The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
My seventeen year old cousin asked me for advice. His AP history class is going to have a series of debates and speeches in class concerning the right to bear arms. I helped him write the following speech:
EDIT: forgot the two quotes to read at the end (the quotes from my sig!)
When discussing the Second Amendment, it is necessary that we begin with the original intent and reasoning, that motivated the Founding Fathers to include this guarantee in the the Bill of Rights; and remember, that our Founding Fathers created such a Bill of Rights, so that these rights, would be beyond question, immune to popular opinion, for they viewed these as the natural rights of man.
We can start, by analyzing well documented history, so as to put the facts beyond refutation. The sole intent of the British, at Lexington and Concord, was to seize value munitions and arms of the colonists in that region. For the British knew, that it would be impossible, to continue abusing the colonists with their reprehensible and intolerable acts, if the colonists finally decided that the British government had become so destructive, that they may invoke their natural right to either alter, or abolish it, and form themselves a new government, responsive to the needs and desires of the people.
As a result, years later, when our current Constitution was being drafted, they decided, as a barrier to centralized tyranny, from either the federal, state or even local level, that it was necessary, that the people, the citizens themselves, retained the right to keep and bears arms. And this right, shall not be infringed.
During our history, our Second Amendment has played a passive role, in deterring tyranny. For no government, no matter how corrupt, would dare become so monstrous, as to provoke a rebellion by an armed population.
However, this assertion is too difficult to prove, so instead, it is best to analyze what has happened to certain minorities in United States history, when they were disarmed of their weapons by law.
The first example, of such a people who were disarmed, were African Americans. Shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan immediately passed laws in order to subdue and disarm African Americans. Shortly after the law abiding blacks consented to being disarmed, they found themselves under the reign of the Jim Crow Laws. Deprived of liberty, unable to vote, and often deprived of life itself.
Another such example, are the executives of private companies, using armed force, against unarmed members of Unions were striking. Many also question if the United States government would have detained and imprisoned the Japanese people in concentration camps had the Japanese been a gun possessing people.
Unfortunately, the worst examples, are found in global history, when entire minorities have been genocided by their government. The best known example, are the Jewish people of Germany. Hitler had moved immediately to disarm the Jewish people, and other undesirables in Germany. What followed shortly after, was the Holocaust. Everyone can agree, that had Jews been armed during the reign Hitler, that they would have been able to avert such a tragedy, or at the very least, been able to escape Germany before so many millions were killed.
It is also well known, that Stalin of the Soviet Union, and Mao of Communist China, and brutal dictators all throughout the 20th century, had disarmed their politically opposed minorities, and genocided over 350 million people total in the 20th Century.
History itself, proves that only an unarmed people, can be so easily controlled and often exterminated, once they are defenseless and without recourse.
However, there is one stellar example of the Second Amendment actually being used to overthrow tyrannical government. In 1946, in the city of Athens, Tennessee, the State government machine would send the police to the voting places, seize the ballot boxes, and bring them to the jailhouses, in order rig the election in favor of Democrats. The people of Tennessee had been petitioning the federal government for a decade, but FDR, a Democrat, wanted the State government to continue rigging the elections, in order to ensure that the State of Tennessee produced Democratic Senators and Congressman.
Finally, in the year of 1946, returning World War II veterans, well trained in military grade firearms, and well equipped, decided that they had enough of the voting process being rigged, had enough of being abused but the local police, and enough of being jailed for no reason. Over 200 veterans took up their arms, Semi automatic M1 Carbines, and battled it out with the police for over four hours. Eventually they prevailed, and the police surrendered. The Rule of Law was reestablished, the people of Tennessee had won their first victory, that was paramount to destroying the entire state political machine of Tennessee. Later on, the courts ruled that the Veterans were not guilty of rioting or murder, for they exercised their natural right to keep and bear arms in order secure a free State. This event known as the Battle of Athens.
Now, let us turn our attention away from government tyranny, and discuss the effect of the Second Amendment in relation to everyday crime. It can be easily seen, with a simple internet search, that every State that has little or no restrictions on firearms, such as Vermont and Utah, have the lowest crime and murder rates in the United States. Whereas, the states and cities that have the strictest gun control laws, are the opposite, such as Chicago, Detroit and Rochester.
