its for a high school scholarship. my thesis is "the 2nd Amendment of the US Consitution is one of the most important yet contraversial part of the Bill of Rights."
any ideas of what i can put in it(examples, statements, anything relevant)? the speech has to be at least 8 minutes so im short on thigs to say.
2006-12-28 08:57:51 · 8 answers · asked by vietman39 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
yeah i have that it keeps the government in check, foreign invasion, and that new gun control laws have kept up with the times (ie not everyone can have grenades and .50 cal machine guns)
2006-12-28 09:27:22 · update #1
Study this.....citizens rule book.
2006-12-28 09:02:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What was the purpose of the amendment? Why did the authors think it necessary? What political issues made them think that way?
Discuss the true meaning, including all the wording: "A well regulated militia" - what does that really mean? Does it suggest that this amendment only applies if you are in a "well regulated militia"? What would a well-regulated militia look like, and who would write the regulations?
How did successive governments and Supreme Court rulings determine that the scope included personal possession of a gun without a militia? Why are some guns allowed, and others not (like anti-tank weapons for example)?
There is a huge amount of scope for your speech! Good luck.
2006-12-28 09:18:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at the history behind the second amendment, why was it put in the Bill of Rights to begin with? Also, how to current gun control laws apply to the second amendment and what case law (Supreme Court decisions) uphold or alter rights under the second amendment?
This is indeed a very interesting amendment to look at. It deals with the issue of individual freedom to own firearms versus the public need for security and safety.
2006-12-28 09:05:04 · answer #3 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out the NRA website... they'll have tons of great stuff for you to use.
Personally, I like having a gun in case of home invasion but also for the impending chaos... we'll need them when the govt turns on the people. An armed populace is a populace in control.
Why is it that criminals can have all the guns they want and the law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops in order to enact their Constitutional rights?
Guns are only dangerous when they are in the hands of dangerous individuals or uneducated individuals.
2006-12-28 09:51:10 · answer #4 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's about self-preservation and the instinct to protect ourselves. There's a few rotten eggs that ruin the image of law-abiding gun owners with their backwards views and well, shooting people. I agree with shooting someone if it's self defense, but beyond that is unacceptable. There's alot of different views on how the second amendment should be interpreted. The intent of the framers of the Constitution is a debate within itself.
If you aren't passionate about your topic enough to find things to day perhaps you should rethink your thesis.
2006-12-28 09:04:38 · answer #5 · answered by Phlebotomist 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would include some federal court rulings involving the 2nd amendment (see below). Good Luck!
2006-12-28 09:06:03 · answer #6 · answered by Liz H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You may want to say that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an individual right, not a collective one.
2006-12-30 09:39:24 · answer #7 · answered by ranb40 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
make sure to use pros and cons
2006-12-28 09:05:11 · answer #8 · answered by haat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