Hi guys, I'm writing an essay for the NRA and time is in short supply.  It is titles "The Second Amendment and its Significance in American Society."  I was looking for an old thread that had lots of great pro gun/pro Second Amendment arguments but I can't find it.  This is not so I can copy what you post word for word, but to give me some new ideas as to what to write and how to phrase it.  

Please post your best pro 2A arguments here, (i.e. the right of the people as opposed to national guard right)  Make some reference to 2A, not just I own guns b/c I need to defend myself.

Thanks for all your help!

-DevilDog

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Right now? I just tell them to look at France.

The Holocaust

"Because it's my god given right to do so.*"


*- add the word "Motherfucker" in here depending on who you are using the phrase to.

I want to own them.  That's enough.

"What does the 2A have to do with hunting?

"Does free speech require a license?"

My best argument?
How about the 2nd amendment....as it stands?
I shouldnt need to come up with an argument to support a right gauranteed to me by the founders of this nation.

Your looking for a thesis statement?
Here...try this ......

If the RKBA was to be denied, the government effectively is forcing me to exist at a disadvantage.
The supporting argument....only law abiding citizens will comply, therefore existing in a government imposed disadvantage when compared to those who will not comply with law.

The solution...enable society to defend itself against crime.

My best 2nd Amendment arguement is history.

To the people who say that guns in the hands of civilians are dangerous and that only the militrary and polica should have guns, I say that the military and police are the most dangerous organization imaginable to have guns. In the 20th Century 170,000,000 people were disarmed and murdered by their own governments. The United States also disarmed and massacred countless civilians during the 19th century.

To the people who say that civilians armed with rifles and pistols cannot successfully resist the armies of the superpowers I say that it has happened multiple times. The Vietnamese successfully resisted the US military for 10 years, in Afghanistan a bunch of backward goatherders literally repelled an invasion by one of the most powerful nations ever (USSR), in Warsaw Poland a small group of half starved Jews held the German SS at bay until they ran out of ammo.

To the people who say that I am more likely to kill a loved one or myself with a firearm than to stop and attack from a criminal, I say that they are unfamiliar with the truth. Americans use firearms more than 2 million time each year to defend themselves. I have owned firearms for over 12 years now and have never once put a family member or myself in jeapordy.

The second amendement is the security for the bill of rights. Without the second amendment freedom in this nation would completely perish overnight.

Disarmament of civilians always proceedes genocide, and I for one resolved very early never to be a helpless victim. Better to die on your feet than to die begging for mercy.

The Constitution of the U.S. and many States have a "shall not be infringed clause". This has already been infringed upon, by the States and the Feds.

2A is for personal defence, and Security of your State, and the abillity to go to war against a tyrranical oppression by this Nation or another.

The 86 MG law, infringes our right to defend our freedoms from an oppressive tyrrany and the AWB infringes on our abillity to defend our State.

The sporting clause is the most offensive in the face of a free people. The 2A isn't about Sports. One has to ask, Why are they trying so hard to get rid of our 2A right? Is it because they can't get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights, with that looming over them.

www.gunfacts.info

My personal favorite: The 2A is the insurance policy for the other 9.

I ask them for directions to their house

Suddenly they get it.

Quoted: www.gunfacts.info My personal favorite: The 2A is the insurance policy for the other 9.

BOR = 9 promises and 1 guarantee

Quoted: One has to ask, Why are they trying so hard to get rid of our 2A right? Is it because they can't get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights, with that looming over them.

Absolutely.

I'll be very practical.  Other broader reasons abound, but here's my #1

I want to be able to quickly kill dead any criminal motherfucker that comes looking for trouble without having to resort to using a walking cane or rolling pin to do it.  That's my bottom line.

Rephrase that however you wish.

Quoted: "Does free speech require a license?"

+1

Copied my post from this thread, this is effectively a dupe thread:

RKBA and personal defense is a bedrock HUMAN RIGHT, just like freedom of speech or of religion.  An armed population is required to avoid tyranny and genocide.  That right wasn't given to us by the Constitution (and why I avoid using the "2nd Amendment" mantra), it is a natural right of mankind from the Creator.

Lots of good info on this site, and lots of other links as well.

Another good page from that site


This site is an excellent read as well

This page in particular


For reference, this article is a detailed psychological examination of the "gun control" mindset.

Dear Mr. Politician...

Keep it between the Constitutional lines.........OR.......that very Constitution says I'm fully legal to use my lawful firearms to bust you out of town!

Yes, it IS that simple!!!

I cringe a bit when someone questions one of our fundamental freedoms.

You could point out how most crime is committed by the same criminals over and over, when they should have been in prison in the first place.  About 2/3 to 3/4 of murderers already have a criminal record, and about 1/2 are on parole or probation.  It's completely bass-ackwards to punish law abiding citizens by removing their right to defend themselves against these same criminals that they refuse to lock up.  Also, about half of the murder victims also have criminal records.

Go for it:

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

Without the 2nd there is no 1st!

