2nd amendment?

Question

Need to write a speech for 3-5 minutes on it. Any ideas i could hit upon?

In case you didn't know, it's the one with a gun law and well regulated militia.

Answer 1

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.


The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

Answer 2

You could compare overall crime rates in the USA with countries like England & Ausralia, which have total gun bans.
Nations like Japan really don't count because of the nature of their criminal punishments - their's is not like courts in the USA, England, and such.
You can write a paper about how the implementation of "right-to-carry" laws has led to a decrease in violent crimes in the states that use them.
Visit the sites below, & use their search window for topics to look up.

Answer 3

please read the 2nd amendment thourely before you come up with a theory, it is damned plain the 2nd amendment say s the right of the people, one other thing, with out the 2nd amendment what is the others worth as you damned sure can't protect them , look at Canada, England Germany etc, B,T,W, have you not read or heard so many police dept.s say we can't protect you , also the courts have ruled the police are not obligated to protect you, so unless you have a gun who is going to protect you?? the crooks damned sure have guns, every where they have taken the guns from law abiding citizens crime soars check your statistics, I would much rather go into a house to rob or kill knowing the people were disarmed, would you?