GURA opening: Gura compares the majority and dissenting opinions on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). He stresses the importance of historical context in interpreting the Amendment, and he defends that just because arming the militia was one purpose of the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we can't exercise that right for other purposes. Gura supports this claim saying that the right to bear arms pre-existed the constitution in Britain and that the Framers wanted to immortalize that.

BOGUS answering: Bogus begins to read the 2nd Amendment and ironically praises Gura's achievements in the Heller case. Bogus says, Gura is so good (some students laugh) that he persuaded the Supreme Court to read the 2nd Amendment as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes for their own private use" and "to go to war against the government should it become tyrannical."

Bogus argues that "insurrection"--misused twice by Justice Scalia in the case with no citations--was supposed to mean slave revolts. Bogus continues by narrating how Madison responded to Anti-Federalists George Mason and Patrick Henry when they criticized the Constitution for giving Congress the power to arm and consequently disarm militias. Madison must have been tired by that time in the constitutional debate, says Bogus, so Madison answered by saying that the power to arm militias was concurrent. Bogus adds that Madison only wrote the Amendments because that's what he promised his constituents.

GURA rebutting: Thanking Bogus for his compliments and kind words, Gura steps up for the rebuttal and adds Bogus needs more work on his creative writing (more students laugh). Gura agrees that Madison wrote the Amendments for the people, but it was to secure rights that were not controversial at the time, one of which was the right to bear arms. Gura explains that it was one of the most popular rights demanded by state ratifications.

Gura calls Bogus' point about slaves "random," and moves on to explain that the right to bear arms and the militia are two separate issues. They were proposed separately in Virginia and the one related to militias was voted down. Ignoring Bogus' new definition of insurrection, Gura takes examples from history like the Civil War in 1860's and other Supreme Court rulings where the militia part of the 2nd Amendment was consistently defeated. Gura then points to the changing perspective on the amendment in the 39th Congress, where the focus of the 2nd Amendment shifted to slaves' self-defense because they were being disarmed and having violence perpetrated against them.

Gura ended his speech saying that incorporation of a robust 2nd Amendment is coming.