Pro 2nd Amendment Information-High School Speech

D

dRiZzLe3

Inactive
My father put me onto this site as i am looking for information on Pro Second Amendment Information. I am required to do a persuasive speech for my 10th grade High School Class. I have chose this topic because i really feel strongly about and would like to educate my fellow classmates on this topic.

Any information, facts, quotes, and other information you see usefull would be much appreciated.

On a side note I'm 16 year old male from Minnesota and an avid hunter and fisherman, I enjoy my rights to use firearms. I will not let it be runied by the stupidity and ignorance of others.

Thank You for your time.
 
you might start at the library and ask for books or things on the 2nd amendment to get a feel for the topic, you will get lots of different opinions on here and at least if you look into it first and add others insites sounds like an interesting project, very interesting steve:)
 
Sounds good. I figured i would try and get as much information as i could so i can assemble this correctly and hopefully get a much wider range and learn things i normaly could not from my public library.

Again Thank You for your time and responses to this Topic
 
I did a pro-2nd persuasive speech for a public speaking course a couple years ago, and one statistic that still sticks in my head is the percentage of burglaries in the UK that occur when the residents are home compared to the US. Basically such "hot" burglaries occur at a much higher rate there...and such burglaries are also highly likely to cause some form of assault to happen to the resident.

I even had a couple different quotes from inmate interviews saying why they avoid breaking in when people are home...one was basically "that's how you get yourself shot."

I just seem to remember that particular segment getting a favorable reaction. I'm busy with schoolwork of my own, so I'll let everybody else cover the rest.
 
Are you sure you want to talk about guns in a public school?

It might be a forbidden subject! The PC crowd may have an issue.
 
Ah, screw the pc wussies!!!

j/k


Have you thought about incorporating any "hunter's safety" segments into your debate? Maybe not trying to explain how to safely operate a firearm, but just let your audience know that there are proper ways to handle the firearms and places to learn how to do so...

I'd also revolve around some statistics that the armed society is a safer society...
 
Ah, screw the pc wussies!!!

j/k
Click to expand...

Just wanted to caution him. I remember reading a story of a grammer school kid that drew a picture of a gun. Seemed that his BOE had issues with it. :barf:
 
My father put me onto this site as i am looking for information on Pro Second Amendment Information.
Click to expand...

One of the greatest aides you could aquire on this subject would be "The Bill of Rights Primer, A Citizens Guidebook to the American Bill of Rights" by Akhil Reed Amar, and Les Adams.

It is published by Palladum Press, Birmingham Alabama, and SHOULD be in your school library, but I would bet all I own, it is not. Check with the city library, but if not available there you can get it from Amazon.

A great premise to start with on your speech is the idea that all the Amendments need to be read in order of appearance after reading all the Articles of the Constitution, in order to comprehend the textual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 1st, 3rd, etc. etc.

Notice the 1st Amendment limits the power of government to interfere in ANY manner with your right to say what you think, worship how you wish, and to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances, (or to "protest" against things we don't want our government to to continue doing.)

The 2nd Amendment comes along directly afterward, to specifically make clear that the right to keep and bear arms backs up our right to secure a free state, in order that we may say what we think, worship as we want, and change our government's policies if we so choose.

The intent of the 2nd, is something your teachers may not wish to hear. However, the fact is, that Amendment is part of our "Contract" with each other that we agree to never live under an oppressive government.

The only reason anyone would wish to remove that right, is for the purpose of establishing an oppressive dictatorship. While there are those who say they would agree with abolishing the 2nd Amendment because of concern, or "compassion", those people ignore history.

As you keep reading the Amendments, you may notice each demonstrates we RESERVE our Rights, while we LIMIT the powers of Government. Once we give up our 2nd Amendment, we have no method to LIMIT the powers of government at all.

For example, Viet Nam, Cambodia, China, Germany, Poland, Czechoslavakia, and many, many other countries have experienced massive genocides and mass murders. One thing these countries had in common, was a disarmed populace.

So hopefully your teacher is not anti-2nd Amendment, and is sincerely wanting you to learn the truth about our 2nd Amendment's purpose. If so, you may ask him or her to see if your library can obtain some copies of the "Bill of Rights Primer" for your school library.

Good luck with your project.
 
Use the search engine here on TFL. Your question arises every few months. Do the same over on www.thehighroad.org , a sister site.

See also
www.guncite.com
gunfacts 4.0


I figure your biggest problem will be in narrowing the subject down to something bite-sized. If you really want to stir it up make your subject national concealed carry permits. That one subject contains all red flags anti-gunners charge at.

Keep us posted.
 
Waitone has a great idea in his post above, about national carry permits, and it is at the heart of the debate.

In fact, the 2nd Amendment IS a firearm carrying permit.

Try this site: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html for some helful info.

Here is the best argument I believe ever made in support of the importance of the 2nd Amendment, by Patrick Henry listed below from the above site. I hope it is of assistance:


"...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all? "

(Henry was answering Edmund Pendleton who was not wanting to include a bill of rights in the Constitution, and had suggested that if we wanted to change government, we would only need to call our legislators into convention. You can see how wise Henry was then. And how it gets even more important to us for our future)


Here is another good one if it hasn't already been brought to your attention:


"...Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
 
Are you sure you want to talk about guns in a public school?

It might be a forbidden subject! The PC crowd may have an issue.
Click to expand...

At the beginning of this term he asked us to write down several topics we feel strongly about...i put the Second Amendment and he stared it as a good choice. I dont think he will have any problem with it and i feel there is wrong in a teacher saying no to this subject...Is it not my constituional right? I would rather be sent to the principles office than be downsized to a lesser topic. I honestly think there will not be a problem.