One must not fall into the trap of comparing a country under a UNITARY form of government (The United Kingdom) directly to the United States, which is a Federal form of government.The laws and Constitution of each State are vastly DIFFERENT from the laws and Constitution of every other State. Also, within each State, the laws of each city and town are moderately DIFFERENT from the laws of every other city and town.
Also, keep in mind, that many federal laws (that govern the whole nation), are executed differently in different states, especially when significant devolution procedures have been written into that law.
As, previously mentioned, countries like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in those places. Moderate differences in law are only seen between rural and urban regions in a unitary government.
This means, when you compare the laws of a UNITARY government, to the laws of the United States, are you no better off comparing fruits to Chess Theory. They are different entities, and each entity has countless variations.
In order to compare a UNITARY government to the United States, you should only consider Cities and towns that are governed by the same or very similar laws. Sometimes you MIGHT be able to compare them to an entire State, however, you can NEVER compare them to the entire Union of the United States. Also, it is equally impossible to directly compare another Federal nation to the United States for the same reasons. Its' like comparing Chess Theory to Poetry.
Once we analyze and compare Gun Control laws in the United States and other countries, respecting the Federal and Unitary differences, we realize that we can only use such strict gun control locations, such as Chicago and Detroit, or other similar areas. Without question, they cities are known as Failed States, and are the most dangerous and violent places to live in the United States today.
Also, keep in mind, that there are some countries, such as Mexico, that have intense gun control laws, and rank top 10 is the most dangerous places to live.
This does seem hard to grasp, how could this be possible, you may ask.
The problem is that Gun Control Laws, assume that criminals are going to obey the law, and turn in their weapons. This is silly, because criminals do not obey the law. Thus, when these laws are passed, only the law abiding citizen turn in their guns, which encourages criminals to perpetrate even more violent acts. Even in the UK, the Telegraph, the main source of news in the UK, wrote an article that the UK has three times more violent crime that the United States, even though they have a vastly lower number of murders by guns.
Now some people, may attempt to make the following argument:
If criminals do not obey the law, then why bother passing any laws at all?
The reason we pass laws, is because the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding citizens. If there was no law against stealing, than many many law abiding citizens would be stealing. However, once the law is passed, only criminals will continue to steal.
Ask yourselves though, have criminals stopped stealing because there is a law against it?
So that is the problem with Gun Control. The law is specifically designed to disarm criminals, yet criminals are the only people who will not become disarmed. Only law abiding citizens will comply with the law, and become disarmed --- sheep among the wolves. Thus, the violent crime rate increases greatly once such laws are passed.
On this issue of the mentally ill:
Who decides who is mentally ill or not? The government? They can already declare you a terrorist with no evidence and lock you up forever without a trial or lawyer. In fact, although it cannot be proven, they probably just kill them ... how would you know if they don't?
Keep in mind, that in order to to bar mentally ill people from buying a gun, there must be a NATIONAL REGISTRY of mentally ill people. Such a registry could be used to force mentally ill people to be sterilized. Later it could be used to force mentally ill people to be "euthanized." Also, since the government can decide who is mentally ill, and who is not, without evidence, it is most likely they would use this against anyone who could or has resisted them.
Do this sound like crazy talk, well we know that every major fascist or communist power of the 20th century actually did what was described above. So don't be fooled into thinking this is just crazy talk.
On the issue of civilians stopping mass shooting:
The reason no civilian has stopped a mass shooting, because if you prevent someone from performing a mass shooting, then no mass shooting had occurred, thus it doesn't' get reported in the news, because no one died, or only a small amount had died.
Once such instance is a mall in Oregon, where a legally armed civilian took out a potential mass murderer, who only managed to slaughter two civilians. There's only one way to stop a bad guy with a gun, and that's a good guy with a gun, and more often than not, the police are minutes away, while the victims are only seconds away from death.
Do not be fooled by the forces of evil and corruption that seek to disarm you, for only the evil and corrupt shall benefit.
EDIT: forgot the two quotes to read at the end (the quotes from my sig!)
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
Last edited:
