Instigator / Con

Should we change the second amendment?


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Pro

1. No forfeit
2. No insult
3. Underline your thesis in round 1

My opponent will be arguing that we should and I will be arguing against it.
Good Luck and Have Fun!

Round 1
Hi! Sorry for the late response. I usually don't have tat ch time to write a response quickly. Thank you for your patience! Here goes nothing!

1. Guns are the most direct way of empowering the individual/minority to become protected against the group/majority.

By extending one's potential to harm, others while experiencing the uncontrollable hostility towards the "the different people" (people who are not stereotype/the same in accordance to the majority) during personal/national hardship, due to the human psychological structure and its tendency of blaming the outsiders when facing an undesirable outcome [1](Go to the section where it talks about Self-Serving Biases), will think twice before engaging in violent action against those blamed "different people" for the believed cause of these hardship.

Some examples includes the Nazi gun ban for Jewish people and the 1992 LA riot.
Some sources have indicated that the lack of firearms had been an factor of the weak Jewish resistance against Hitler's famous holocaust in Poland and Germany.
Videos have also shown that firearms have been a used as a major protection of the Korean's property from the LA riot.

(You could indeed argue that the effect of guns is at best questionable during these incident and there is no proof of anything. So I am not going to cite these articles as they are not my main grounds for the argument.)

But the verification that solidify my argument comes from a old article I came to find while browsing for evidence that guns offer protection. Quoting from NBER Working Paper No. 8926 Issued in May 2002: "35 percent of respondents 'strongly agreed' and 39 percent 'agreed' that 'one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot" (Cook 6). Even though, shorty after the argument was presented in the article, it provided the other side of argument showing that guns could well be considered as a "attraction" for criminals due to its value and weight, it is not being supported with clear evidence of to what degree it will affect criminal actions. Comparing with the pro gun side, it just generally offers more convincing argument with data drawn out straight from burglars.

2. Changing the one amendment of the Constitution will allow other modification to it, which may restrict our rights and liberty.

(There is no way of proving or disproving this argument so I am just gonna brush through it. My main argument is around my first point)

I don't really have time or the effort to find and prove with a reliable source that US may fail in to a tyrannical state and the previous 2nd amendment change will allow the dictator to alter the document again for his own personal benefit. 

But any way here is a example of this domino effect in ancient China during Emperor Taizong of Tang's reign.

Basically the story is that because the Emperor got the throne through a rebellion against his father, to be justified of his action, he broke the rule that emperor cannot look at recording of himself and order the history rewritten in his favor. This caused a huge chain effect, resulting in latter historians to be dealing with identification of all these recordings of history whether true or false and trying to pick out the propaganda part and find real history. 

I will make my rebuttal about gun violence and correlation it has with guns restriction latter, as I know my opponent will probably make that argument, but I am too tire to finish it round 1.

Thank you for reading through my argument, I look forward to your response!! (I am writing this at 12:18 AM, basically have my head sticking to the keyboard trying to finish it! Rip me.)

I will just make a speech this Round. In the next Round I'll use sources etc.


The second Amendment is actually a call for terrorist arms against the State. There is no single sane way to interpret the Amendment as anything other than either corrupt, traitorous Mercenaries that want to terrorize the country, or 'freedom fighters' with some ethical zeal to find fault with the government that feel they cannot use words and media to expose the state and legally prosecute the corrupt within it.

While the pacifist approach can't always necessarily 'free' a people against a fully corrupt state, the point is that if/when the Federal Government is ever so powerful and tyrannical that people can't even talk and expose it, it most certainly will be at a stage where it can brainwash enough people to hate the freedom fighters and will militaristically annihilate these fools with semi-automatics, with literal bombs, grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, bioweapons and much else. The government is no joke, it will not 'fight' you unless it absolutely has to. It mostly will outplay you by media control, meaning everyone hates you and thinks the government is good or is too terrified to say otherwise, so that everyone is peer pressured to snitch on the freedom fighters and even actively pursue and hurt them.