During the time before the ratification of the United States constitution, the writers (our founding fathers) of the original draft of the constitution had to sell the concept of a centralized federal government to the populace.  Remember that originally, the thirteen colonies wanted to remain as separate states which, technically, are autonomous, sovereign entities.  The founding fathers knew that these colonies had to relinquish some of their sovereignty in order to create a federal government.  While the colonies did eventually agree to a federal government, they still retained the distinction as a “state” which, legally, is incorrect.
Anyways, to convince the colonies to adopt a federal government, the founding fathers published a series of articles that are now called the “Federalist Papers”.  You can look these up on the internet.  Federalist paper number 46 (I think) written by Madison, speaks to the second amendment.  Towards the end of this paper he discusses a scenario, in detail how armed citizens, “choosing officers among themselves” will oppose any federal army that may come to subjugate their state to the will of the federal government.  
The founding fathers, counted on ordinary civilians to be able to resist tyranny that may come from the federal government.
Refer also to the United States code, (someone else here will tell you the title number) that dictates all male citizens are in one of two militias, either the organized militia or the unorganized militia, which are the citizens that are able to take up arms against their own federal government, should that government become corrupt and try to impose their will on the individual states.

When arguing against a woman it is easy.  Hold her hand....then squeeze, not so hard as to hurt, but look her in the eye and tighten your grip.  Tell her that it is about 1% of what you are capable of and that you are fully capable of breaking her bones in such a manner.  Ask her where the police are to help her.  Let her know that about 50% of the population is capable of forcing her to be a penis receptacle at any time they choose.  Let her know that she is incapable of defending herself and her children against someone inclined to do her harm.  

My wife was a pacifist until I held her hand.  She wants her own gun now.  She knows how to use each and every one of my guns.  She knows where they are and what ammo to use, she knows to be aware of her surroundings, and she knows that she is willing to pull the trigger if need be, be it man or animal in the defense of herself and our children.

She can also extrapolate from all that to see the big picture, and how we will always be free so long as we have our guns.

Bump for new ideas.

bump

National Militia Standards

Gaurantee Right To Kepp and Bear Arms

A Nation of Cowards

Where is the authority of the militia

Battle of Athens TN

Armed Militia protects New Orleans neighborhoodmost recent example

Quoted: A Nation of Cowards

from the above...

The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people... A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern....The Republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.

Quoted: When arguing against a woman it is easy.  Hold her hand....then squeeze, not so hard as to hurt, but look her in the eye and tighten your grip.  Tell her that it is about 1% of what you are capable of and that you are fully capable of breaking her bones in such a manner.  Ask her where the police are to help her.  Let her know that about 50% of the population is capable of forcing her to be a penis receptacle at any time they choose.  Let her know that she is incapable of defending herself and her children against someone inclined to do her harm.   My wife was a pacifist until I held her hand.  She wants her own gun now.  She knows how to use each and every one of my guns.  She knows where they are and what ammo to use, she knows to be aware of her surroundings, and she knows that she is willing to pull the trigger if need be, be it man or animal in the defense of herself and our children. She can also extrapolate from all that to see the big picture, and how we will always be free so long as we have our guns.

Hey that's pretty creative.

Some though experiments:

One kind of argument against citizens having guns is "what about the chance they will make a mistake with the gun and shoot some innocent person?"

This raises the question: "Who do you want making the mistakes?" The people, or the government? I vote for the people (knowing they/we will inevitably make mistakes). I prefer that the magnitude of mistakes be minimized by dispersing the power as wide as possible. When governments make mistakes with guns (Waco, Ruby Ridge, fill in your favorite abuse) they are usually much bigger mistakes than you or I could make on our own.

By the way, when individual persons make mistakes, they are held to account by the other people in the form of the government. When the government makes the mistakes, in theory the people hold them to account, but good luck suing the government! They grant themselves sovereign immunity and all too often fall into group CYA mode.

Ask anti-gunners why they don't trust you to have guns. When they say you might do something bad with guns, ask them if they would do bad things with guns. They will likely say "Of course not!" to which you reply "Do you think I am not as good as you?"

If you are debating the issue with anyone who is anti-gun, and also a member of a minority group, ask "Since you are against guns, you wouldn't mind if we took them from [their group], would you? If they have even a slight sense of history (e.g., gun control in Europe in the 1930's) they MIGHT be honest enough to say "I know how THAT story is going to end, maybe you are right." Well, maybe not.

The "you don't need that" argument. Well, unless you are buying the gun for  me, I don't have to tell you why I "need" a gun, anymore than I need to tell you why I "need" the particular car I am driving or the house I am living in. This is America, at least for a little while longer. The government has the obligation to tell you why it "needs" to take things away from you or me.

Practical issues: Yes, it CAN happen here. See Katrina, LA Riots post-Rodney King verdict, hurricane Andrew, etc. Yesterday, in Chevy Chase, MD a family was held hostage during a home invasion. Not the crappy part of town, if you don't know.

Just some thoughts.

Great stuff so far.

Also remind them that it's already illegal to kill, maim, rape, coerce, fold, spindle, mutilate, or look funny at someone with, a gun... They're regulated more than anything else out there.

We don't need any more laws. In fact we need many of them repealed.