2nd amendment persuasive speech

• Campus News
• Campus Events
• Devotionals and Forums
• Readers’ Forum
• Education Week
• Breaking News
• Police Beat
• Video of the Day
• Current Issue
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• The Daily Universe Magazine, December 2022
• The Daily Universe, November 2022
• The Daily Universe Magazine, October 2022
• The Daily Universe Magazine, September 2022 (Black 14)
• The Daily Universe Magazine, March 2022
• The Daily Universe Magazine, February 2022
• The Daily Universe Magazine, January 2022
• December 2021
• The Daily Universe Magazine, November 2021
• The Daily Universe, October 2021
• The Daily Universe Magazine, September 2021
• Pathway to Education: Breaking Ground in Ghana
• Hope for Lahaina: Witnesses of the Maui Wildfires
• Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial
• The Black 14: Healing Hearts and Feeding Souls
• Camino de Santiago
• A Poor Wayfaring Man
• Palmyra: 200 years after Moroni’s visits
• The Next Normal
• Called to Serve In A Pandemic
• The World Meets Our Campus
• Defining Moments of BYU Sports
• If Any of You Lack Wisdom

The ‘scope’ of the argument: Why the Second Amendment matters

The U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of the right to bear arms has been a primary conversation topic among Americans in 2020. As uncertainty and fear have plagued the world over the last eight months, there has been a surge in gun sales nationwide — many of them to first-time owners.

Austin and Danielle, one young couple in Utah, had always talked about owning a firearm. Austin grew up in a city where gun ownership was less common, but Danielle grew up in a small town where gun ownership was normal. They both said the events of 2020 lead them to buy a firearm.

“We always talked about having a gun,” Austin said. “I thought they were probably important to have for self-defense. Once COVID-19 hit , it made getting one feel like an important purchase to make.”

The couple bought their gun in early April. While they believe in gun ownership, they wanted to keep their last name anonymous to avoid the negative stigma some associate with gun owners.

“I feel like a lot of people have a mental image of gun owners as uneducated or having low IQs,” Danielle said. “I do feel like most gun owners are responsible and only want them for recreation and self-defense purposes, but some people think they are hillbillies.”

The two cited the case of the Orem wildfires in mid-October, which were caused by target practice at a local gun range. They also mentioned a few other reasons they didn’t want to be labeled as “gun owners.”

“We wanted to remain anonymous because we didn’t want to be targeted for our political beliefs or because we choose to own a gun,” Austin said. “Remaining anonymous is a safe choice. That’s the reason I bought a gun — it’s something to protect my family and keep us safe.”

While some Americans have sought to restrict gun ownership, for many others it is a cherished right they work to protect. According to The New York Times , demand for guns has surged since the start of the pandemic in March and hasn’t let up all year. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded an estimated 28 million background checks were requested from January to the end of September.

Jeffrey Denning, a Salt Lake City Police detective, teaches firearm safety classes to private parties. He has seen a dramatic increase in people wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“One gun store owner I talked to said the day after the Utah earthquake on March 13th, he received the most sales he had ever gotten,” Denning said. “After that, sales started going through the roof. The numbers are off the charts.”

According to the data reported by the NICS, the first spike (3.7 million background checks) in firearm demand happened in March likely because of the pandemic. The second spike (3.9 million background checks) was larger and occurred in June — right after acts of civil unrest began in major American cities.

“ People should be able to protect themselves individually and collectively,” Denning said. “We should be able to preserve our freedoms — this lets us have agency and a land of liberty.”

Denning said that while firearms are certainly good for personal protection, the reason the Second Amendment is considered a right is more complex than that.

“The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution so the government could not take over,” Denning said. “It’s to serve against government encroachments. The amendments were developed because of what the founding fathers saw in other parts of the world.”

Most historians agree that this was the premise of the Second Amendment. But some people have grown increasingly wary of the potential dangers of an armed population. Because of this fear, there has been heated debate in recent years over whether to update or reform the Second Amendment.

Lucy Williams, an assistant professor of political philosophy, said the conflict was most pronounced in the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. 

“For some time, there was a debate about whether the prefatory clause ‘A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’ was intended to limit the right to bear arms or if it merely explained why the right is important,” Williams said. “The debate is now largely settled.”

Williams said reformers proposed that the Constitution only protects a right to bear arms in relation to military service. People who took the other position argued the right was not connected to military service. The Supreme Court sided with the latter position.

After this Supreme Court decision, it seems that the debate has shifted. Instead of asking whether individuals should be allowed to have firearms, the debate is focused on whether the government has the ability to regulate and restrict specific weapons from entering the public sphere.

This threat of potential regulation has made some Americans nervous, and conservative politicians say the Second Amendment is under attack, or will be eliminated because of their political opponents. Williams said this is not likely.

“Although the scope of (the Second Amendment) may change, it’s hard to imagine that the right could ever be eliminated entirely,” Williams said.

Though reform may happen in the future, more people are making use of their Second Amendment right. Background checks, first-time gun purchases and training classes are increasing in demand. It remains to be seen whether gun sales will trend downward anytime soon.

“If you haven’t had a gun in 70 years, and are only interested in one because you’re scared, there is no reason to buy one now,” Denning said. “You are going to be fine.”

Despite this, Denning said individuals who have considered buying a gun and want to educate themselves should do so. 

“It’s ignorant and foolish not to have a plan for preparation and protection,” Denning said. “You can think all day long that something won’t happen ‘here’ or ‘to you’ but if it does, you’re not going to be prepared.”

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Struggles and successes: first-generation college students at byu, cougar pride center’s annual march ‘pride in progress’ promotes unity, acceptance, byu football and the nfl draft: which former cougars are joining the league.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, the second amendment, matters of debate, common interpretation, the reasonable right to bear arms, not a second class right: the second amendment today.

by Nelson Lund

University Professor at George Mason University University Antonin Scalia School of Law

by Adam Winkler

Professor of Law at University of California Los Angeles Law School

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald , they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.

Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a “well regulated Militia,” suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. While the Founders sought to protect the citizenry from being disarmed entirely, they did not wish to prevent government from adopting reasonable regulations of guns and gun owners.

Although Americans today often think that gun control is a modern invention, the Founding era had laws regulating the armed citizenry. There were laws designed to ensure an effective militia, such as laws requiring armed citizens to appear at mandatory musters where their guns would be inspected. Governments also compiled registries of civilian-owned guns appropriate for militia service, sometimes conducting door-to-door surveys. The Founders had broad bans on gun possession by people deemed untrustworthy, including slaves and loyalists. The Founders even had laws requiring people to have guns appropriate for militia service.

The wide range of Founding-era laws suggests that the Founders understood gun rights quite differently from many people today. The right to keep and bear arms was not a libertarian license for anyone to have any kind of ordinary firearm, anywhere they wanted. Nor did the Second Amendment protect a right to revolt against a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was about ensuring public safety, and nothing in its language was thought to prevent what would be seen today as quite burdensome forms of regulation.   

The Founding-era laws indicate why the First Amendment is not a good analogy to the Second. While there have always been laws restricting perjury and fraud by the spoken word, such speech was not thought to be part of the freedom of speech. The Second Amendment, by contrast, unambiguously recognizes that the armed citizenry must be regulated—and regulated “well.” This language most closely aligns with the Fourth Amendment, which protects a right to privacy but also recognizes the authority of the government to conduct reasonable searches and seizures. 

The principle that reasonable regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment has been affirmed throughout American history. Ever since the first cases challenging gun controls for violating the Second Amendment or similar provisions in state constitutions, courts have repeatedly held that “reasonable” gun laws—those that don’t completely deny access to guns by law-abiding people—are constitutionally permissible. For 150 years, this was the settled law of the land—until Heller .

Heller , however, rejected the principle of reasonableness only in name, not in practice. The decision insisted that many types of gun control laws are presumptively lawful, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on concealed carry, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons, restrictions on guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and commercial sale restrictions. Nearly all gun control laws today fit within these exceptions. Importantly, these exceptions for modern-day gun laws unheard of in the Founding era also show that lawmakers are not limited to the types of gun control in place at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.

In the years since Heller , the federal courts have upheld the overwhelming majority of gun control laws challenged under the Second Amendment. Bans on assault weapons have been consistently upheld, as have restrictions on gun magazines that hold more than a minimum number of rounds of ammunition. Bans on guns in national parks, post offices, bars, and college campuses also survived. These decisions make clear that lawmakers have wide leeway to restrict guns to promote public safety so long as the basic right of law-abiding people to have a gun for self-defense is preserved.

Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited. 

The Supreme Court may yet decide that more stringent limits on gun control are required under the Second Amendment. Such a decision, however, would be contrary to the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If that’s enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Court’s specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

•           District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The “right of the people” protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the “right[s] of the people” protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

•           McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Court’s precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

•           The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

•           Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

•           Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called “assault rifles,” for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called “freedom fries.”

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. What’s more, the most vulnerable people—including women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoods—are among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Second Amendment

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

The Second Amendment, often referred to as the right to bear arms, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.

Right to Bear Arms

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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 framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776.

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.

State Militias

But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.

However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.

So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.

Well-Regulated Militia

Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.

The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.

Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War .

On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA) , founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.

Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.

Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill , in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.

This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court , which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment , which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois , the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual’s ownership or use of guns.

But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller , which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.

Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.

McDonald v. Chicago

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago , the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller , we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

Gun Control Debate

The Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.