The only example of the second Amendment ever actually being used was when racist slaveowners wanted a racist apartheid confederacy to become independent of the US (not that Lincoln was an angel, at all). The problem here was that it just perfectly highlighted how you can't win a war against the US government, even less today than then, because of how they gain intel, use media and make you the villain in the eyes of even those who love you. 

The sole practical application of the second Amendment in this day and age is about something entirely different to it; defending oneself against rogue (or organised by non-governmental) criminal agents. This has become the sole reason it is brought up in conversation. People do not want to literally shoot the government (if they do, they are terrorists and keep their mouths shut as possible), they want to shoot people invading their homes, running gangs in their neighbourhood or whatever. Due to police incompetence in the US, it seems they struggle to do something that all other well-developed and 'civilised' nations have done; control guns. Every single other nation than the US that is considered a well-developed nation has been able to do this thing that the US says is impossible; take guns out of the hands of criminals. Only in the US do you hear the biggest nonsense ever; that only criminals have guns if you control them. Using sting operations, surveillance and much else that the US already is fully capable of (NSA is the most sophisticated spy agency and data harvesting centre on the entire planet), it would be extremely feasible for the US to rid its people of guns. You see, the irony is that even though the sole reason people say they want guns is to defend against criminals, they actually then will call their government tyrannical for spying on them and ensuring the guns get out of the hands of criminals if/when they try their best to. 

So the US government has a nation full of sheep that ironically are so enslaved to its agenda that they'd sooner let criminals be armed and ready to hurt them without any legal provocation, than have the democratically elected government have the major advantage (which is has, regardless, just with more brainwashing and bloodshed required when the civil war does ensue).

Round 2
OK, I will first summarize your speech and write rebuttals accordingly.

Pro Argument 1: If there is ever a tyrannical government in the US, whether we allow civilian firearms will be relatively irrelevant to overthrowing the government.
Pro Argument 2: The Second Amendment let criminals to be more easily armed, thus allowing unnecessary violence. 

If there is any miscommunication of your argument, please correct me.

I will assume that you agree that fire arms provide protection rather than harm for the individual owning it, as you have not made any rebuttal in your speech.

Rebuttal to Argument 1:
While it is true the fact that the second amendment will have only a very slight, if any, contribution to the revolution, it connect with a lot more than just guns. It is a representation of our natural right as human beings! Allowing even the slightest modification to it may very well start a domino effect that challenge and undermine the liberty and freedom our founding fathers fought for.

Examples include but not limited to: ancient China during Emperor Taizong of Tang's reign on the subject of recordings of history, Hitler's more and more demands of lands, and every single absolute monarchy on the subject of serfdom and taxation. All of which ended in unnecessary damage to the development of humanity, due to the lack of limitation of the previously mentioned people or government which is provided by the United States' Constitutional Amendments.

Quoting from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Rebuttal to Argument 2: 
While it is true that the Second Amendment do allow criminals to get their hands on them more easily, the degree of its effect is at best questionable.

Some studies show that most of the violence committed by guns are mostly illegally obtained and its use highly relating to gun violence, hinting that the ban won't necessarily reduce guns and gun violence.

Example included but not limited to: the Drug war (which only resulted in drugs to be more expensive and lack quality), the alcohol prohibition (also resulted in similar ways like the drug war, making alcohol more expensive, more strong, and lack quality).

As I am writing this at night, I will not have the time to provide sources now.

I will add the sources through this google docs page later on Saturday and Sunday:

Thank you for your response! Really thought provoking point about the media manipulation! Look forward to next round! :)

Pro-Gun-Rights reason to change the Second Amendment.

There is no single sane way to interpret the Amendment as anything other than either corrupt, traitorous Mercenaries that want to terrorize the country, or 'freedom fighters' with some ethical zeal to find fault with the government that feel they cannot use words and media to expose the state and legally prosecute the corrupt within it.
- Pro, Round 1 (R1).

