Essay/Term paper: Persuasive speech for gun ownership

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Gun Control

I want to encourage gun ownership. Introduction I. What is the foundation of modern technology? It's the history of the gun. Thesis Statement: I will persuade you in that, (1) federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and (2) I will prove the 2nd Amendment is both a "State" and "Individual Right." Body I.The foundation of our country is based in English Bill of Rights and the American Revolution. A. What is the difference between the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution and the "Bill of Rights?" 1. The Declaration of Independence gives the reasons, as to why America wanted seperation. 2. The Constitution gives the federal government certain powers. 3. The "Bill of Rights" limited the power of the federal government. B. The views of gun control advocates. 1. Gun control saves lives. 2. When America was founded guns only shot one bullet at a time. 3. Gun control will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. 4. Children should not have guns. 5. Gun control will reduce the hazards to law enforcement. 6. If citizens carry guns, there will be daily shoot-outs in the streets. 7. We don't want to ban deer rifles, just assault rifles. 8. Why do you need an assault rifle? 9. The entertainment industry is not at fault, it's the gun's fault! 10. The 2nd is a collective right and not an "Individual Right." C. My rebuttal to gun control advocates. 1. Vehicle control saves more lives than gun control. 2. The musket was an assault rifle, like the AK-47 is today. 3. If you don't want criminals to have guns, keep them behind bars. 4. As a child I had guns, and I came out ok. 5. Law enforcement is often the problem, remember Rodney King. 6. Crime has gone down in States with right to carry laws. 7. The Violence Policy Center wants to vilify the deer rifle. 8. Who knows what the future holds? Do you remember Hilter? The economic fall-out of 1929? 9. The gun's fault? Could it be society has been socially conditioned, into violence behavior? 10. The 2nd is both a "State" and "Individual Right." (historical) II. I defy my opponents to show in the "Bill of Rights" where it bars any particular type of firearm. A. I lawfully purchased the AK-47, with in the frame-work of the Constitution. The federal government allowed it to be imported. The State of Texas allowed it to be sold, thus making its ownership Constitutional. (legal) B. My views are better than my opponents views, because the 2nd Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" is intended to limit the power of the federal government, and not that of the States. (constitutional) C. Not only does the 2nd Amendment give the power to the States, but it also gives, an "Individual Right" as indicated by the words "the people." (language) III. My call to Action. A. Protect your gun rights. 1. Join the National Rifle Association. 2. Vote for pro-2nd Amendment candiates. 3. Write your representitivies in favor of the 2nd Amendment. B. Take "Responsibility" for your life, liberty, and happiness, go buy a "GUN". Conclusion I. The 2nd Amendment did not get into the "Bill of Rights" by accident. It was put there to give the people the final say in our governments system of checks and balances. Bibliography Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes "AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS TODAY" West Publishing Company, 1991-92. Adams, Les "The Second Amendment Primer" Odysseus Editions, 1996. C.Q. Researcher from Temple College Library, June 10, 1994. From the Internet, The National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc., Violence Policy Center, The Department of Transportation, The Journal of Firearms and Public Policy, and Gun Owners of America. What does Lenin, Stalin, Hilter, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao tse-tung, and Pol Pot have in common? When they came to power, they took all guns from the civilian population. For this reason my specific goal is to encourage gun ownership. Introduction: The gun 1st appeared in Europe's literature in 1326. It evolved into a mechanical tool as no other tool before it, it incorporated different materials like wood and metal, it also involved physics, chemistry and had ignition. Thus, making the gun the foundation of modern technology, not to mention the fact it gave America its freedom."The shot that was heard around the World" April 19,1775. In 1689 the English Bill of Rights, was passed by Parliament in responsed to King James II trying to disarm his subjects. The English Bill of Right allowed the people to be armed "suitable to their condition" and "allowed by law." This Right was then transfered to the American colonies, and after the American Revolution, our Bill of Rights of 1791, further strengthed the Right to Bear Arms with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thesis Statement: I will persuade you in that, (1) federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and (2) I will prove that the 2nd Amendment is both a "State" and "Individual Right." Can any of you tell me the difference between the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the "Bill of Rights"? Lets start with the Declaration of Independence.What was the pur- pose of the Declaration of Independence? It outlined the reasons as to why the 13 colonies wanted sep- eration from Britian. What does the United States Constitution do? It outlines the federal government and gives it certain powers, these powers are stated within the document itself. What does the "Bill of Rights" do? (the Rights of the Individual). It limits the power of the federal government. How does the "Bill of Rights" limit the power of the federal government? Well, let me 1st give you an example. Can the federal government establish a federal religion? No! Why not? Because the 1st Amendment prohibits it. Lets look at the 1st Amendment. It says in part. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of rel-igion." Thus the "Bill of Rights" forbids the federal government in the establishment of a federal religion. So lets use a little common sense, if the federal government can not establish a federal religion. How can it establish gun control? It can't, the 2nd Amendment forbids it, just like the 1st Amendment forbids a federal religion. Let's look at the 2nd Amendment, "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." Now lets move to the 10th Amendment in the "Bill of Rights," it states that the Constitution gives the federal government certain powers and only those powers listed in the Constitution. Whatever power is left over is reserved to the States. Thus, the 2nd Amendment takes gun control from the federal gov- ernment and the 10th Amendment puts the gun issue in the hands of the States. Lets look at the 10th Amendment, it says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." By the reasoning of common sense, it is therefore unconstitutional for the federal government to pass gun control measures, because the 2nd Amendment restricts the federal government and the 10th Amendment gives that power to the States. Thus, the State's have a right to reasonably regulate firearms but not deny individual ownership. ( The words "the people" refer to individuals. ) The Delclaration of Independence proves the Individual's view, it says in part " We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (freedom), and the Pursuit of Happiness--". " Nature's God " shows God created all men, but the gun made all men equal (equality). The reality is, the gun exists, and if some have gun's and others don't, then inequality is present. The "Laws of Nature" state, that one has a right to defend himself/herself (within reason). Is the use of a gun reasonable? In light of the fact criminal's have guns! The answer is YES, one has a Right to defend their "Life" with a gun which allows for the "Pursuit of Happiness--". Keep in mind that "freeman own gun's slaves don't!" Here are some of my oppositions views: Gun control advocates say, gun control is a humanitarian issue, it saves lives. My rebuttal is: 1st off, if gun control advocates were such humanitarians they should be pushing legislation to ban motor vehicles, because in 1990 there were 4 times more deaths from auto accidents, than gun homicides of that same year. So I ask. "Who will give up their motor vehicle to save lives?" So why should gun owners give up their guns? Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, when the Constitution was written, the gun only shot one bullet at a time, thus it was not intended for Americans to have assault rifles. My rebuttal: The musket was the weapon of assault in it's time period, just like the AK-47 is today. Equivalent weapons for equivalent times. Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will keep guns out of the hands of Crimin- als. My rebuttal: Well, if you don't want criminals to have guns, keep them behind bars. Punish the criminal act, not the law abiding gun owner! Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, children should not have guns. My rebuttal: I have one question and one statement. First the question. "Do children have a right to protect themselves?" Yes, they do! Now the statement. "I had guns as a child, and I grew up to be ok". Opposition view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will reduce the hazards to law enforcement. My rebuttal: Many times law enforcement is the problem. Remember Rodney King? Waco, Texas? Thomas Paine once said, "The balance of power is the scale of peace." Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, citizens should not be allowed to carry guns, because there will be daily shoot-outs in the streets. My rebuttal: As of today 31 States have right to carry laws and your worst fears have not come true. Crime has actually decreased in State's with right to carry laws. Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, we don't want to ban deer rifles, just assault rifles. My rebuttal: That's a lie, because the Violence Policy Center on the World Wide Web, has indicated their next goal is to vilify the deer rifle by labeling it a sniper rifle. Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, why do you need a AK-47? It serves no purpose but to kill. My rebuttal: Why is it that, over the centuries of world history, the right to liberty, (that our Declaration of Independence declares to be "inalienable") has been more often abridged than enforced? Who knows what the future holds? Remember Hilter, Stalin, and Pol Pot? Remember the Great Depress- ion of 1929? Could they happen again? Yes! For these reasons, in order to maintain your "freedoms," you need an AK-47. Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, that the entertainment industry is not responsible for gun violence. They claim the 1st Amendment and say, "art imitates life." My rebuttal: They can claim the 1st Amendment, but we can't claim the 2nd Amendment. Even though there was greater access to guns in the 1950's, we did not have a problem with illegal gun use. Thus, at a time when there was almost no gun control on the books, we had very few shootings. Could the entertainment industry be respon- sible for socially conditioning our youth, into violent behavior? Example: Violence in video games, "The Jerry Springer Show," music lyrics, and movies like "Natural Born Killers." Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right an not an "Individual Right." My rebuttal: If the 2nd Amendment was just a collective right, then why as an Individual citizen do I own a gun? Answer the question! Is not the "Bill of Rights" the Rights of an Individual? The fact is, gun owning Individual Citizens make up the State militia. Individuals come to- gether to form a armed force, in time of need. An example, the 13 militias from the 13 colonies in the days of the American Relvolution (the minute-men). The militia members are Individual gun owning Citizens. Furthermore, for over the last 200 years, the American way of life has set a precedent with an "Individual Right" of gun ownership. It is a fact, that to this day, Individuals own guns, thus proves the "Individual Right" because, if it was not an "Individual Right". Why, for all these years, has the government allowed Individuals to own guns? It is called past practice. I have just proven that the 2nd Amendment is both a "State" and "Individual Right." (historical) I would now like to show you one of my most prized possessions, the AK-47. I defy my opponents to show in the "Bill of Rights" where it bar's civilian ownership of such a gun? You can't because I law- fully purchased the gun, with in the frame-work of the Constitution. The federal government (Article 1 Section 8) allowed the gun to be imported into the country, the State of Texas (Artical 1 Section 23) allowed it to be sold. I have just proven beyond a shadow of doubt that I have a Constitutional Right to own a AK-47, I say this because, if no right existed. How was I able to buy the gun? Now I ask you. What gives gun control advocates the right to take my or anyone elses Constitutional Rights away? I have just proven for the 2nd time, that the 2nd Amendment is both a "State" and "Individual Right." ( I say this because, the federal government did not intervene in the gun's importation or subsequent sale. ) My view is better than my opponents view because, the 2nd Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" is intended to limit the power of the federal government, and not that of the States. What better way to limit the power of the federal government, than by letting the State's determine reasonable firearm legislation, regardless of whether, it is the definition of a "well regulated militia," the definition of a firearm, or the age that an Individual can own a firearm. It is the "RIGHT of the STATE," to determine reasonable firearm legislation, with no infringement by the federal government. (constitutional ) The 2nd Amendment also gives the Individual the right to own a gun, as indicated by the words "the people." Thus, not only does the "Bill of Rights" give the power to the States, but the words "the people" in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments implicitly imply a "Individual Right." Futhermore, if the words "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is not an "Individual Right," then what makes the words "the people" in the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion and speech) and individual right? (language) I have just proven for the 3rd time, that the 2nd Amendment is both a "State" and "Individual Right." What more proof do you want! The "State" has a Right to regulate guns from the criminal, but not deny the law abiding citizen reasonable firearm ownership. So what is reasonable firearm ownership? Well, what ever type of firearms that police and swat teams use, these same weapons can be owned by Individual Citizens, thus creating equality between the Citizen and the law enforcer. Known as a balance of power. Furthermore the government (state or federal) can not make the firearm owner use "Smart Gun Techology", because it would create an imbalance of power. Do to the ability of government turning off or destroying the Citizens firearm's, via satellite, magnetism, laser or some other means. My call to Action: Protect your gun rights, join both the National Rifle Association and Texas State Rifle Association. Vote for pro-2nd Amendment candiates.Write your representivities in favor of the 2nd Amendment, and take "Responsibility" for your life, liberty, and happiness, go buy a "GUN". In conculsion the 2nd Amendment did not get in the "Bill of Rights" by accident. It was put there to give the people the final say in our governments system of checks and balances. The people are the final check in the system, 1st by the vote, and if the vote is subverted then by the gun. Finally, I would like to end my speech with Patrick Henry's famous quote. "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death, if this be treason, make the most of it." Bibliography Schmidt, Shelly, and Bardes "AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS TODAY" West Publishing Company, 1991-92. Adams, Les "The Second Amendment Primer" Odysseus Editions, 1996. C. Q. Researcher from Temple College Library, June 10, 1994. From the Internet, The National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc., Violence Policy Center, The Department of Transportation, The Journal of Firearms and Public Policy, and Gun Owners of America. Questions for discussion. 1. From a historical point of view what was the Framer's intent? 2. Who is the "Bill of Rights" refering to when it uses language like "the people"? 3. When we look at the 2nd Amendment what does past practice indicate? 4. Is the "Bill of Rights" a living document or a concrete document? 5. When interpreting the "Bill of Rights" does one give a consistant interpretation to all Ten Amendments? 6. What is the difference between a privilege and a RIGHT? 7. Does one discount the 2nd Amendment because they feel it is no longer necessary? Answer's to discussion questions. 1. Individual gun ownership, "the minuteman militia". The National Guard did not exist until 116 years after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. 2. The Individual. U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez 3. Individual gun ownership. 4. A concrete document, that can only be changed with 3/4 vote of the "States". 5. Yes, if one reads one Amendment with a strong interpretation, then one must read all Amendments with a strong interpretation. 6. A privilege is something that is given (a favor), a RIGHT is innate. 7. NO! But if you feel the answer is yes. Then who will decide what part of the "Bill of Rights" is no longer necessary? The elite's (U.N.) propaganda? I hope not.