In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Mass Shootings

Since that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.

To take just three examples, the Columbine Shooting , where two teens killed 13 people at Columbine High School, prompted a national gun control debate. The Sandy Hook shooting of 20 children and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.

And in 2017, the mass shooting at country music concert in Las Vegas in which 60 people died (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida ) inspired calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster.

On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.

Bill of Rights, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government . Jack Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Amendment II, National Constitution Center . The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, LiveScience . Second Amendment, Legal Information Institute .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• White House

Read Barack Obama’s Speech on New Gun Control Measures

P resident Barack Obama unveiled a new set of executive actions aimed at limiting gun violence in a press conference Tuesday from the White House. The efforts largely center on more stringent background checks.

Here’s a full transcript of his remarks.

THE PRESIDENT: Mark, I want to thank you for your introduction. I still remember the first time we met, the time we spent together, and the conversation we had about Daniel. And that changed me that day. And my hope, earnestly, has been that it would change the country. Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. THE PRESIDENT: Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom. (Applause.) Thanks to a great medical team, her wonderful husband, Mark — who, by the way, the last time I met with Mark — this is just a small aside — you may know Mark’s twin brother is in outer space. (Laughter.) He came to the office, and I said, how often are you talking to him? And he says, well, I usually talk to him every day, but the call was coming in right before the meeting so I think I may have not answered his call — (laughter) — which made me feel kind of bad. (Laughter.) That’s a long-distance call. (Laughter.) So I told him if his brother, Scott, is calling today, that he should take it. (Laughter.) Turn the ringer on. (Laughter.) I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial — about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries. And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns — 30,000. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life. A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories. In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample. The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal. And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates — despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done. That’s part of the reason why, on Thursday, I’m going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence. Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion. I’m not on the ballot again. I’m not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another. But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King’s words, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.” Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. (Applause.) To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children. Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment. I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society. And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Today, background checks are required at gun stores. If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm. The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months. So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. Two United States Senators -– Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, both gun owners, both strong defenders of our Second Amendment rights, both with “A” grades from the NRA –- that’s hard to get — worked together in good faith, consulting with folks like our Vice President, who has been a champion on this for a long time, to write a common-sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. That was it. Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea. How did this become such a partisan issue? Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.” Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. And by the way, most of its members still do. Most Republican voters still do. How did we get here? How did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people’s guns? Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill — with a knife — a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents. As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. (Applause.) In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent — 40 percent. (Applause.) Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns. And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed. And that’s just the information we have access to. With more research, we could further improve gun safety. Just as with more research, we’ve reduced traffic fatalities enormously over the last 30 years. We do research when cars, food, medicine, even toys harm people so that we make them safer. And you know what — research, science — those are good things. They work. (Laughter and applause.) They do. But think about this. When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon — nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly — weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons. That’s not right. That can’t be right. So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. (Applause.) We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom. (Applause.) Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. (Applause.) Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can’t wait. Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids. After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place. But today, we want to take it a step further. So let me outline what we’re going to be doing. Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. (Applause.) It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do. We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts. We’re also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient. Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century. (Applause.) And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from — the public from dangerous people. So that’s number one. Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we’re going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators. We’re going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We’re working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often — (applause) — where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need. Number three, we’re going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need. (Applause.) High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others. But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides. So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves. That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — (laughter and applause) — that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness. And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country. (Applause.) It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information. If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide. And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. (Applause.) Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology. Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally. In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this. We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer. If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns? (Applause.) If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get — (laughter) — if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun. (Applause.) Right? So we’re going to advance research. We’re going to work with the private sector to update firearms technology. And some gun retailers are already stepping up by refusing to finalize a purchase without a complete background check, or by refraining from selling semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. And I hope that more retailers and more manufacturers join them — because they should care as much as anybody about a product that now kills almost as many Americans as car accidents. I make this point because none of us can do this alone. I think Mark made that point earlier. All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important — Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.) Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day. (Applause.) So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better. (Applause.) And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time. (Applause.) I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you. (Applause.) And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights — that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try. And if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that “fierce urgency of now,” think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion — who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life — dove on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.” We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love. But if we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote. We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized. We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do. That’s what we’re doing today. And tomorrow, we should do more. And we should do more the day after that. And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion. (Applause.) Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you. God bless America. (Applause.)

More Must-Reads From TIME

• What Student Photojournalists Saw at the Campus Protests
• How Far Trump Would Go
• Why Maternity Care Is Underpaid
• Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
• Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Discussing Controversial Topics: The Second Amendment

In July of 2012, a g

Bill of Rights Institute Resources

• The United States Constitution
• The United States Bill of Rights
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

News Resources

• Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership , FOX News
• Candidates show little appetite for new gun control laws , CNN
• Gunman Dies After Killing at Empire State Building , New York Times

Ac tivity/How to Use

• What right does the Second Amendment protect?
• No right in the Bill of Rights is considered absolute. What limits on firearms has the Supreme Court ruled are constitutional? What limits on firearms do you believe are constitutional?
• One group should prepare to argue that high profile shootings are reasons to increase gun control.
• The other should prepare to argue that high profile shootings are reasons to loosen restrictions on firearms.
• Speak courteously: No raised voices or insults.
• Listen courteously: No interruptions.
• Argue authoritatively: Use primary sources to support reasoning.
• Distribute “Questions to Consider” to help students prepare their data and arguments. The teacher may add additional questions during the debate to help clarify or extend arguments.
• Students will have to think about why they are for or against increasing or decreasing gun control.
• Students should use primary sources and facts to support their argument.
• Students should think about why the opposing group believes what they believe and be able to respond to that argument.
• Alternate which team answers the questions first.
• Allow students from the opposing group to ask clarifying questions if necessary.
• Give each group a time limit on each question to keep the debate moving.

Questions to Consider

What right does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protect?  Do you think this protection is necessary? Why or why not? Why did the Founders include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights?  Do you think that their reasons are still valid today? Why or why not? What has the Supreme Court ruled about the meaning of the Second Amendment? Do you agree with their reasoning and conclusions? What types of restrictions have local and state governments put on weapons?  What laws have local and state governments proposed?  Do you support or oppose these restrictions?  Explain. What laws would you propose regarding gun control?  How do you think the public would react to your ideas?  Why do you think gun control is controversial? During the Empire State Building shooting, it is believed that police officers fired shots at the accused shooter and accidentally wounded nine bystanders.  A grand jury is now reviewing evidence in this case to determine whether the officers should stand charges.  How does this knowledge impact your understanding of the Second Amendment?  How does it impact your opinion on gun control regulations?

• After the debate, students should think about what they learned from reading the articles and debating on the the topic.  They should write a brief essay explaining what they learned and if their opinion changed after thinking about the issue.
• Students should research laws regarding guns in your state or community and then write a brief essay explaining one of the laws.  Examples may include limits on sale or ownership of certain weapons, concealed carry requirements, limits on gun purchases, or others. Their essay should include reasons the law was proposed or passed, what the final vote on the law was, and how the community reacted to the law.

Related Content

The Constitution

The Constitution was written in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from 12 states, in order to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new form of government. It created a federal system with a national government composed of 3 separated powers, and included both reserved and concurrent powers of states.

Bill of Rights: The 1st Ten Amendments

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

McDonald v. Chicago | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Does the Second Amendment prevent a city from effectively outlawing handgun ownership? In 2008, Otis McDonald attempted to purchase a handgun for self-defense purposes in a Chicago suburb. However, the city of Chicago had banned handgun ownership in 1982 when it passed a law that prevented issuing handgun registrations. McDonald argued this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as the Due Process Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that McDonald’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was protected at the state and local level by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.5: Constructing a Persuasive Speech

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 17814

• Kris Barton & Barbara G. Tucker
• Florida State University & University of Georgia via GALILEO Open Learning Materials

In a sense, constructing your persuasive speech is the culmination of the skills you have learned already. In another sense, you are challenged to think somewhat differently. While the steps of analyzing your audience, formulating your purpose and central idea, applying evidence, considering ethics, framing the ideas in appropriate language, and then practicing delivery will of course apply, you will need to consider some expanded options about each of these steps.

Formulating a Proposition

As mentioned before, when thinking about a central idea statement in a persuasive speech, we use the terms “proposition” or claim. Persuasive

speeches have one of four types of propositions or claims, which determine your overall approach. Before you move on, you need to determine what type of proposition you should have (based on the audience, context, issues involved in the topic, and assignment for the class).

Proposition of Fact

Speeches with this type of proposition attempt to establish the truth of a statement. The core of the propositoin (or claim) is not whether something is morally right and wrong or what should be done about the topic, only that a statement is supported by evidence or not. These propositions are not facts such as “the chemical symbol for water is H20” or “Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 with 53% of the vote.” Propositions or claims of fact are statements over which persons disagree and there is evidence on both sides, although probably more on one than the other. Some examples of propositions of fact are:

Converting to solar energy can save homeowners money.

John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald working alone.

Experiments using animals are essential to the development of many life-saving medical procedures.

Climate change has been caused by human activity.

Granting tuition tax credits to the parents of children who attend private schools will perpetuate educational inequality.

Watching violence on television causes violent behavior in children.

William Shakespeare did not write most of the plays attributed to him.

John Doe committed the crime of which he is accused.

Notice that in none of these are any values—good or bad—mentioned. Perpetuating segregation is not portrayed as good or bad, only as an effect of a policy. Of course, most people view educational inequality negatively, just as they view life-saving medical procedures positively. But the point of these propositions is to prove with evidence the truth of a statement, not its inherent value or what the audience should do about it. In fact, in some propositions of fact no action response would even be possible, such as the proposition listed above that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Propositions of Definition

This is probably not one that you will use in your class, but it bears mentioning here because it is used in legal and scholarly arguments. Propositions of definitions argue that a word, phrase, or concept has a particular meaning. Remembering back to Chapter 7 on supporting materials, we saw that there are various ways to define words, such as by negation, operationalizing, and classification and division. It may be important for you to define your terms, especially if you have a value proposition. Lawyers, legislators, and scholars often write briefs, present speeches, or compose articles to define terms that are vital to defendants, citizens, or disciplines. We saw a proposition of definition defended in the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to redefine marriage laws as applying to same-sex couples, based on arguments presented in court. Other examples might be:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not include possession of automatic weapons for private use.

Alcoholism should be considered a disease because…

The action committed by Mary Smith did not meet the standard for first-degree murder.

Thomas Jefferson’s definition of inalienable rights did not include a right to privacy.

In each of these examples, the proposition is that the definition of these things (the Second Amendment, alcoholism, crime, and inalienable rights) needs to be changed or viewed differently, but the audience is not asked to change an attitude or action.

Propositions of Value

It is likely that you or some of your classmates will give speeches with propositions of value. When the proposition has a word such as “good,” “bad,” “best,” “worst,” “just,” “unjust,” “ethical,” “unethical,” “moral,” “immoral,” “beneficial,” “harmful,” “advantageous,” or “disadvantageous,” it is a proposition of value. Some examples include:

Hybrid cars are the best form of automobile transportation available today.

Homeschooling is more beneficial for children than traditional schooling.

The War in Iraq was not justified.

Capital punishment is morally wrong.

Mascots that involve Native American names, characters, and symbols are demeaning.

A vegan diet is the healthiest one for adults.

Propositions of value require a first step: defining the “value” word. If a war is unjustified, what makes a war “just” or “justified” in the first place? That is a fairly philosophical question. What makes a form of transportation “best” or “better” than another? Isn’t that a matter of personal approach? For different people, “best” might mean “safest,” “least expensive,” “most environmentally responsible,” “stylish,” “powerful,” or “prestigious.” Obviously, in the case of the first proposition above, it means “environmentally responsible.” It would be the first job of the speaker, after introducing the speech and stating the proposition, to explain what “best form of automobile transportation” means. Then the proposition would be defended with separate arguments.

Propositions of Policy

These propositions are easy to identify because they almost always have the word “should” in them. These propositions call for a change in policy or practice (including those in a government, community, or school), or they can call for the audience to adopt a certain behavior. Speeches with propositions of policy can be those that call for passive acceptance and agreement from the audience and those that try to instigate the audience to action, to actually do something immediately or in the long-term.

Our state should require mandatory recertification of lawyers every ten years.

The federal government should act to ensure clean water standards for all citizens.

The federal government should not allow the use of technology to choose the sex of an unborn child.

The state of Georgia should require drivers over the age of 75 to take a vision test and present a certificate of good health from a doctor before renewing their licenses.

Wyeth Daniels should be the next governor of the state.

Young people should monitor their blood pressure regularly to avoid health problems later in life.

As mentioned before, the proposition determines the approach to the speech, especially the organization. Also as mentioned earlier in this chapter, the exact phrasing of the proposition should be carefully done to be reasonable, positive, and appropriate for the context and audience. In the next section we will examine organizational factors for speeches with propositions of fact, value, and policy.

Organization Based on Type of Proposition

Organization for a proposition of fact.

If your proposition is one of fact, you will do best to use a topical organization. Essentially that means that you will have two to four discrete, separate arguments in support of the proposition. For example:

Proposition: Converting to solar energy can save homeowners money.

I. Solar energy can be economical to install.

A. The government awards grants.

B. The government gives tax credits.

II. Solar energy reduces power bills.

III. Solar energy requires less money for maintenance.

IV. Solar energy works when the power grid goes down.

Here is a first draft of another outline for a proposition of fact:

Proposition: Experiments using animals are essential to the development of many life-saving medical procedures.

I. Research of the past shows many successes from animal experimentation.

II. Research on humans is limited for ethical and legal reasons.

III. Computer models for research have limitations.

However, these outlines are just preliminary drafts because preparing a speech of fact requires a great deal of research and understanding of the issues. A speech with a proposition of fact will almost always need an argument or section related to the “reservations,” refuting the arguments that the audience may be preparing in their minds, their mental dialogue. So the second example needs revision, such as:

I. The first argument in favor of animal experimentation is the record of successful discoveries from animal research.

II. A second reason to support animal experimentation is that research on humans is limited for ethical and legal reasons.

III. Animal experimentation is needed because computer models for research have limitations.

IV. Many people today have concerns about animal experimentation.

A. Some believe that all experimentation is equal.

1. There is experimentation for legitimate medical research.

2. There is experimentation for cosmetics or shampoos.

B. Others argue that the animals are mistreated.

1. There are protocols for the treatment of animals in experimentation.

2. Legitimate medical experimentation follows the protocols.

C. Some believe the persuasion of certain advocacy groups like PETA.

1. Many of the groups that protest animal experimentation have extreme views.

2. Some give untrue representations.

To complete this outline, along with introduction and conclusion, there would need to be quotations, statistics, and facts with sources provided to support both the pro-arguments in Main Points I-III and the refutation to the misconceptions about animal experimentation in Subpoints A-C under Point IV.

Organization for a proposition of value

A persuasive speech that incorporates a proposition of value will have a slightly different structure. As mentioned earlier, a proposition of value must first define the “value” word for clarity and provide a basis for the other arguments of the speech. The second or middle section would present the defense or “pro” arguments for the proposition based on the definition. The third section would include refutation of the counter arguments or “reservations.” The following outline draft shows a student trying to structure a speech with a value proposition. Keep in mind it is abbreviated for illustrative purposes, and thus incomplete as an example of what you would submit to your instructor, who will expect more detailed outlines for your speeches.

Proposition: Hybrid cars are the best form of automotive transportation available today.

I. Automotive transportation that is best meets three standards. (Definition)

A. It is reliable and durable.

B. It is fuel efficient and thus cost efficient.

C. It is therefore environmentally responsible.

II. Studies show that hybrid cars are durable and reliable. (Pro-Argument 1)

A. Hybrid cars have 99 problems per 100 cars versus 133 problem per 100 conventional cars, according to TrueDelta, a car analysis website much like Consumer Reports.

B. J.D. Powers reports hybrids also experience 11 fewer engine and transmission issues than gas-powered vehicles, per 100 vehicles.

III. Hybrid cars are fuel-efficient. (Pro-Argument 2)

A. The Toyota Prius gets 48 mpg on the highway and 51 mpg in the city.

B. The Ford Fusion hybrid gets 47 mpg in the city and in the country.

IV. Hybrid cars are environmentally responsible. (Pro-Argument 3)

A. They only emit 51.6 gallons of carbon dioxide every 100 miles.

B. Conventional cars emit 74.9 gallons of carbon dioxide every 100 miles.

C. The hybrid produces 69% of the harmful gas exhaust that a conventional car does.

V. Of course, hybrid cars are relatively new to the market and some have questions about them. (Reservations)

A. Don’t the batteries wear out and aren’t they expensive to replace?

1. Evidence to address this misconception.

2. Evidence to address this misconception.

B. Aren’t hybrid cars only good for certain types of driving and drivers?

C. Aren’t electric cars better?

Organization for a propositions of policy

The most common type of outline organizations for speeches with propositions of policy is problem-solution or problem-cause-solution. Typically we do not feel any motivation to change unless we are convinced that some harm, problem, need, or deficiency exists, and even more, that it affects us personally. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”As mentioned before, some policy speeches look for passive agreement or acceptance of the proposition. Some instructors call this type of policy speech a “think” speech since the persuasion is just about changing the way your audience thinks about a policy.

On the other hand, other policy speeches seek to move the audience to do something to change a situation or to get involved in a cause, and these are sometimes called a “do” speech since the audience is asked to do something. This second type of policy speech (the “do” speech) is sometimes called a “speech to actuate.” Although a simple problem-solution organization with only two main points is permissible for a speech of actuation, you will probably do well to utilize the more detailed format called Monroe’s Motivated Sequence.

This format, designed by Alan Monroe (1951), who wrote a popular speaking textbook for many years, is based on John Dewey’s reflective thinking process. It seeks to go in-depth with the many questions an audience would have in the process of listening to a persuasive speech. Monroe’s Motivated Sequence involves five steps, which should not be confused with the main points of the outline. Some steps in Monroe’s Motivated Sequence may take two points.

• Attention . This is the introduction, where the speaker brings attention to the importance of the topic as well as his or her own credibility and connection to the topic. This step will include the thesis and preview.
• Need . Here the problem is defined and defended. This step may be divided into two main points, such as the problem and the causes of it, since logically a solution should address the underlying causes as well as the external effects of a problem. It is important to make the audience see the severity of the problem, and how it affects them, their family, or their community. The harm or need can be physical, financial, psychological, legal, emotional, educational, social, or a combination. It will have to be supported by evidence.
• Satisfaction . A need calls for satisfaction in the same way a problem requires a solution. This step could also, in some cases, take up two main points. Not only does the speaker present the solution and describe it, but they must also defend that it works and will address the causes of the problem as well as the symptoms.
• Visualization . This step looks to the future either positively or negatively. If positive, the benefits from enacting or choosing the solution are shown. If negative, the disadvantages of not doing anything to solve the problem are shown. There may be times when it is acceptable to skip this step, especially if time is limited. The purpose of visualization is to motivate the audience by revealing future benefits or through fear appeals by showing future harms.
• Action . This can be the conclusion, although if the speaker really wants to spend time on moving the audience to action, the action step should be a full main point and the conclusion saved for summary and a dramatic ending. In the action step, the goal is to give specific steps for the audience to take as soon as possible to move toward solving the problem. Whereas the satisfaction step explains the solution overall, the action step gives concrete ways to begin making the solution happen.

