[cdcmj]

Hi all, to cut to the chase- I have the chance to give a speech to my 26 person public speaking class. Its a persuasive speech. I have choosen that "the fundamental right of each citizen, via the 2A, allows us the ability to own firearms, and that anything limiting this right is unlawful". I am summoning the powers of THR to help me come up with a thesis and/or main points that would be best to discuss in this 8 minute speech (this is a junior level course, undergrad). My side is obviously pro-fun/pro-preservation of the 2A. Like i said, main points with of course SUPPORTING FACTS (journals, articles, websites, etc) is needed, please dont just give me your opinion.

I really want to take this opportunity to get to my mostly anti-gun, pro-gun control audience ( i took a poll). Thanks for the help!.

Edit: to clarify, this is a persuasive speech, and I am intending (subject to change, any advice that changes my mind, etc) to persuade the audience that limiting gun ownership/owners is wrong and violates the 2A. In case the above didnt make sense to you. A solid three main point thesis would be what I am trying to achieve here by asking you experts for assistance.

[kellyj00]

this isn't a good idea.... I took the same exact class a while back... called "public speaking" at Wichita State University. I did a persuasive 8 minute speech on something that wasn't as controversial.... remember, your instructor is probably a first year grad student who sees this class as a hinderance on their homework time as a busy Grad Student and doesn't want any lip or anything that will cause them undo trouble....this also means they won't check your sources if you aren't so controversial.

Trying to convince college kids that we have a second amendment will do nothing but invite controversy. Don't ever slap a college student with a "it's in the rule book....it's called the U.S. Constitution and we MUST FOLLOW IT" no matter how you present it, that's how they're going to see it. Folks that age, well me anyhow when I was younger, hated the establishment and being told what to do.

Make it fun if you want....but you want a good story, go with the health benefits of alcohol....you'll still be preaching an amendment, just not the 2nd amendment, and you'll gain a lot more interest and a lot less debate....not too mention you can finish your speech with a line like "In conclusion, I think we should all take a short recess for a health break at Smokey's Bar."

When you feel like you're just preaching to the choir, you shake less and stay on point more. Sometimes we get flustered when trying to make a point to a group of 28 people who are just staring at us, especially when we fumble our words...and that's what your instructor is looking for, you to fumble or back-track on yourself.

I did my persuasive speech on no-pants day, and made an attempt to persuade folks to engage in a toga day....as the conclusion to my speech I took a poll as to how many folks would wear a toga one day a year as a celebration of our freedom from uniformity. It scored very well amongst a bunch of college kids.

[RNB65]

What's wrong with a controversial subject? Most college students are as soft as rotten tomatoes and need a slap of reality every now and then. I think the 2A is a great topic for a persuasive speech or debate. And if it causes the instructor to get his panties all wadded up in a bunch, even better.

The key issue to focus on is that the Founding Fathers fully understood that unchecked government control leads to a loss of democracy and freedom. The Bill of Rights was intended to place strict controls on government power in order to protect democracy and freedom. But governments exist for one reason -- to control the people they supposedely serve and over the past 200 years our rights and freedoms have been slowly but surely eroded away by unethical elected leaders and weak courts that refuse to defend the Constitution as it was written by the Founding Fathers.

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting, self defense, or milita/military service and everything to do with protecting a free society by limiting the power of government to interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens.

[hnk45acp]

Perhaps a better approach would be to compare the generally beloved and respected amendments (1st, 4th, etc.) to the more politically incorrect 2nd amendment and how we give up our basic right to self-defense because of irrational fears of inanimate objects

[CountGlockula]

I would first starting thinking like an anti and begin writing.

[McKnife]

Like stated above, It all depends on how to professor feels.

If he or she is anti-gun, you're screwed. I've seen it first hand.:cuss::barf:


Everything is subjective to professor's beliefs.

[goemado]

Question:

You want a debate or an "A" without overstudying/working? You've received good advice to talk about something simple and less controversial.

You can believe in something all you want...but why get the class all worked up into a frenzy -- when, I suspect, you're looking to complete this task as painfully and profitably as possible.

If you feel strongly about the need to remind these "heads full of mush" about the rights inherent in the 2nd Amendment, write a letter to the editor or an article for the paper...don't bog yourself down with it as part of a homework assignment....takes away far too much valuable time from the bar, women, and all the good things of college life. Priorities man, priorities...take it from someone who's been there (undergrad and grad).

Good luck.

[AJ Dual]

+ 1 to all the advice not to go "preaching" in a lower level public speaking/persuasive speech class.

You won't just be battling anti-gun sentiment, but the typical resistance any self-fancied free thinker has to having any kind of strong belief thrust upon them. You'll get the rolling eyes "there he goes again" :rolleyes: response, even though there's never been a "before"…

kellyj00's advice to do something wacky, nonsensical, and make the position weird and fun, like everyone should have a pet fiddler crab, or an orange backpack, and green hat, then pour every persuasive technique that's been taught, or is in the material, and internally consistent (if absurd) logical argument you can come up with into it. That will get you the best grade.

Watch what they do on those cheesy infomercials, and they repeat a few catchy key points over and over and over, take that for your speech, then make it a bit more highbrow. Persuasive speaking is really just sales in a way.

If you school has a shooting/RKBA organization, do some good by joining that. And/or, take your friends, and any trustworthy acquaintances or friends-of-friends shooting you can to give them a positive RKBA experience instead of being the "goofy gun-nut in speech class". If your school has no shooting team, club, or RKBA group, get like minded students together and create one. You'll get all the controversy or attention you want when you apply for a charter and school fee support.

Once they've had a positive and safe shooting experience, suddenly they're part of the "wacky violent gun-nuts" too, and will see how the other side uses lies, emotion, and sensationalism against us. It's slower than speaking to a large group at a time, but the results are much better.

[Blackbeard]

I believe the OP is looking for some FACTS to back up his stance. Anyone know where to find:

- Statistics of gun crimes committed by CCW permit holders vs. non-holders?
- Crime rates in CCW states vs. non-CCW states?
- Police response times vs. home invasion durations?
- Crimes committed with legally owned firearms vs. illegal or stolen firearms?

And, most importantly, if any of the students or faculty in Norris Hall were CCW permit holders but weren't allowed to carry on campus?

[crankshop1000]

You should have chosen something else easier like persuading the class why it's a good idea to roll back the teacher's salary and benefits. You will lose this one if you do anything else than try to rely on the document itself as the basis for the right to bear arms.

[refrey]

First read the recent DC Court decision on the Parker case. Also, research the Federalist Papers for the Founding Fathers opinions on the matter. Your biggest challenge will be to demonstrate the 2A is an individual right (as are all of the other Bill of Rights amendments), rather than a collective right for a State militia.

[TX1911fan]

There are several excellent articles written by Constitutional scholars that would be very useful to you. Glenn Reynolds has written extensively about this subject, as has Stanford's Robert Weisberg and William Van Alstyne (who is an ACLU board member, no less). These guys are all Law School professors, so they come from academia and should help your cause. A little research on Lexis/Nexis and you'll have their stuff. Don Kates also has a piece in the August/September 2007 issue of Handguns magazine. He lists all of these scholars, and summarizes their arguments. You can probably find it on their website, or go buy the magazine. You may also want to check into these two books: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2322501-5334338?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184698202&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Against-Guns-Everything-Control/dp/0895261146/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2322501-5334338?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184698202&sr=8-2

Both are chock full of useful statistics. John Lott is a professor as well.

Finally, you can use www.gunfacts.info to get statistics. That website destroys many of the myths about gun control.

I think this is a fine subject, and if you do it right, you may help change some minds. Your problem will be to stay on topic and not get sidetracked by too many statistics. I think your premise that the Second Amendment grants us these rights is a good one. Stick with that. Compare and contrast it with the First Amendment to show how dangerous the "sensible gun control laws" argument really is. How many of us would be ok with very many "sensible speech control laws?" Good luck, and let us know how you do.

[k-frame]

Pretty good thread going on about the DC Parker case today. In that thread someone kindly posted a link to this report which is an opinion written for the Ashcroft administration at DOJ:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Some ammo for your speech. But I also agree with the other folks here; pick a different topic and try to earn an A. Kudos for trying to influence your college associates but is this a fight you really want to take on?

My dos pesos...

[Blackfork]

I'd start with the story of William Tell and also the English Peasant Revolt. Stay general: Does an individual Human being have the right to defend himself from violence?

I'd read the Geek with a .45s website and check out this exact speech in Unintended Consequences.

Best of luck.

[Powder_Burn]

If you want to win over the anti's, give them an argument they are not expecting. Point out that restrictions on weapons have been used to control repressed people for centuries. More recently in America, gun laws have been used to prevent freed slaves from protecting themselves. I had a left wing nut poly sci professor who made arguments against the 2A but for gun ownership based on this premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Balance_of_power

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

This is guaranteed to really mix them up! If they support gun control, the anti-gunners will find themselves on the same side as the old torch-carrying lynch mobs who supported gun-control. Enjoy watching the reactions after they are educated.

