Write an argumentative essay on Do we have the right to bear arms?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Right to Bear Arms: Safeguarding Liberty or Endangering Society?
The right to bear arms is a contentious and deeply ingrained aspect of American culture and history. It is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, as our society evolves and faces modern challenges, it is imperative to critically examine whether this right continues to serve its intended purpose or if it poses a threat to public safety. While some argue that the right to bear arms is essential for self-defense and protection against tyranny, it is my contention that we must reconsider this right in order to prioritize the well-being and safety of our communities.
Supporters of the right to bear arms often argue that it is crucial for self-defense. They contend that an armed citizenry acts as a deterrent against criminals and ensures that individuals can protect themselves and their loved ones in dangerous situations. Additionally, proponents assert that the Second Amendment serves as a safeguard against potential government tyranny by providing citizens with the means to resist oppressive regimes.
While these arguments may have had merit in the past, they fail to account for the modern realities of firearm-related violence and its impact on society. The United States has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths among developed nations, with thousands of lives lost each year due to gun violence. The ease of access to firearms has contributed to mass shootings, homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. These statistics cannot be ignored, and it is clear that the right to bear arms has serious consequences for public safety.
Moreover, the notion that an armed citizenry can effectively resist government tyranny is questionable at best. In an age of advanced military technology and surveillance capabilities, individual firearms are unlikely to provide significant protection against a well-equipped government. The idea that an armed populace can prevent government oppression rests on romanticized notions of revolution and fails to consider the complexities of modern warfare and state power.
In light of these concerns, it is imperative that we reevaluate the right to bear arms and prioritize public safety. This does not necessarily entail a complete ban on firearms but requires implementing comprehensive gun control measures that promote responsible ownership and reduce access to weapons by those who pose a risk to themselves or others. Stricter background checks, closing loopholes in gun sale regulations, and banning assault weapons are all steps that can be taken to enhance public safety without infringing on individual rights.
Critics may argue that these measures infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. However, it is essential to recognize that rights are not absolute and must be balanced against other societal interests. The right to bear arms should not supersede the right to life or the well-being of our communities. It is our responsibility as a society to protect ourselves from unnecessary harm and ensure the safety and security of our fellow citizens.
In conclusion, while the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in American history, we must critically examine its continued relevance in today’s society. The alarming rates of gun violence and the devastating impact it has on our communities cannot be ignored. It is time to prioritize public safety by implementing sensible gun control measures that balance the rights of individuals with the collective well-being of society. By doing so, we can work towards creating a safer and more secure future for all.