The more concrete you can make the action step, the better. Research shows that people are more likely to act if they know how accessible the action can be. For example, if you want students to be vaccinated against the chicken pox virus (which can cause a serious disease called shingles in adults), you can give them directions to and hours for a clinic or health center where vaccinations at a free or discounted price can be obtained.

In some cases for speeches of policy, no huge problem needs solving. Or, there is a problem, but the audience already knows about it and is convinced that the problem exists and is important. In those cases, a format called “comparative advantages” is used, which focuses on how one possible solution is better than other possible ones. The organizational pattern for this kind of proposition might be topical:

I. This policy is better because…

II. This policy is better because…

III. This policy is better because…

If this sounds a little like a commercial that is because advertisements often use comparative advantages to show that one product is better than another. Here is an example:

Proposition: Owning the Barnes and Noble Nook is more advantageous than owning the Amazon Kindle.

I. The Nook allows owners to trade and loan books to other owners or people who have downloaded the Nook software, while the Kindle does not.

II. The Nook has a color-touch screen, while the Kindle’s screen is black and grey and non-interactive.

III. The Nook’s memory can be expanded through microSD, while the Kindle’s memory cannot be upgraded.

Building Upon Your Persuasive Speech’s Arguments

Once you have constructed the key arguments and order of points (remembering that if you use topical order, to put your strongest or most persuasive point last), it is time to be sure your points are well supported. In a persuasive speech, there are some things to consider about evidence.

First, your evidence should be from sources that the audience will find credible. If you can find the same essential information from two sources but know that the audience will find the information more credible from one source than another, use and cite the information from the more credible one. For example, if you find the same statistical data on Wikipedia and the U.S. Department of Labor’s website, cite the U.S. Department of Labor (your instructor will probably not accept the Wikipedia site anyway). Audiences also accept information from sources they consider unbiased or indifferent. Gallup polls, for example, have been considered reliable sources of survey data because unlike some organizations, Gallup does not have a cause (political or otherwise) it is supporting.

Secondly, your evidence should be new to the audience. In other words, the best evidence is that which is from credible sources and the audience has not heard before (Reinard, 1988; McCroskey, 1969). If they have heard it before and discounted it, they will not consider your argument well supported. An example is telling people who smoke that smoking will cause lung cancer. Everyone in the U.S. has heard that thousands of times, but 14% of the population still smokes, which is about one in seven (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017)). Many of those who smoke have not heard the information that really motivates them to quit yet, and of course quitting is very difficult. Additionally, new evidence is more attention-getting, and you will appear more credible if you tell the audience something new (as long as you cite it well) than if you use the “same old, same old” evidence they have heard before.

Third, in order to be effective and ethical, your supporting evidence should be relevant and not used out of context, and fourth, it should be timely and not out of date.

After choosing the evidence and apportioning it to the correct parts of the speech, you will want to consider use of metaphors, quotations, rhetorical devices, and narratives that will enhance the language and “listenability” of your speech. Narratives are especially good for introduction and conclusions, to get attention and to leave the audience with something dramatic. You might refer to the narrative in the introduction again in the conclusion to give the speech a sense of finality.

Next you will want to decide if you should use any type of presentation aid for the speech. The decision to use visuals such as PowerPoint slides or a video clip in a persuasive speech should take into consideration the effect of the visuals on the audience and the time allotted for the speech (as well as your instructor’s specifications). The charts, graphs, or photographs you use should be focused and credibly done.

One of your authors remembers a speech by a student about using seat belts (which is, by the way, an overdone topic). What made the speech effective in this case were photographs of two totaled cars, both of which the student had been driving when they crashed. The devastation of the wrecks and his ability to stand before us and give the speech because he had worn his seat belt was effective (although it didn’t say much for his driving ability). If you wanted an audience to donate to disaster relief after an earthquake in a foreign country, a few photographs of the destruction would be effective, and perhaps a map of the area would be helpful. But in this case, less is more. Too many visual aids will likely distract from your overall speech claim.

Finally, since you’ve already had experience in class giving at least one major speech prior to this one, your delivery for the persuasive speech should be especially strong. Since delivery does affect credibility (Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990), you want to be able to connect visually as you make your appeals. You want to be physically involved and have vocal variety when you tell dramatic narratives that emphasize the human angle on your topic. If you do use presentation slides, you want them to work in seamlessly, using black screens when the visuals are not necessary.

Your persuasive speech in class, as well as in real life, is an opportunity to share a passion or cause that you believe will matter to society and help the audience live a better life. Even if you are initially uncomfortable with the idea of persuasion, we use it all the time in different ways. Choose your topic based on your own commitment and experience, look for quality evidence, craft your proposition so that it will be clear and audience appropriate, and put the finishing touches on it with an eye toward enhancing your logos, ethos, and pathos.

Something to Think About

Go to YouTube and look for “Persuasive Speeches by College Students.” There are quite a few. Here’s one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNr7Fx-SM1Y . Do you find this speech persuasive? Why or why not? Based on the content of this chapter, what did the speaker do correctly or perhaps not so correctly that affected his or her persuasiveness?

American University Magazine American

American university magazine.

Insights and Impact March 2016

3 Minutes On the Second Amendment

Jamie Raskin, Washington College of Law professor and three-term Democratic Maryland State senator, on the right to bear arms

Everything about the Second Amendment is contested, beginning with its grammar. The text is: 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.

Conservatives read the prefatory clause as a kind of throat-clearing introduction, language that is logically disconnected from the definition of the substantive right. Liberals believe that the clause crucially informs the meaning of the so-called operative clause so that the individual's right to possess weapons must be linked directly to participation in militia service, which is what we call today the National Guard.

The historical dispute follows the lines of this argument. Conservatives say that, while people may have originally possessed weapons as a result of there being a popular militia, a broad popular right to gun ownership became entrenched in the culture of the colonies. Liberals are skeptical of that claim and argue that gun possession was much more closely tethered to participation in the militia. Some historians argue that the real motivation behind the Second Amendment was to guarantee that the federal military would not try to disarm local militias called out to put down slave insurrections.

In the 5-4 Heller decision of 2008, the Supreme Court majority adopted the conservative position and found that the Second Amendment right goes far beyond militia service. It took the position that there is a broader and historically rooted right to individual arms for self-defense, hunting, and recreation, as well as the traditional purpose of participation in militia service. In the decision, the court struck down Washington, DC's handgun-control ordinance, which was the strictest in the country, as a violation of the population's right to armed self-defense in the home.

As polarized as debate is over the Second Amendment, there is in fact a huge area of common ground we can work with to make social progress. Both sides agree that the right must be subject to reasonable regulation. Indeed, every right in the Constitution is subject to reasonable regulation, including speech. We allow reasonable time/place/manner restrictions for speech. You can protest in front of the White House, but not at 2:30 in the morning with a bullhorn. You have a right to free exercise of religion, but not if your beliefs entail human sacrifice or child slavery.

Even the majority in the Heller decision, which gave the most pro-NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment in Supreme Court history, said the Second Amendment right does not extend to felons, to the mentally ill, to gun possession in public buildings, and so on. There's simply nothing absolute about the right, even in the strongest pro-gun gloss ever given the document.

Pitch a Story

Please complete the form below to pitch a story for the print or digital versions of American magazine. If we decide to pursue your story, we will contact you for additional information.

Loading....

Add a Class Note

Please complete the form below to submit a class note for the print and digital versions of American magazine. We will contact you if we need any additional information.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President   Biden on Gun Violence   Prevention

