiple rounds of bullets at a rapid pace. The argument that is being made is that Americans have the right to bear firearms but the use of assault rifles is wholly unnecessary. With the use of standard guns, people can fulfill their desire to possess firearms for sport or for their personal protection but the availability of assault rifles creates a whole new pantheon of problems (Carter 2009). Rapid firing weapons allow criminals to shoot down civilians as has been illustrated in the case of Pittsburgh.They are used in school shootings, by gangs and drug mafias and can pierce through the protective clothing worn by police officers (Kazmer 2009). However, the solution has never been so simple as to ban the weapons outright. The National Rifle Association has been a strong opponent of this and is buoyed by strong support from some sectors of the public. The delicacy of the situation can be adequately represented by President Obama’s back step from his vociferous promises to continue with the gun ban during his campaign.Now in a recent trip to Mexico, he has pushed for the need to carry on the existing legislation and controls and make them work better (Powell 2009). This has been pleasing to many gun lobbyists as well but it speaks of the times we live in. The last president to bring about the ban lost office soon enough at the hands of dissident voters which is a testament to the thorny nature of the issue. Indeed gun lobbyists make their own points in favor of assault rifles as well. It is argued that there are always exceptions to the rule that are not being considered.There is a need for assault rifles by the public in some cases. Boat owners in the Gulf coast region have to frequen tly face harassment from drug smugglers who can easily dispose of innocent civilians with their rapid firing semi automatic guns. In this case, self defense is not possible without assault rifles. A store owner being faced with a hold up by a gang may need the rapid firing power of an assault rifle to fight off the multiple enemies who threaten him without which he may end up losing his money as well as his life.Rural farmers in many cases have to contend with bear attacks. These creatures are not easy to fend off with traditional rifles and handguns and assault rifles may be necessary for a farmer to defend his family in the rural wilderness (Kopel 1999). It is further argued that the everyday criminal makes use of hand guns mostly and does not indulge in the purchase of assault rifles which therefore do not threaten public security. Both sides continue to make strong points in favor of their cause.However what has to be distinguished now is that whether it is more important to pro tect a right that has been ingrained into the constitution of the country and to consider the needs of particular citizens or to lessen the number of deadly guns available in the streets that result in deaths of innocent people. In this regard, one has to consider the facts. While it is known that assault rifles may be necessary in some cases, they also prove to be a severe detriment to American society as well.In 2006, it was estimated that more than thirty thousand people died in the year due to firearms and therefore accounted for nearly twenty percent of all injury related deaths. Similarly in 2005, a teenager was killed with a firearm nearly every nine hours (Carter 2009). These deaths were caused primarily by assault rifles. It is necessary that the fundamental rights of the American people be defended. However, the issue is not just about rights but about something much deeper. It relates to the security and the good living of the American public.If keeping these assault rifl es open to the public does not give us a better society, what good is there to protect this right? Certainly freedoms should not be curtailed but should be defended to every last inch but if it compromises the very security of our children and our future, then it is a freedom worth relinquishing. The ideal solution would be banning assault rifles all together. However, if this can not be met, it requires at least that better controls and back ground checks be brought into place with regards to gun purchases.This would not only help to control the damage to some extent and protect the rights under the second amendment but may also help to lower the trafficking of these assault weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico which are armed through the United States. A better society is indeed worth fighting for and if compromises have to be made for a better future, it is perhaps prudent to make them now rather than let the bearers of our future suffer. Biblio