[Hokkmike]

I am an instructor of public speaking for some 30 years now at the HS level. Just remember, there is no "my side" to a persuasive speech. It is "our side". If you come across with the former attitude you will have a much more difficult time convincing your audience. Remember also, that even if you just get a few people to think more objectively about your topic then you have been successful. Among reasonably intelligent people one speech will hardly ever suffice to change opinions.

I like hnk45apc's approach the best so far. Relate your value of freedoms expressed by the Second Amendment to those that might more directly effect your classmates in other constitutional guarantees.

It would be wise to have a fair idea of your professor's views on the subject going in. It might become a matter of principles vs. grade, in which case take care of your diploma first, then exert your influence. I always try to evaluate speeches based on the merit of their construction, content, and delivery. BUT, I can tell you this is not always the case, especially if, in his mind, the professor is rebutting what he/she perceives to be a weak argument you bring forward, but not citing it directly in his evaluation of your presentation.

I keep thinking, as a case in point, how the tragedy of the V-Tech massacre might have been averted were the limits placed on constitutional rights not curtailed at the school.

If I were giving this speech, and I certainly think it is a great topic, I would use a lot of good supportive (cause and effect) statistics, provide an extended psychological example (young girl fends off intruder and prevents rape) and definately related it to your audiences field of experience.

Well, good luck. Wish I was there to help!

[SoCalShooter]

I say go with the controversial subject, don't cater to the sensibilities or senselessness of the students in the class. your in college for a reason your there to learn and to be challenged and have your ideas and beliefs challenged. Run with it and we here at THR can help you. I do not believe that diverting you from the controversial path is the answer. You just have to not be preachy or come off as some gun nut kook to these people. If you make and educated and thoughtful speech you should be fine.

As for the previous posts I think your leading him down the wrong path. (only some) Remember its ok to talk about your guns whether it offends someone or not is irrelevant its not only your 1st amendment right but also your 2nd. And I do not see why we have to placate the students or cudgle them to our point of view. If your in college you should have your mind prepared to have challenging subjects that you may not like or even not find interesting but they are there and you have to get through them.

Back to cdcmj you have take the risk that you may not be liked and that your views may not be liked at all. Slapping the college preppies and hippies in the face is exactly what they need. POWDER BURN has an excellent idea for you attack them from their side and show with their info why they are wrong and should listen to you.

And last but not least you can't make an OMLETTE without breaking a few eggs.

[cdcmj]

ok okay ok, some of you have the wrong idea of what my situation is. First, im not picking this to be 'controversial,' I am crafting a college-level argument, hence the need for supporting facts. The teacher is completley on board with the topic idea and seems enthusiastic. HNKapc's idea is what I am talking about. I want to put the issue in the light, that being the 2A has been essentialy taboo'ed. Powder burn too, is the type of speech I am trying to give. My essential goal is to make people think about their stance on gun ownership, not just spew and preach a bunch of conservative slogans at them (i am a liberal..)...

On a side note, I am very surprised so many THR's want me to change topic? I jumped at this open opportunity to speak on something I feel passionate about. If I felt my grade was in jeopardy, I wouldnt have batted an eye at changing topics, but this teacher is good in the sense she will allow anything that doesnt affend others, and that one uses sound and quality reasearch to back up claims (or proofs). That is why I intended to summon the brain power of THR to help me craft this special topic in the best possible light.

HokkMike: its clear to me that you have taught this course and I appreciate your expertise. Can you give me a possible thesis statement, as to allow me to narrow down my speech points. 3-5 main points is what she is looking for, I am having a little trouble crafting the main points I want to nail down, either in a chronological, topical, or cause and effect fashion.

[SoCalShooter]

I like POWDER BURN's idea and HNKapc's, I just wanted to convey that you should not worry about being controversial or whether or not it is taboo.

[cdcmj]

I am certainely not worried about being controversial, as stated in my last post. Also, I meant taboo, as in people have been accustomed to be anti-gun from their birth, i.e. the 2A is taboo, something not to be talked about or supported (thanks to the media, politicians, etc.)

P.s. Great quote SocalSHooter, I may be working that in to my conclusion

[SoCalShooter]

Which one?

[Librarian]

You ought to look at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project (http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/) for how to 'tune' your presentation.

Lots of papers there; see especially the Gun Litigation (http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/content/view/80/90/) paper, and More Statistics, Less Persuasion (http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/content/view/57/90/).