Rose Garden

**Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Kamala — Madam Vice President.  Thank you very much.    You know, we’re joined today by the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, who I’ve asked to prioritize gun violence.  It’s also good to see the Second Gentleman, who is here.  And it’s good to see the First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, who cares deeply about this issue as well.    And I look out there and I see so many members of Congress who have led in this fight.  So many of you who have never given up.  So many of you who are in — absolutely determined, as Murph and others are, to get this done.    We got a long way to go.  It always seems like we always have a long way to go.  But I also — today, we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis.  Nothing — nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.  They’re phony, arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.    But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.  You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech.  From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.  From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.  So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.    Gun violence in this country is an epidemic.  Let me say it again: Gun violence in this country is an epidemic, and it’s an international embarrassment.  (Applause.)    You know, we saw that again.  Last night, as I was coming to the Oval office, I got the word that, in South Carolina, a physician with his wife, two grandchildren, and a person working at his house was gunned down — all five.  So many people — so many of the people sitting here today know that well, unfortunately.  You know, they know what it’s like when the seconds change your life forever.    I have had the — the pleasure of getting to meet, in awful circumstances, many of you — many of you who’ve lost your children, your husbands, your wives.  You know, they know what it’s like to bury a piece of their soul deep in the Earth.  We understand that.    Mark and Jackie, I want to tell you: It’s always good to see you, but not under these circumstances.       I want to say, before I introduce the rest of the folks, is, you know, what — a lot of people have not been through what they’ve been through — don’t understand.  It takes a lot of courage to come to an event like this.  They’re absolutely, absolutely determined to make change.    But Mark and Jackie, whose son Daniel was a first grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Daniel loved sports — loves outdoors sports, getting muddy.   I see my friend Fred Guttenberg.  His daughter, Jaime, was a freshman at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.  She was an accomplished dancer.   I see Brandon Wolf, who — the shooting at the — at the impulse — at the Pulse club — nightclub.  He survived, but his two best friends died.    Greg Jackson, who was just walking down the street when he was caught in the crossfire of a gunfight.   And, of course, I see a close friend of Jill’s and mine, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who is here.  Who was — who was speaking with her constituents in front a grocery store in her state when she was shot and a member of her staff was killed.    You know, they’re here, and their pain is immense.  And, you know, what a lot of you — hopefully many of you — don’t know is if you’ve gone through a trauma, no matter how much you work to make sure others don’t go through it, every time you show up at an event like this, it brings back when you got that phone call.  It brings back the immediacy of what happened at that moment.    So I genuinely mean it: Thank you.  Thank you for having the courage — the courage to be here, the courage to continue this fight.  Senator Blumenthal understands it.  A lot of the folks out here understand it.  But it takes real courage, so thank you.      To turn pain into purpose and demand that we take the actions that gives meaning to the word “enough.”  Enough.  Enough.  Enough.  Enough.  Because what they want you to know, what they want you to do is not just listen.    Every day in this country, 316 people are shot.  Every single day.  A hundred and six of them die every day.  Our flag was still flying at half-staff for the victims of the horrific murder of 8 primarily Asian American people in Georgia when 10 more lives were taken in a mass murder in Colorado.    You probably didn’t hear it, but between those two incidents, less than one week apart, there were more than 850 additional shootings — 850 — that took the lives of more than 250 people, and left 500 — 500 — injured.  This is an epidemic, for God’s sake.  And it has to stop.    So I’m here to talk about two things: first, the steps we’re going to take immediately, and, second, the action that needs to be taken going forward to curb the epidemic of gun violence.   I asked the Attorney General and his team to identify for me immediate, concrete actions I could can take now without having to go through the Congress.   And today, I’m announcing several initial steps my administration is taking to curb this epidemic of gun violence.    Much more need be done, but the first — first, I want to rein in the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.”   These are guns that are homemade, built from a kit that include the directions on how to finish the firearm.  You can go buy the kit.  They have no serial numbers, so when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced.    And the buyers aren’t required to pass a background check to buy the kit to make the gun.  Consequently, anyone — anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit and, in as little as 30 minutes, put together a weapon.   You know, I want to see these kits treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act, which is going to require that the seller and manufacturers make the key parts with serial numbers and run background checks on the buyers when they walk in to buy that package.    The section [sic] action we’re going to — the second action we’re going to take — back in 2000 — the year 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms released a report on its investigations into firearms trafficking in America.  The report was of pivotal value.  It was an important tool for policymakers when I was in the Senate and beyond, at all levels, to stop firearms from being illegally diverted into dangerous hands.    Today, with online sales and ghost guns, times and trafficking methods have changed, and we have to adjust.  We also have to ask the Justice Department to release a new annual report.  This report will better help policymakers address firearms trafficking as it is today, not what it was yesterday.    A third change: We want to treat pistols modified with stabilizing braces with the seriousness they deserve.  A stabilizing brace — you’re going to (inaudible) — essentially, it makes that pistol a hell of a lot more accurate and a mini-rifle.  As a result, it’s more lethal, effectively turning into a short-barreled rifle.  That’s what the alleged shooter in Boulder appears to have done.   I want to be clear that these modifications to firearms that make them more lethal should be subject to the National Firearms Act.  The National Firearms Act requires that a potential owner pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department, just as they would if they went out and purchased a silencer for a gun.    Fourthly, during my campaign for President, I wanted to make it easier for states to adopt extreme risk protection order laws.  They’re also called “red flag” laws, which everybody on this lawn knows, but many people listening do not know.  These laws allow a police or family member to petition a court in their jurisdiction and say, “I want you to temporarily remove from the following people any firearm they may possess because they’re a danger.  In a crisis, they’re presenting a danger to themselves and to others.”  And the court makes a ruling.    To put this in perspective, more than half of all suicides, for example, involve the use of a firearm.  But when a gun is not available, an attempt at suicide — the death rate drops precipitously.  States that have red flag laws have seen and — seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.    Every single month, by the way, an average of 53 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner.  I wrote the Violence Against Women Act.  It’s been a constant struggle to keep it moving.  We know red flag laws can have a significant effect in protecting women from domestic violence.  And we know red flag laws can stop mass shooters before they can act out their violent plans.    I’m proud — “Excuse the point of personal privilege,” as we used to say in the Senate — I’m proud that the red flag law in my home state of Delaware was named after my son, Attorney General Beau Biden — our son; excuse me, Jill — who proposed that legislation back in 2013.    I want to see a national red flag law and legislation to incentivize states to enact their own red flag laws.  Today, I asked the Justice Department to publish a model red flag legislation so states can start crafting their own laws right now.  Just like with background checks, the vast majority of Americans support these extreme risk protection order laws, and it’s time to put these laws on the books and protect even more people.  The Attorney General will have more to say about this in a moment.    Additionally, we recognize that cities across the country are experiencing historic spikes in homicides, as the law enforcement can tell you.  The violence is hitting Black and brown communities the hardest.  Homicide is the leading cause of death of Black boys and men ages 15 to 34 — the leading cause of death.    But there are proven strategies that reduce gun violence in urban communities, and there are programs that have demonstrated they can reduce homicides by up to 60 percent in urban communities.  But many of these have been badly underfunded or not funded at all of late.   Gun violence in America — for those of you who think of this from an economic standpoint listening to me — estimated to cost the nation $280 billion –- let me say it again — $280 billion a year.  They said, “How could that be, Joe?”  Hospital bills, physical therapy, trauma counseling, legal fees, prison costs, and the loss of productivity.  Not to mention the psychological damage done to the children who live in these cities, watching this happen, knowing someone it happened to.    This gun violence in our neighborhood is having a profound impact on our children, even if they’re never involved in pulling the trigger or being the victim of — on the other side of a trigger.   For a fraction of the cost of gun violence, we can save lives, create safe and healthy communities, and build economies that work for all of us, and save billions of American dollars.    In the meantime, much of it, as Senator Cicilline knows, is taxpayer money.   Finally, the Bureau of Alcobol [sic] — Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the key agency enforcing gun laws, hasn’t had a permanent director since 2015.   Today, I’m proud to nominate David Chipman to serve as the Director of the AFT.  David knows the AFT well.  He served there for 25 years.  And Vice President Harris and I believe he’s the right person, at this moment, for this important agency.   And I’ve said before: My job, the job of any President, is to protect the American people.  Whether Congress acts or not, I’m going to use all the resources at my disposal as President to keep the American people safe from gun violence.  But there’s much more that Congress can do to help that effort.  And they can do it right now.   They’ve offered plenty of thoughts and prayers — members of Congress — but they’ve passed not a single new federal law to reduce gun violence.  Enough prayers.  Time for some action.   I believe the Senate should immediately pass three House-passed bills to close loopholes that allow gun purchases — purchasers to bypass the background checks.  The vast majority of the American people, including gun owners, believe there should be background checks before you purchase a gun.   As was noted earlier, hundreds of thousands of people have been denied guns because of the background checks.  What more would have happened?    These bills, one, require background checks for anyone purchasing a gun at a gun show or an online sale.  (Applause.)   Most people don’t know: If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check.  But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.   Second thing is to close the Charles- — what’s known as the “Charleston” loophole.  Like people here, I spent time down at that church in Charleston.  What happened is someone was allowed to get the gun used to kill those innocent people at a church service.  If the FBI hasn’t com- — didn’t complete the background check within three days.    There’s a process.  If wasn’t done in three days, according to Charleston loophole, you get to buy the gun.  They bought the gun and killed a hell of a lot of innocent people who invited him to pray with them.   And three, reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which — the so-called — close — (applause) — the “boyfriend” and “stalking” loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of people found by a court to be an abuser and continuing threat.   I held over a thousand hours of hearings to pass the Violence Against Women Act, and one thing came through.  If, in fact, a stay-away order — an order preventing the abuser from coming in a certain distance of the person he has abused or she has abused — and now the idea that they can own a weapon when they have a court order saying they are an abuser?    These are some of the best tools we have right now to prevent gun violence and save lives.  But all these bills, they had support of both Democrats and Republicans in the House.  And universal background checks are supported by the vast majority of the American people and, I might add, the vast majority of responsible gun owners.   So let me be clear: This is not a partisan issue among the American people.  This is a view by the American people as an American issue.  And I’m willing to work with anyone to get these done. And it’s long past time that we act.    Now, I know this has been a hobbyhorse of mine for a long time — got it done once.  We should also ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country.  (Applause.)   For that 10 years we had it done, the number of mass shootings actually went down.  Even law enforcement officials have told me and told other champions of this legislation they sometimes feel outgunned by assault weapons with large-capacity magazines.    There’s no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets that can be fired from that weapon.  Nobody needs that.  Nobody needs that.   We got that done when I was a United States senator.  It wasn’t easy going up against the gun lobby, but it saved lives.  And we should also eliminate gun manufacturers from the immunity they received from the Congress.  (Applause.)   You realize — again, the people here — because they’re so knowledgeable out here in the Rose Garden.  But what people don’t realize: The only industry in America — a billion-dollar industry — that can’t be sued — has exempt from being sued — are gun manufacturers.    Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies who knew — who knew and lied about the danger they were causing — the cancer caused and the like.  Imagine where we’d be.   But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — the Lord came down and said, “Joe, you get one of these” — give me that one.  (Applause.)  Because I tell you what, there would be a “come to the Lord” moment these folks would have real quickly.  But they’re not.  They’re not. They’re exempt.    I know that the conversation about guns in this country can be a difficult one.  But even here, there’s much more common ground than we — anyone would believe.  There’s much more common ground.   Everything that’s being proposed today is totally consistent with the Second Amendment.  And there’s a wide consensus behind the need to take action.   I know that when overwhelming majorities of Americans want to see something change that will affect their lives and it still doesn’t change, it can be demoralizing to our fellow citizens.  It can feel like our entire political process is broken.    I know it’s painful and frustrating that we haven’t made the progress that we’d hoped for.  But it took five years to get the Brady bill passed, and it took even more years to work to pass the assault weapons ban.  And it saved lives.    No matter how long it takes, we’re going to get these passed.  We’re not going to give up.  We have an opportunity to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to keep our people safe.  And in the process, we can show the world and show ourselves that democracy works, that we can come together and get big things done.   When I look around and see such brave survivors sitting out here in the Rose Garden, public servants who devoted their lives to dealing with this, advocates who feel strongly and are pushing every day to make the rational changes, and courageous parents and family members, I know that progress, even in this most difficult of issues, is possible.   So, folks, this is just the start.  We’ve got a lot of work to do.  But I know almost every one of you sitting in the garden here; none of you have ever given up.  We’re not going to give up now.    The idea that we have so many people dying every single day from gun violence in America is a blemish on our character as nation.   Let me say to all of you: God bless you, but most importantly, the memory of all many of you have lost to this senseless gun violence.    And now I’d like to hand it over to the Attorney General for him to speak and make some comments.  And I hope I get a chance to see some of you after this is over.    Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you. (Applause.)   12:22 P.M. EDT