I figure your biggest problem will be in narrowing the subject down to something bite-sized. If you really want to stir it up make your subject national concealed carry permits. That one subject contains all red flags anti-gunners charge at.
Click to expand...

I have thought about that but I havent decided yet.

Just be careful not to use such rhetoric in your speech....even though you want to.
Click to expand...

Thats why i dont think if i could be on a debate team...id probably say,
"ARE YOU STUPID?" just me lol.

also can u explain to me these meanings as i have seen them a lot on this site.... Leo? PC? BOE? .... and any others i should know.

Thank You for all the quick replys...i will look at narrowing what i will be speaking about.
 
PC-Politically Correct
LEO-Law Enforcement Officer
BEO-I have no clue
EBR-Evil Black Rifle(aka ar15)
YMMV-Your Mileage May Very
SHTF-S*** Hit The Fan

If you have any more questions, you can PM me (private message, just click on my screen name while you are signed in.)

I am also a high school junior, although I attend University as a freshman. One thing that lots of people leave out of their debates is the most important.

forget statistics
forget what burglars think
forget that criminals buy guns anyways

America was built on the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is a fundamental part of this country. If the 2nd amendment said everyone had to own a purple dog, we would have to do it. You can't cut and paste the constitution based on statistics or on logic. You have to follow it. To do otherwise would require a radical change and overthrow of the government as we see it. The gun control laws as they are are illegal, plain and simple. To say that restriction of machine guns is okay because it's for the safety of the people is wrong. The 2A doesn't mention safety, it just says your rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Some people use the saying "You can't scream 'Fire' in a crowded theater" example, but you know what...I can. If because of that there is a riot, arrest me for disturbance of peace. But to say that I can't scream FIRE in a theater is wrong. What if I own the theater? What if the theater is all crowded with my friends and we like screaming "FIRE"? Don't make yelling "Fire" illegal and don't make machine guns illegal. Make starting a riot or murder illegal. It's a slight difference, but with BIG consequences.

Good Luck!
 
@Venison_Jerkey32: The Second Amendment doesn't define "arms," which is only the most obvious among problems with your line of reasoning. As with many other portions of the Constitution, it's all about the interpretation. I personally agree with yours, but many people (and many courts) don't seem to...and because the language isn't quite as specific as you seem to think it is, they aren't necessarily "wrong." It just isn't that black or white.

Also, regarding Constitutional infallibility: the Constitution once upheld the ownership of slaves, and defined a majority of blacks in this country as 3/5 of a person. While the first 10 amendments carry more weight to me than subsequent ones, the Constitution was once amended to ban the sale of alcohol...and later amended to allow it again. So in order to persuade anybody who is not already a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, you're going to need more than just spouting the text at them. Of course they know what the darn thing says...last I checked we all learned that back in middle school (or earlier).

No, you need to show why the Second Amendment was included. You need to show the positive effects of gun ownership. Because the courts have already ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means...and continuing to spout the text at somebody who is anti-gun only functions as an argument for overturning the Second Amendment entirely (through a new amendment), not upholding it.
 
One thing about out school systems is they dont touch on the second amendmant at all...Didnt start American History till Freshmen year in High School...didnt go any deeper on the 2A then saying it is "The Right to keep..etc. very disapointing to me, someone who wanted to learn more on it. Think they ever taught us about the Federlist Papers...NO!

My father showed them to me and i couldnt believe we never went over them in school...

Im leaning towards Right to Carry as my focus point...its mainstream at the moment and there are a lot of statistics involved that i hope will lean the audiance into my side of the story.
 
Well obviously my point was a little extreme, that was just they way I see it. As we can see, the supreme court doesn't agree with me, as they feel their interpretation is different. But it still stands, regardless of what it says, short of the constitution being ammended or forgotten we should follow what it says. That's my biggest problem with anti-gun people saying we should ban all guns. Sure that is okay in England, but to do that here requires more than just banning guns, it requires ammending the constitution. Of course there are reasons why the founding fathers included the 2A, and they are very important and logical. I also agree with all the other points about CC helping crime etc... I'm just saying, in America, there is more to banning guns than just banning guns.
 
The Second Amendment doesn't define "arms," which is only the most obvious among problems with your line of reasoning. As with many other portions of the Constitution, it's all about the interpretation.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind when you are presenting your argument, that the 2nd Amendment does not NEED to define the word "ARMS" and was not intended to be a dictionary. At the time the twenty seven word sentence was ratified, the Founders reasonably assumed people would understand that "arms" meant all arms a person could afford or cared to own.

The "interpretation" argument many "legal scholars" toss out is one of the biggest red herrings ever devised.

Anyone who has the desire to undeerstand the simply worded second amendment need only read it with an open, reasonable mind. It is not necessary to devote a thirty year career into understanding a sentence containing all of twenty seven words. "Legal Scholarship" is reserved to those who wish to take a twenty seven word sentence, which clearly sets out that the right of the People to keep and bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means something along the lines of:

"The right of the national guard", or the "right of the military".

The government was by our Constitution granted certain limited powers. The PEOPLE RESERVED rights.

Nobody can be confused by the words of the Second Amendment if they read it with an open mind, and simple common sense.

If someone says the word "arms" does not apply to firearms of all sort, the ATF will be glad to explain the meaning of the word "arms" to them. :)
 
Many people today claim the second amendment, and all the others by extension, are vaguely worded and therefore subject to "living interpretation." Reality is the second amendment was crystal clear in its wording to those who wrote it and to those who read it when it was written and published. Language changes over the years. If you want to truly understand the meaning of the second amendment you have to put on a pair of 18th century glasses and read 18th century dictionaries for definitions. We of today are quite wasteful of our language. Early America as well as Britain of the time used language with surgical precision. My advice? Don't use a modern dictionary; go get on from the time during which the constitution was written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top