Con's reply to this is simply to skirt the issue at hand. You see, the problem with Con's entire case from the pro-gun-rights angle is that it forgets that defending against criminals who invade one's house, school or wherever, is actually not at all covered by the Second Amendment in its current wording. The only Constitutional reason why you're actually legally allowed to own guns in some US States is that the gun is supposed to be used by a well-regulated militia that wants to fight the State's government, army etc. An anarchic, united militia to tear apart the government is the only use of weapons that falls under the 2nd Amendment as it's currently written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unless people literally interpret this to mean the army and police, it would follow that the only alternative would be a terrorist or Mercenary militia. Thus, from a pro-gun-rights perspective, there's no logical reason left to not support changing the Second Amendment to be much more clear about why average citizens should have guns to defend their homes, schools and such.


Pro-Gun-Control Reasons to change the Second Amendment

Due to police incompetence in the US, it seems they struggle to do something that all other well-developed and 'civilised' nations have done; control guns. Every single other nation than the US that is considered a well-developed nation has been able to do this thing that the US says is impossible; take guns out of the hands of criminals. 
- Pro, R1.

The nations to truly showcase just how attainable a goal this is are UK, Norway, Japan, Australia, South Korea and Germany (NZ too now).

Japan, which has strict laws for obtaining firearms, seldom has more than 10 shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test.
Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation at a hospital, as well as a background check, in which the government digs into any criminal records or ties and interviews friends and family members.

Finally, they can buy only shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and must retake the class and the initial exam every three years.


The UK's approach combines elements from Norway, Australia, and Japan's policies.
Around when Australia adopted its gun regulations, UK Parliament passed legislation banning private ownership of handguns in Britain and banned semiautomatic and pump-action firearms throughout the UK. It also required shotgun owners to register their weapons.

$200 million buyback program led to the government's purchase of 162,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition from citizens. estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people.
The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.
- Weller, C. and Luce, I. (2019). Democratic candidate Beto O'Rourke says 'hell yes' he will forcefully take back assault weapons from Americans — here are 5 countries that have taken radical steps to eliminate firearm deaths. [online] Business Insider. Available at: [Accessed 25 Oct. 2019].

All the nations are covered by this brilliant source's article but be sure to know it is not just one, biased source.

See these:


^ This source also looks into other developed nations, focusing on Canada, Switzerland and of course Japan, to highlight how ridiculous it is that the US can't keep up with nations that are basically equally developed to it in all other categories.

South Korea
^ this also look at other developed nations
^I know, it's also Business Insider but it's an article dedicated to SK alone, in fact they have an article dedicated to each nation that's great with gun control if you would care to Google it.

The rest are covered by a simple Google search, let's get on with debating.

The fact is that only in the US is this utter nonsense of 'oh no, if we take guns away then all the criminals have it and only the law abiding citizens don't!' This stems from a culture that would rather enable mass shooters, be they bullied-in-childhood adults seeking revenge or an angry domestic dispute ending with the family dead... Sometimes with the perpatrator killing themselves afterwards out of guilt and shame. American culture, espeically in Republican-heavy States, see what I just mentioned that as simply a 'necessary evil' and loathes that the government dares take away the weapons that indeed are used in a way that knives aren't, both in terms of how blatantly fast you can kill people with it vs just injure them and the inability of the others around you to fight back and stop the murder.

It's honestly sad, not just ridiculous. They think the police are so incapable of stopping criminals getting guns but then think these same police are capable of inescapable tyranny if the people were ever to lose the guns that they never use to 'fight tyranny' in the first place. Shooting a police officer for arresting you is a crime unless it was in self-defence to the police officer shooting at you first. How often is a 'well-regulated militia' that's fighting tyranny ever seen in the US? Literally the only time it was used was when the slaveowners in the Confederate States wanted to fight to have their own nation where blacks would be kept as pets and slaves serving the Elite white race. What a truly ironic way to use it; being on the side of oppression and tyranny.

Round 3
You have laid down your sword because you know deep down that I am the superior debater on the superior side.
Round 4
I resign the debate as I have broken my own rule. I don’t have time to continue this as it has become increasingly been more of a burden than fun as the rounds advances. Sorry for the time wasted both on waiting the response and the time spend writing it. It has been an interesting experience. Thank you Pro for providing an insightful point of view on the subject and good night.