The Transcendentalist Movement: Henry David Thoreau And Ralph Waldo Emerson

1002 Words 5 Pages
The Transcendentalist movement showed a lot of humans how to appreciate the world around them and be very symbiotic with the nature around them. Led by Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, texts and art forms displayed by the duo showed the world how to transcend past the norm of reality and exhibit characteristics not typically shown in a modern society. With this came forward the thoughts of Self-Reliance, the belief that you need no one, literally no one else to sustain economic, spiritual, mental and physical growth. Self-Reliance meaning you show capability in everything you do without imitation. When Emerson says “There is a time in every man’s education where he arrives at the conviction that. . . imitation is suicide; …show more content…
There’s weird, thin lines crossed by even the smallest of alterations to existing policies so the moral of the law/bill/code of honor is that your gun should only be used in Self-Defense. You shouldn’t brandish a pistol just to threaten. With that, it seems “well, if everyone should use it in Self-Defense and no one on offense to start a fight, we’ll see no problems!” which is precisely the case. If everyone with a gun chose to follow the codes instead of veer off of the straight-and-narrow, they wouldn’t be taking precautionary measures around every corner to prevent you from having a pistol in your coat in case of an emergency. Consequently, some take it upon themselves to cause trouble using lethal weapons whether for gun violence or for personal motive such as gang warfare; which brings in the element of Self-Reliance. Some wouldn’t take it upon themselves to carry a pistol in the waistband when going to the bank just-in-case, but if and when that just-in-case happens and 2 men in ski masks come in and tell the Tellers to put the money in the bag, they find themselves relying on only themselves because it is their only option. They are reliant on themselves. They aren’t in need of a …show more content…
Guns are problem creators before problem solvers. While this can prove to be true, countless crimes avoided by a Police Officer’s holstered pistol revealed to scare a criminal off of the ideal of “what if… what if I make a dash for the door with this box under my arm and he draws that pistol and fires a perfect shot. Is it worth it?” No. The risk outweighs the benefit which argues that in some situations, guns are going to help way more than do harm. Gang Warfare has set the normality of weapon possession back for years, due to the growing nature of how influential gangs and impromptu warfare have become, infiltrating our media and even our backyards. The music the youth chooses to blare through their headphones can find a common ground in that it most likely finds a tie to some sort of gang warfare. The movies we watch all portray gang members as nor villain or hero. They sympathize with them, make sure the audience find parallels. It’s because of this infiltration that gun violence in the gangs goes mostly unchecked. While guns typically find themselves doing a lot of harm, with the cleanup being done with the good guy guns and the police technology all out against gangs and their street-smarts. While a valid point to bring up the fact guns are going to do more harm than can be undone, the validity is questioned when one pictures an ideal universe with police being the only people that can hold a

Related Documents

Related Topics