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Revisiting the Messy Language of the Second Amendment

The debate over the Second Amendment is not just about guns—it’s also about grammar.

To outsiders, modern American society seems to be such a contradictory mashup of comfortable, consumer lives in pursuit of happiness—and sudden, violent deaths. Why does ordinary life in the US seem so much deadlier compared to other developed nations, such as Canada or Australia?

After being banned from doing so for two decades, the CDC may at last be allowed to research why America has such a terrible problem with so many people getting shot all the time. Whether it’s people or guns that kill people, as the NRA slogan goes, there’s no doubt that guns, not just harmless tools, are weapons specifically designed to kill and injure. And yet guns are astonishingly both widely accessible ( even to children)  and inconsistently regulated across the country.

This loving of firearms not wisely, but too well, has led to pretty horrifying stats like: more Americans have been killed by gun deaths just since 1968 than have ever been killed “bearing arms” in all U.S. wars—ever . Unsurprisingly, stats also show that the more guns a country has, the more gun deaths there are— and the U.S. has a staggering 270 million privately-owned firearms, half of which are owned by only 3% of the population, and the other half owned by another 19% . That’s a very vocal minority that has a major influence on blocking gun legislation. What’s more, mass shootings are very much on the rise , the most recent at Margory Stoneman Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida , in which seventeen people, the majority of them children, were gunned down by a teenager with an easily and legally-accessible military grade weapon .

On the flip side, it’s important to respect that for many law-abiding, gun-owning Americans, the second amendment has come to represent something almost sacred, a celebration not only of culture and heritage, but of personal liberty. Any attempts to change these rights can understandably seem like an attack.

It seems simple at first, and yet, this being America, it clearly isn’t that simple.

It’s not just about  guns—it’s also about grammar .

The Grammar of the Second Amendment

A confusing and pedantic debate over language has insidiously redefined the very reason the second amendment exists. There are legitimate linguistic questions as to whether individual gun rights with few restrictions, as they’re culturally perceived now, were even constitutionally intended in the first place.

So let’s revisit what the second amendment of the constitution actually says, and what it might mean:

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.

To modern eyes, it’s not the clearest piece of legal text ever drafted. The founders’  colonial dialect  is decidedly not the same American English spoken, or even written, today. It’s important to remember how much words can change over time . The archaic structure of two clauses seemingly mashed together has led some legal analysts  to assume it must be ungrammatical  (it is not) and the first part doesn’t really matter, while others have fought tooth and claw over its errant commas . (Perhaps editors were scarce when the founders scrawled out the constitution on a bar napkin?). Just as the founders’ grammar might confuse us, so might their eighteenth-century words. Therein lies the trouble.

Thanks to the legal interpretive dance that passes for a linguistic analysis of ye olde tyme language of the second amendment, so often truncated as the right to “bear arms,” many Americans have come to believe that there is a constitutionally-protected right for every individual citizen to amass an armory of sophisticated modern weaponry if they so choose, of a kind never imagined, much less defined by the founders, without a side of sensible gun control. This assumption, long promoted by aggressively motivated and mobilized gun lobbyists, has become an uncomfortably central part of America’s culture, seemingly unassailable. ( Only one amendment has ever been repealed, the eighteenth , so that people could finally have a stiff drink).

About That “Militia” Clause…

The longstanding debate over these words boils down to this: did the founders draft the second amendment as single meaningful text, in which all parts provide meaning in the same context, or is it actually in two puzzlingly separate parts, the first “militia” clause being kind of a blithe hand wave, with the “bear arms” clause being more crucial? Furthermore, if the phrase “bear arms” had a primarily military meaning, this makes a big difference as to whether the second amendment protects the people’s collective right to certain arms, as part of a well-regulated militia, or an individual’s right to have any firearms for no reason at all.

Joseph Blocher states that the traditional reading is the first , that “the Second Amendment was long understood by many if not most courts and scholars to protect state militias from disarmament by the federal government. […] The phrase ‘keep and bear arms’ was read as referring to the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service.”

The individual right to own and carry guns with minimal restrictions, or how the public now interprets the second amendment, was only very recently ratified in 2008, 5 to 4, by the District of Columbia v Heller decision. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia redefined many of the words in the text to support the new interpretation.

Justice Scalia , like many conservative constitutional scholars, championed using textualist or originalist principles to support his reading of the law. That means using the actual text as it was written to interpret the original “plain” meaning of the words, without necessarily looking at other contextual evidence, such as the problem it was trying to solve at the time or previous legislative history, other drafts of the text, or its impact or relevance on modern life.

Legal vs. Linguistic Analysis

Maybe it doesn’t even matter what the founders had originally intended, but what the citizen on the street would assume it meant. What would a regular eighteenth-century American citizen who was reading this legal wording over morning coffee reasonably think this sentence said? What did “well-regulated,” “militia,” “the people,” and “keep and bear arms” mean at the time? Textualists believe that by focusing strictly on the text and the original meaning, and nothing else, judges are limited from inserting their own modern biases into legal interpretations by picking and choosing external sources of evidence.

Under this legal assumption, linguistic analysis suddenly becomes hugely important in interpreting the language of the law. It’s surprising then, that more legal analysts aren’t better trained in formal linguistics . In practice, linguistic analysis might be as basic as a textualist-leaning judge looking up a word in the dictionary without understanding where those words and definitions come from or the sociolinguistic context they’re used in.

Justice Scalia was quite fond of whipping out dictionaries as objective, infallible, external legal authorities on word meaning for his textual evidence, but as Phillip A. Rubin points out, without good linguistic practices, the legal use of word definitions and grammatical rules (and even punctuation!) as textual evidence can end up just as biased, cherrypicked or manipulated as other external sources decried by textualists. Or as Professor Ellen Aprill puts it, “Justice Scalia’s use of dictionaries as a tool of textualism appears instrumental indeed, invoked only when it produces the desired result.”

Legal language is not logical and unchanging as it’s often supposed; it’s like any other sociolinguistic discourse. Likewise, dictionaries are not sacred, definitive authorities of the true meaning of a word, set in stone. Using older dictionaries published when the law was written may not match the meanings actually intended by legislators who drafted the law. This is because dictionaries are compiled by very human humans, who, from lack of space or time, may not get around to capturing all the relevant, representative meanings that exist in the spoken language. Words, many of which carry different meanings that can change dramatically over time, are not used in isolation the way they appear in a dictionary, but need a context to be understood. Picking out a meaning, any meaning, doesn’t mean that’s the right reading, and vice versa. (A shady tree is not the same as a shady character, for instance). So relying simply on dictionaries to choose evidence for word meanings, especially for legal language written in the eighteenth century, is a possible recipe for disaster, at least when it comes to gun control.

When Textualists Ignore Text

Textualists are all about the text, except, it seems in the 2008 Heller opinion. The decision ultimately decided that only the last clause really mattered, with the first being merely  “prefatory, a bit of constitutional throat-clearing” , as it’s been described, that—astonishingly—has no real bearing on the second, more important clause. Nelson Lund, a legal but not linguistic expert , argued that “the Second Amendment has exactly the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted, or indeed if the preamble is demonstrably false.” Under this modern reading, it’s curiously the only amendment of its kind written with an unnecessary decorative preamble.

