This is the first oral report I've ever had to do, and I'd like to make sure this is fairly accurate before giving it. I didn't know until now, but a room of people will be witnessing this.
All information came from the internet.
It is limited to 10 minutes, so that's about all I could cover.
Thanks for any help!
Here is the outline.
“The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”,
or at least that’s what it says
A. How would you like to find yourself cowering near a night stand dialing 911 at 3:00am?
B. Without guns, that’s about all you’ll be able to do, and by the time help arrives it will probably be too
C. As a gun collector and second amendment rights activist, I see a ton of misinformation on this
subject. I hope that by speaking to you today that I will spark enough interest in you that you’ll seek and
find the truth for yourself, and stop believing all the media’s lies. There is nothing worse than a
misinformed and lied to voter.
A. First, let’s talk about all of those nasty assault weapon and handgun related murders that you always
1. Only about .5% of homicides involve a gun of any sort, and only .1% to .3% are involve “assault
2. There have been virtually zero reports of an actual assault rifle being used in a crime.
3. You’ve also got to remember here, that these inanimate objects don’t just jump up and kill people and
commit crimes - there is another force involved here.
B. The reality is that people-”criminals” are to blame.
1. Let’s ban Duct Tape! It is involved in an astounding number of murders and kidnappings a year. So
why not Because it is just plain stupid, that’s why, and so is banning any type of gun.
2. Not only is banning guns stupid, ineffective, and wrong - it’s illegal too! Yep, you heard me right, our
second amendment rights guarantee us the right to keep and bare arms, therefore today’s gun legislation
violates our constitutional rights.
3. If you don’t think that’s so bad, what would you think if they started tampering with the first
amendment? We probably wouldn’t even be here as this would be one of those “banned”, or “restricted”
subjects. You could be jailed for saying the wrong thing. It’s just sick, and so is tampering with the second
amendment. Further proof that gun legislation as it is used today is in the meaning of “assault rifle”.
C. What gun control advocates want banned is already banned.
1. Most people think that by banning the evil assault rifle, they will be preventing people from shooting at
a crowd with full auto fire, and we won’t even go into how inaccurate that is. This type of weapon was
banned back in 1989 along with all other full auto guns.
2. The big prerequisite for a gun to meet the requirements to be called an assault rifle is it’s ability to fire
fully automatic. This means that all the semi auto look-alikes that have been dubbed assault rifles that
are no more deadly than grandpa’s deer gun have been given a bad rap for no better reason than media
hype and shock appeal in their war to take our guns.
the three major points I just covered here are just the tip of the iceberg, let me review these points.
A. We now know that what you have learned of this subject from the media is liable to be riddled with
lies and inaccuracies.
1. Guns are not bad objects, however some people are bad (maybe we should deal with that problem
2. We have learned that more laws will be just as ineffective as the old ones as far as deterring crime
goes. It all boils down to dealing with the real problem (criminals), not attacking the seemingly easy
answer. Criminals won’t disarm when the laws make us, after all they’re criminals so breaking one more
law is no problem to them.
B. Sounds like easy pickings for the bad guys to me. Seriously, give this subject a look and give both
sides a good chance, you’ll see where all the credible evidence is.
**While waiting for your handout, I’d like you to think about the fact that when Australia banned guns their
crime rate rose 300% - Just some food for thought.
Any questions? Feel free to check out the arms display - I promise they won’t jump up on their own and
start injuring people.LOL!
Where are you presenting this?
You just may get a question concerning the recent Ninth Circuit decision in which the Ninth Circuit stated that the word "people" in the Second Ammendment does not mean us.
A possible reply might consider the word "people" in the 4th Ammendement, does the protection against unreasonable search and seizure not apply to us?
Break a leg.
I think you may want to go back and check your facts. You say that 0.5% of homicides are committed with a firearm? 1 in 200? That seems too low. Also, when you use words such as "There have been virtually zero reports of an actual assault rifle being used in a crime." The word "virtually" is a tipoff to the audience that you are trying to hide what the actual number is. The actual number is very low, so state it instead.
I'll be doing this at the school's auditorium. There will be the school paper there as well as the local town's paper. The sudden big interest here is that this is the first time since like 68 that a gun has been on the premisis. I'll have 14 guns there, all checked by the local PD to be either missing the bolt ot zip tied. Among those guns will be a couple of AK's, an AR, a few pistols, shotguns - just a good mix.
This is college by the way.
I have a feeling with all the new interest that this will take much longer than 10 minutes.
Getting pretty nervous.
Thanks for the replys. I'll check those facts again, and I've fixed several errors. Remember I rode the short bus! LOL.
Let us know how it goes and don't get bothered by the mean faces you will probably be sure to get.
From many years of public speaking, I suggest a set of notes with a just a minor outline of facts/tone. Then you can quickly find what you want at a glance with being trapped in a big script. Memorize all intended lines so you can focus on the quality of the delivery and work the audience instead of just a recital.
Be prepared to give more facts and quote sources to support your views. Especially when some recall a LA bank robbery a few years ago with FA weapons and body armor.
RS39, thanks for the advice - that's just what I did. This was just the outline. I don't know if real life professional speakers make outlines - but my instructor required it.
All in all it went well. There will be a photo on the cover of the school paper, and somewhere in the town's paper. Hopefully the story will be positive, or atleast neutral.
There were many questions on the topic, and a few of these types "what to do if", "Can I" and so on.
Everything was answered to the best of my ability, and it went great. I only had 2 hardcore anti's, and I knocked them (respectfully) in the dirt real quick. When they would ask a question in a "well this is the way I see it" type manner, I reminded them that the information that they posess on this issue may have come from the media, and could be inaccurate - or a downright lie, then I supplied the real information if I knew it, otherwise I referred them to several areas to get it. They did not like this, and they were especially pissed when the audience clapped.
I convinced the local paper to run an ad in their paper copied from a website ( www.citizensofamerica.org/print.htm ). They will run one of these compleetly separately from my little section, but close to it.
BTW, the LA thing did come up, and I reminded them that they were criminals and would have had those guns wether we (the people) were disarmed or not.
I'm not usually the soapbox, or public speaker type - but I can't wait to infect my next crowd with the truth. The audience was more receptive than I expected, it was pretty cool. Do you think that this is a sign of hope that we can turn this mess around? I hope so.
Thanks for the support and replys!
I did a speach sorta like that a while back in my Junior year of high school. It went over pretty well, especially when I broke from the standard 2nd Amendment bit that seems to turn people off pretty quick. I guess it just has too much of a "because they said so!" feel to it to win people over, instead real facts are alot better. As far as winning people over, it's surprising what a good argument can do, even for people who are otherwise ignorant of an issue. I remember winning a class debate on the topic of an international ban on land mines-and I was on the side saying they shouldn't be banned. That's not an easy thing to do.
this sucks, everyone gets good class debates but me. last 2 years i was in a block class (eng+hist, 2 classes combined, wall open for 1 big room). they got into gay arguements like the whig party was/was not for conservation rather than we won/lost vietnam and stuff like that.
Congratulations! I was waiting to see how it went for you.