Untitled Essay, Research Paper

By: Tyree White

Pro-gun presuasive speechSpecific Goals: 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.