But eighteenth century readers with classical educations under their belts would have been very familiar with Latinate absolute constructions used in long, Ciceronian-style sentences, which in this context crucially seems to provide a causal reason for why such a right is protected, as though it were written “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” That is, there may be a right to “keep and bear arms”, but that that right exists under certain conditions.

If you accept the linguistic evidence that all parts of the text play an important role in the more traditional interpretation, then the phrase “bear arms” is quite reasonably understood as referring to military service. In fact there are arguably many more examples where “bear arms” is taken strictly as a military term, meaning to serve as a soldier or do military service, including James Madison’s original draft of the amendment “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” The fact that there was another emerging sense of “bear arms” in some nonmilitary contexts muddies the water. However, many legal citations based on the second amendment over its history has often put the notion of the militia front and center as a reason for the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Though an  amicus brief written by linguists was submitted in the Heller case  to support this, the court decided to strike out on its own. Using its own textual analysis , “the right of the people” was now defined unambiguously as an individual and not collective right. The “prefatory” clause was understood to just clarify, but not limit, the purpose of this right. The court believed that it was wrong to read the “militia” as a separate, organized group, regulated or controlled by a state. Instead, because the militia was made up of male, able-bodied citizens, the militia was really the same as “the people.” And “well-regulated”, now far from being regulated, was redefined as “well-trained” (which probably involves shooting a lot of rounds at targets). Most importantly, “keep and bear arms” took on the most “natural” reading, which was to have weapons and to be able to carry them for your own self-defense. Despite originalist principles, “arms” now meant any “lawful” weapon that could be defined as arms, even those weapons not in existence at the time.

Though this is now law, it’s curious how far the more recent reading of the second amendment has moved from the traditional reading. It’s always possible to unearth textual evidence that could be read in support of it or against it. Archaic laws can change, just as archaic language can be misread by a modern audience, whether willfully or well-intentioned.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

What’s clear is there’s a groundswell of support for Parkland survivors, which saw hundreds of thousands joining the March for Our Lives protest. For today’s youth, or future voters as they’re sometimes known, perhaps the best way to move forward is to exercise a different kind of right to bare arms—by rolling up their sleeves and using the first amendment to fight the hopelessly outdated second amendment.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

More Stories

• Archival Adventures in the Abernethy Collection

The Development of Central American Film

Remembering Maud Lewis

Exploring the Yardbird Reader

Recent posts.

• The Power of the Veil for Spanish Women
• Crucial Building Blocks of Life on Earth Can More Easily Form in Outer Space
• Before Palmer Penmanship
• Nightclubs, Fungus, and Curbing Gun Violence

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasive Writing and Public Speaking

Gain critical communication skills.

This Harvard online course introduces learners to the art of persuasive writing and speaking and teaches how to construct and defend compelling arguments.

What You'll Learn

We are living in a contentious time in history. Fundamental disagreements on critical political issues make it essential to learn how to make an argument and analyze the arguments of others. This ability will help you engage in civil discourse and make effective changes in society. Even outside the political sphere, conveying a convincing message can benefit you throughout your personal, public, and professional lives.

We will be using selected addresses from prominent twentieth-century Americans—including Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Margaret Chase Smith, Ronald Reagan, and more—to explore and analyze rhetorical structure and style. Through this analysis, you will learn how speakers and writers persuade an audience to adopt their point of view.

Built around Harvard Professor James Engell’s on-campus course, “Elements of Rhetoric,” this course will help you analyze and apply rhetorical structure and style, appreciate the relevance of persuasive communication in your own life, and understand how to persuade and recognize when someone is trying to persuade you. You will be inspired to share your viewpoint and discover the most powerful ways to convince others to champion your cause. Join us to find your voice!

The course will be delivered via  edX  and connect learners around the world. By the end of the course, participants will be able to:

• When and how to employ a variety of rhetorical devices in writing and speaking
• How to differentiate between argument and rhetorical technique
• How to write a persuasive opinion editorial and short speech
• How to evaluate the strength of an argument
• How to identify logical fallacies in arguments

Course Outline

• Define the term "rhetoric."
• Articulate the importance of effective communication
• Summarize the history of rhetorical study, from the ancient Greeks to the modern-day
• Identify the parts of discourse
• Define the three modes of appeal
• Identify tropes and schemes, and explain their use in composition
• Compose an opinion editorial on a topic of your choice
• Analyze Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream…” speech
• Define inductive reasoning and some of its associated topics
• Identify instances of inductive reasoning in writing and speech
• Define deductive reasoning and some of its associated topics
• Identify instances of deductive reasoning in writing and speech
• Recognize and evaluate the strength of an argument's refutation
• Apply the elements of rhetoric you have learned so far into the final draft of your op-ed
• Analyze Sarah Brady’s Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech
• Analyze Charlton Heston’s speech on the Second Amendment
• Define “inductive reasoning” and some of its associated topics
• Define “deductive reasoning” and some of its associated topics
• Recognize and evaluate the strength of an argument’s refutation
• Apply the elements of rhetoric you have learned so far in the final draft of your op-ed
• Describe the origins of the practice of oratory
• Recognize ways in which orators tailor their writing for the spoken word
• Describe techniques for effective public speaking, both prepared and extemporaneous
• Brainstorm ideas for your own short speech
• Analyze Joseph McCarthy’s “Enemies Within” speech
• Analyze Margaret Chase Smith’s "A Declaration of Conscience" speech
• Identify the modes of appeal and the logical reasoning of the featured speeches
• Identify both common and special topics used in these speeches, like cause and effect, testimony, justice and injustice, and comparison, and begin to recognize their use in other speeches
• Identify examples from these speeches of logical fallacies including the either/or fallacy, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the argument ad hominem, the argument ad populum, begging the question, the complex question, and the use of imprecise language
• Discuss the importance of winning and keeping an audience’s trust and the pros and cons of attempting to tear down their confidence in an opponent
• Define for yourself the definition of "extremist rhetoric," debate its use as a political tool
• Consider the moral responsibilities of those who would seek to persuade others through language
• Discuss how the audience and the desired tone for a speech can influence diction (word choice)
• Compare the effects of using passive vs. active voice, and first-person vs. other tenses in a speech
• Discuss the effectiveness of the use of symbolism in writing and speech
• Define hyperbole, antimetabole, and polysyndeton, and identify when these devices might be appropriate and useful in terms of persuasion
• Describe techniques for connecting with your audience, including storytelling and drawing on shared experience

Your Instructor

James Engell  is Gurney Professor of English and Professor of Comparative Literature, also a member of the Committee on the Study of Religion, and a faculty associate of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.  He has also directed dissertations in American Studies, as well as Romance Languages & Literatures (French).

Education:   B.A. 1973, Ph.D. 1978 Harvard

Interests:  Romantic, Eighteenth-Century, and Restoration British Literature; Comparative Romanticism; Criticism and Critical Theory; Rhetoric; Environmental Studies; History and Economics of Higher Education

Selected Works:   The Call of Classical Literature in the Romantic Age  (2017, ed. with K. P. Van Anglen) and contributor, "The Other Classic: Hebrew Shapes British and American Literature and Culture."  William Wordsworth's  Prelude  (1805), edited from the manuscripts and fully illustrated in color (2016, ed. with Michael D. Raymond).   Environment: An Interdisciplinary Anthology  (2008, ed. with Adelson, Ranalli, and Van Anglen).   Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money  (2005, with Anthony Dangerfield).   The Committed Word: Literature and Public Values  (1999).   Coleridge: The Early Family Letters  (1994, ed.).   Forming the Critical Mind  (1989).   Johnson and His Age  (1984, ed. and contributor).   Biographia Literaria  for the  Collected Coleridge  (1983, ed. with W. Jackson Bate).   The Creative Imagination:  Enlightenment to Romanticism  (1981).

Ways to take this course

When you enroll in this course, you will have the option of pursuing a Verified Certificate or Auditing the Course.

A Verified Certificate costs $209 and provides unlimited access to full course materials, activities, tests, and forums. At the end of the course, learners who earn a passing grade can receive a certificate. 

Alternatively, learners can Audit the course for free and have access to select course material, activities, tests, and forums.  Please note that this track does not offer a certificate for learners who earn a passing grade.

Related Courses

Exercising leadership: foundational principles.

The crises of our time generate enormous adaptive challenges for our families, organizations, communities, and societies. The need for leadership that can mobilize people to meet these challenges and improve life is critical.

Leadership: Creating Public Value

Learn how to face and meet today’s challenges and design a public value proposition that is both actionable and value creating.

Remote Work Revolution for Everyone

In Remote Work Revolution for Everyone, you will learn how to build trust, increase productivity, use digital tools intelligently, and remain fully aligned with your remote team.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — 2Nd Amendment — The Two Sides of the 2nd Amendment

The Two Sides of The 2nd Amendment

• Categories: 2Nd Amendment

About this sample

Words: 1740 |

Published: Sep 1, 2020

Words: 1740 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 635 words

3 pages / 1224 words

2 pages / 1132 words

3 pages / 1784 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on 2Nd Amendment

First off let's start off with why the Left (Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, Communists) want to have very strict and or common sense gun laws. The Left wants gun laws because they think gun laws actually work they think [...]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. In recent times, this amendment has become a controversial topic for debate. Some people argue that the Second [...]

Although the 2nd Amendment is only 27 words in its entirety, it has been the focus of controversy many times in the last 223 years. In 1791 when the second amendment was added to the bill of rights America did not have a well [...]

