Second Amendment Persuasive Speech

Even if a mentally ill person is banned from buying a gun, there is still another means for them to obtain one. The Times Editorial Board (2016) backed themselves by typing, “The gunman who shot and killed five people in Santa Monica three years ago was banned from owning a gun, so he bought the parts and made his own.” (p. 2). Marcotte (2015) brought up the fact that, “There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work.” (p. 2). Although there are so many guns in America, mass shootings still happen and are not easily preventable because not everyone arms themselves. Marcotte (2015) also later reports, “A lot of Americans who struggle with mental health are undiagnosed, though, and putting them on a government list that restricts their rights is not a great inducement to get a diagnosis.” (p.

We all know our rights. Most of us do paid attend, to them in school. Do you know what is the Fourth Amendment is? If, you have forgotten, it is our right to privacy. Or from the Bill of Right “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment).” This can be from our homes, people, schools, and our cars. Why is this important to us? What is searches and seizures? What is privacy? What should we know about this amendment? Do we have an expectation

The debate over gun control is not a new argument, neither is the existence of mental illness. There have been those who support and those who oppose gun control for many years. What has recently re-ignited the debate is an increase in mass shootings over the past few decades; one in particular is the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre. Incidents, such as this, fuel anger and fear, driving many to question the need for firearms in modern society, while others cite these incidents as a reason for remaining armed. The purpose of gun control is to limit the amount of violence in today’s

“Guns don’t kill people, people do.” This is a well known statement that is oftentimes considered true. However, it is not completely true. Someone who is mentally ill may be unable to make logical decisions and the perception they receive of reality may be tainted by the illness. Gun laws pertaining to those suffering mental illnesses should be more restrictive. Weapons such as guns make committing an act of violence, especially when there are multiple victims, much easier. It is difficult to assess the probability of a person to commit a violent act that harms anyone including himself/herself. Therefore, gun laws need be monitored very closely and made more consistent throughout each state in order to prevent violence that could

Attention Getter: During World War 2 Japanese Emperor Isoroku Yamamoto was quoted saying “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

People with mental illnesses are referred to a wide range of mental health conditions disorders that affect your mood, thinking, and behavior. Examples like Autism, Anxiety Issues, and many more that affect them. It is so easy for anyone to get guns. About over 300 million have been made and sold to people in 2012, so there is a large supply of them. (My Turn: Should People with Mental Illnesses Own Guns?”, 2015). You can easily get one by just bribing a stranger or from a family member so it’s very easy to get one. There should be stricter gun control laws for those individuals with a mental illness history because guns are falling into the hands of people whose actions are unpredictable, research shows that many of the crimes committed are by those with a known mental illness, and the current wait time for owning a gun allows people with a mental illness to act without seeking help first.

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

Every year 30,000 americans die from guns while others have the privilege to end up with a disability rather than dieing. The men and women who are diagnosed with a mental illness and obtain guns often commit suicide and crimes such as mass shootings, and murders. Because healthcare providers don't report the mental illness’ of many people to the FBI these people are able to pass a background check when they attempt to purchase a gun. Although the second amendment allows people the right to bear arms, it has become easy for the mentally ill to acquire guns and gun control should be strengthened for this very reason.

Today I would like to talk to you about changing the second amendment. One example why it is important that we change it is because to me it seems like there is not enough information in there and when I read it, it makes me feel like anyone that is a citizen of the United States can have a gun and can do whatever they want with it. In Iowa, you do not need a permit to purchase a rifle or shotgun which I think is wrong. A reason I think we need to

The New gun laws should be to make people responsible for allowing guns to meet the hands of people with mental illnesses. Gun show owners as well as the dealers at these gun shows should fall under federal crime laws for breaking these laws with stricter punishments. The parents, or owners of these guns that fall under the hands of these crazed gunmen should be at fault/ liable, and should also be punished to full extent of the law for being so irresponsible. These actions would save so many innocent lives. This should be the focus of these new gun laws, rather than regulations on guns. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

The delegates filled Independence Hall with raucous applause. The voiceover of a Fox New pundit began narrating the scene.

Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls of this fine nation, we need to come together and resolve the issues and arguments of our 2nd Amendment right. There have been tragedies in Las Vegas, Orlando, and more across the country. A lot of us believe we should not be able to own firearms and some of us say otherwise. We, as a nation, need to come together and resolve our conflicts and find a way to meet in the middle. Half of us think guns are harmful, dangerous and that people should not be able to purchase guns, while the other half of our nation thinks guns protect themselves; also for sport, and are only dangerous when put into the wrong hands.In the Bill of Rights, the US 2nd Amendment, permits a US citizens to own a firearm for their protection.

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.

The first amendment gives United States Citizens the right to protest and the freedom of speech. In Recent events a NFL football player uses the first amendment to speak up against police brutality that is happening in our “beloved” nation. Even though we have the first amendment, president Trump had no problem saying “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now!” (Li) however, Trump did not criticize the white supremacist in Charlottesville. It is shown that white people are able to protest with little worry compared to black people protesting.

In our everyday lives, the 1st amendment -freedom of speech- is a fundamental right. Free speech gives us the power to express solely who we are, and it protects individuals from losing this right. Nonetheless, free speech can be limited under some circumstances. For instance, free speech can be limited at schools if the speech impacts students to learn in a safe environment. During World War II, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which made it a crime for any person to convey a message which interfered with the war effort. In the case of Schenck vs U.S., Schenck had lost his case because his 1st amendment didn’t protect him from using obstructive speech. Despite this limitation, free speech has its positive consequences. It encourages the flow of new ideas among people and can better represent groups with similar and differing opinions and beliefs in our society. Therefore, for a school to serve the community effectively, the 1st amendment is significantly more crucial and should be a limitation on government power.