VERY brief summary: people on both sides of contentious issues (a) usually cannot be bothered to get informed themselves, so (b) they adopt the positions of 'leaders', and (c) 'leaders', to remain leaders, adopt progressively more extreme positions. Without direct investigation for facts, people usually go with their 'gut' feelings. You can't persuade them with statistics - they won't believe them.

[cdcmj]

socal: the one in you signature

Thanks librarian

[strat81]

I seem to recall from persuasive speaking three points: ethos, logos, and pathos. I'd see how you can apply those to your speech.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml (My favorite anti-gun control article)

Don't forget to point out that more laws do not equal less crime. Mention the many laws Cho broke during the VT epidemic. Would one more have stopped him?

[SoCalShooter]

Oh yeah thats a really good one to use.

[cdcmj]

btt pleaseee

[Aguila Blanca]

And, most importantly, if any of the students or faculty in Norris Hall were CCW permit holders but weren't allowed to carry on campus?
At least one student was a CCW holder, and he has publicly stated that he was among those who had petitioned to allow CCW holders to carry on campus and was rebuffed.

[JohnL2]

I would say above all, maintain your composure. Be POLITE.
Good luck though. I've noticed that most college folks feel that to be "enlightened" is to be pro-gun control. Which in my view is rather ridiculous.
Punish the doer and the deed I say.

[tmajors]

Pick another topic if your instructor is even partially liberal. Here in Idaho we had an instance where a kid charged a cop with a rifle and bayonet. Cop shot him...duh.

So a few days later my ENGLISH professor was going off about it talking about how the police should have been more caring and finding out what was bothering the kid. blah blah blah and all that.

I said out loud "If someone is charging me with a rifle and bayonet there is only one correct answer...two to the body, one to the head". The class applauded. Made me happy that my class agreed...too bad the instructor didn't. My grades went steadily downhill from that point on.

[cdcmj]

sigh, changing the topic is out of the question. I just want main points that you all think are best to answer the side of my debate, which is:

"the 2A states that It is my undeniable right to own and bear arms, and that any further legislation or action that prohibits, denies, or limits me to this right is unlawful"

[orionengnr]

- Statistics of gun crimes committed by CCW permit holders vs. non-holders?

Texas statistics are here:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Florida keeps records as well, and they are available on line. I did a quick Google, and came up with this--the actual state of Florida stuff is not on the first page, but with a bit more searching, it's in there, and I'll bet the news is good. :)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=florida+CCW+statistics

I believe that taking on a tough subject in front of a potentially hostile audience is in keeping with the concept of persuasive argument. Your willingness to take this on reflects well on your integrity as a student and as a person.

Trying to convince people that sex is fun, or that the sun rises in the East...well, I can't see how that gets you a good grade. There is no persuasion required. Yet, too many people want to get an A without exerting any effort.

The tougher the subject, the more well-structured the argument must be. If the prof does not grade you fairly because s/he disagrees with your position, then that reflects upon his/her integrity.

I like your style. Let us know how it goes. :)

[Librarian]

If statistics are interesting, I wonder if you might feel a little bold.

Look at the CDC's WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) site.

Pick Fatal Injury Reports, then 1999 and later.

For report options, pick (1) Violence Related, (2) Firearm

For (3), keep United States, change the range from 2004 to 2004 to 1999 to 2004.

Now comes the bold part: select a custom age range, say 10 to 40. Then select output groups by (1)Race, (2)Age, (3)Year, and see what you get.

If you see anything that looks significant, decide if you want to talk about it.

[armedandsafe]

Wander over to my site and click on Federal Stuff. Then click on the FBI's statement on the First Amendment. I have interspersed a few comments on how this stance might be applied to the 2nd.

http://www.armedandsafe.org

Pops

[hnk45acp]

I think a very simple argument could be made that rights stated (not given) in the First amendment (religion, press, assembly and speech) are guaranteed by the Second. The Second is after all about self-preservation and defense of oneself and ones loved ones from malfeasence from individuals and govts. It is not about: Hunting, Sporting, Collecting it's about the ability to defend/protecting oneself. There will of course be people that point out that that is what the police is for. Point out modern examples like Katrina, blackout of 77 and terrorist attacks where the police could not help the populace. Point out historical examples ie:Germany in the 30's where the populace was disarmed and how that lead to the second world war. After all if you get rid of the 2nd amendment getting rid of all the others will be much easier. Good luck on your assignment

[Carl N. Brown]

One point about the Nazi disarmament of the population:
it was not universal. Good Germans were allowed to have
guns. Untermensch were not allowed to have guns. It was
selective, discretionary gun control. In occupied France,
if the Germans found a Frenchman caught with a gun, they
could take him to the side of the road and shoot him,
summary execution style.