The issue of gun control came to worldwide attention when school and mass shooting started to happen more often and became a problem. The citizens of the United States keep coming back to the idea of repealing the Second [...]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “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” (U.S. Const. amend. [...]

Few topics provide more polarising opinions and heated debates than the topic of gun control in the USA. Established in December 1791, the second amendment states: ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

We the People

The constitution is not determined by the founders, judges, or even supreme court justices. we still get to decide what it should mean..

This is part of How Originalism Ate the Law , a Slate series about the legal theory that ruined everything.

As a branding exercise, originalism has been a wild success. The concept, once fodder for obscure law review articles no one read, went mainstream in the 1980s, after the Supreme Court dealt the conservative legal movement a series of high-profile losses on issues like affirmative action and abortion rights. In 1985 Edwin Meese III, then the attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, outlined his grand vision of a “jurisprudence of original intention” in a speech before the American Bar Association. “Those who framed the Constitution chose their words carefully,” he said. “The language they chose meant something. It is incumbent upon the court to determine what that meaning was.”

The idea quickly captured hearts and minds on the right by appealing at once to their obedience to authority, their distaste for the Warren court’s “activist” pro–civil rights decisions, and their nostalgia for bygone eras during which, coincidentally, civil rights did not really exist for people who were not white men. Today a loudly professed passion for originalism is table stakes for any ambitious conservative lawyer who hopes to warm a seat on the bench, and among members of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority, it is basically the only acceptable method to divine the Constitution’s meaning.

Perhaps the most consistent features of originalist decisions are their density and verbosity: To determine whether a purported right is sufficiently “deeply rooted” in “history and tradition,” justices and judges conduct meandering surveys of English common law, quote the dusty treatises of mononymic philosophers, and parse the hastily scribbled notes of founding-era legislators who wrote the letter S , for some godforsaken reason , as F . The majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , in which the court voted to take away a fundamental right it had recognized five decades earlier, spans 79 pages, not including two appendixes of state-level antichoice laws. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , in which the court invented an individual right to gun possession some two centuries after the Second Amendment’s passage, includes lengthy analyses of the 1328 Statute of Northampton, the roots of King Henry VIII’s skepticism of 16 th -century handguns, and the relevance (?) to modern gun safety laws of the “launcegay,” a Chaucer-era weapon akin to a 10-to-12-foot lance.

As a result, originalism’s ascendance has made the Constitution feel even less accessible than it was before, which was “not very.” Supreme Court opinions are famously laden with intimidating jargon, inscrutable shorthand, and italicized case names, all deployed in an effort to decipher a 250-year-old collection of aspirational vagaries and morally repugnant compromises . Understanding the Constitution now also requires familiarity with, to take an example from Dobbs , 19 th -century translations of 13 th -century treatises that were originally written in Latin . By design, originalism makes normal people—by which I mean those who had the good sense not to blow a quarter of a million dollars on law school—feel like insecure, conspicuous interlopers in a conversation that is plainly Not for Them.

But regular people are not actually alone here. Even some federal judges have started to voice frustration with the fact that originalism obligates them to tackle questions they are not trained to answer. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” wrote Carlton Reeves , a Black federal district court judge in Mississippi, after SCOTUS decided Bruen in 2022. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.”

This gatekeeping effect is, I think, the most pernicious lie of originalism because treating constitutional interpretation as the sole domain of judges running haphazard Wikipedia searches cuts everyone else out of the process. This is wrong. The Constitution was written not to be understood by think-tank gremlins writing dueling amicus briefs, or Supreme Court justices with the unreviewable authority to cherry-pick their preferred narrative. The Constitution was written for the people whose rights its language protects and who suffer the consequences if a judge decides otherwise. You simply do not need a medieval studies Ph.D. to be able to read what the law says and form a valid opinion about what it means. And you are not wrong to be skeptical of unelected, unaccountable judges who insist that the record, thin and ambiguous and contradictory though it may be, nonetheless compels but one objectively correct result.

There was a period when normal people, through their elected representatives, were much more active participants in the work of constitutional governance. We, as in We the People, used to regularly clarify the Constitution and fix the broken parts, often quickly. You are probably familiar with the first 10 amendments, which were approved as a package deal shortly after the Constitution’s ratification. Known as the Bill of Rights, these amendments collectively established a set of individual liberties on which the big, bad federal government, which had many of the Framers feeling understandably skittish, may not infringe. For example, the “right to remain silent” speech that cops ( are supposed to ) read to people under arrest is a mashup of the Fifth and Sixth amendment rights against self-incrimination and to be represented by counsel. A cop’s (ostensible) obligation to get a warrant before turning your house inside out is derived from the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

But these amendments are not the only amendments—or, I would argue, the most important ones. After the Civil War, Congress moved quickly to pass the Reconstruction amendments , which in sweeping terms guaranteed to people of color (and all Americans) their freedom, their citizenship, their right to vote, and their right to equal protection under the law. (In theory, at least.) The ratification of the 13 th , 14 th , and 15 th amendments meant that for the first time, the Constitution contained the tools necessary to build a thriving multiracial democracy. (Again, in theory.) As the historian Eric Foner writes in The Second Founding , the Reconstruction amendments “should be seen not simply as an alteration of an existing structure” but as creating “a fundamentally new document with a new definition of both the status of blacks and the rights of all Americans.”

Between 1909 and 1971, the Constitution was amended 11 more times—on average, about twice per decade—to do things like guarantee women’s suffrage, bar poll taxes, and include the District of Columbia in the Electoral College. Congress even adopted one amendment, the 21 st , that undid a prior one, the 18 th , which is why you can legally enjoy a cocktail while reading this sentence.

Alas, the pace of this work tapered off in the mid-20 th century. The amendments that did make it through the process were more incremental than revolutionary. Courts had hollowed out key provisions of the Reconstruction amendments, which never fully delivered on their lofty promises. The Equal Rights Amendment, which would have constitutionalized prohibitions on sex discrimination, died on the vine after failing to acquire ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. This is how we ended up in a situation where, despite 50 years of dizzying technological, cultural, and social change, the only successful effort to amend the Constitution—the document at the heart of American democracy—during that period is a tweak to the effective date of congressional pay increases.

The reasons for this trend are too complex to detail here. (I will note that in a hyperpolarized political climate in which passing simple legislation counts as a monumental accomplishment, getting 38 state legislatures to agree on anything is borderline impossible.) But the result is a Constitution that is frozen in time unless life-tenured judges muster the votes to amend it by judicial fiat. By casting themselves as the only legitimate arbiters of constitutional meaning, originalist judges have transformed representative democracy into conservative oligarchy, in the name of fidelity to whichever version of “history and tradition” sounds most appealing to the likes of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Foner characterized originalism as “misconceived,” “ridiculous,” and “intellectually indefensible” in a 2022 interview published by Balls and Strikes and the Emancipator. “There’s nothing wrong with figuring out what people were trying to do,” he said. “But to think that there’s one original meaning is just foolish, in my opinion.”

One of the benefits originalism’s evangelists often tout is its putative infallibility: By considering only evidence from the time of a provision’s enactment, adherents are uniquely able to set aside their personal beliefs when tackling even the hardest legal questions that come before them. Or as Meese put it, originalism is superior to the alternatives because its application yields “defensible principles of government” that are not “tainted by ideological predilection.”

This has always been the sort of incoherent fairy tale that only lawyers could believe about themselves. But the Supreme Court’s handiwork over the past few years highlights just how riddled with policy choices the process actually is—not only in deciding which version of history is most persuasive but also in deciding which parts of the Constitution are worthy of this revisionist history treatment in the first place. Clarence Thomas could be taking the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments as seriously as he takes, for example, the second half (and just the second half ) of the Second Amendment. The reason he doesn’t is because he cares about using his power to protect merely some rights, for some people, some of the time.

I am not suggesting that historical context is irrelevant to the task of deciding what law means. I am simply saying that historical context is not dispositive either. Even if it were possible to determine a single meaning of a particularly obscure turn of phrase, judges in 2024 are applying the Constitution to facts that people in 1789 (or 1865, or whenever the relevant clause was written) could not have imagined: whether domestic abusers have an inviolate right to possess guns, which are now capable of firing dozens or hundreds of rounds a minute. Whether lawmakers can force pregnant people to get airlifted out of state to avoid dying of sepsis. Whether a president who tried to overturn the results of an election he lost can hold the same office again. No one who wrote the Constitution did so with the benefit of knowledge about our current world, and none of them are alive today to deal with the consequences.

You are. And for this reason, you can and should participate in discussions about what your Constitution means—not only what it (may have) meant once upon a time but what it ought to mean, today, in a country with more guns than people , where doctors are afraid to provide lifesaving care to pregnant patients, and an oath-breaking insurrectionist is a coin flip to win the next election. Your opinion about how the Constitution applies to crises like these is just as legitimate and worthy of consideration as James Wilson’s or Benjamin Franklin’s—or, for that matter, Sam Alito’s. If the practice of constitutional law is largely amateur-hour history, it’s not as if he is any better at “reading books” than you are.

The purpose of a legal philosophy that tells you that your perspective doesn’t matter—that you aren’t smart or credentialed enough to be part of the conversation—is to insulate its believers’ policy decisions from well-deserved criticism. When a judge’s selective retelling of “history” yields answers that are anathema to the maintenance of a safe, inclusive, modern society, it is good and correct, actually, to reject the premise of originalism and do the reading yourself.