Instigator / Con
Points: 0

Should we change the second amendment?


The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Required rating
Contender / Pro
Points: 3
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.
U.S. Code § 2384.Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code
prev | next
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
U.S. Code
prev | next
§ 2381. Treason
§ 2382. Misprision of treason
§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386. Registration of certain organizations
§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
§ 2389. Recruiting for service against United States
§ 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
[§ 2391. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330004(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2142]
n 1987, fourteen white supremacists were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against a seditious conspiracy between July 1983 and March 1985. Some alleged conspirators were serving time for overt acts, such as the crimes committed by The Order. Others such as Louis Beam and Richard Butler were charged for their speech seen as spurring on the overt acts by the others. In April 1988, a federal jury in Arkansas acquitted all the accused of charges of seditious conspiracy.[51]
On 1 October 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[52]
Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[53] after writing a letter[54][55] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU.[56] Charges were dropped in 2006.[57]
On 28 March 2010, nine members of the Hutaree militia were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[58] In August, 2012, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed all serious charges against the remaining defendants, including sedition, and rebuked prosecutors for bringing the case. One man, Jacob Ward, was found not competent to stand trial. Three of the men, Joshua John Clough, David Brian Stone Sr., the leader of the group, and his son Joshua Stone, pleaded guilty to weapons charges.[59]
In 1981, Oscar López Rivera, a Puerto Rican Nationalist and Vietnam war veteran, was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and various other offenses.[example needed] He was among the 16 Puerto Rican nationalists offered conditional clemency by U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1999, but he rejected the offer.[48] His sister, Zenaida López, said he refused the offer because on parole, he would be in "prison outside prison".[citation needed] The clemency agreement required him to renounce the use of terrorism, including use or advocacy of the use of violence, to achieve their aim of independence for Puerto Rico.[49] Congressman Pedro Pierluisi has stated that "the primary reason that López Rivera did not accept the clemency offer extended to him in 1999 was because it had not also been extended to certain fellow [Puerto Rico independence movement] prisoners, including Mr. Torres".[50] (Torres was subsequently released from prison in July 2010.)
There was, however, a brief attempt to use the sedition laws[which?] against protesters of the Vietnam War. On 17 October 1967, two demonstrators, including then Marin County resident Al Wasserman, while engaged in a "sit-in" at the Army Induction Center in Oakland, California, were arrested and charged with sedition by deputy US. Marshal Richard St. Germain. U.S. Attorney Cecil Poole changed the charge to trespassing. Poole said, "three guys (according to Mr. Wasserman there were only 2) reaching up and touching the leg of an inductee, and that's conspiracy to commit sedition? That's ridiculous!" The inductees were in the process of physically stepping on the demonstrators as they attempted to enter the building, and the demonstrators were trying to protect themselves from the inductees' feet. Attorney Poole later added, "We'll decide what to prosecute, not marshals."[47]
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act"—beginning in 1949—and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States, that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961,[citation needed] the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
President John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798, which set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after Jefferson's election to the Presidency;[46] Jefferson pardoned those still serving sentences, and fines were repaid by the government. This law was never appealed to the United States Supreme Court (which had not yet established its right to invalidate laws passed by Congress) but opponents claimed it was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Political cartoon by Art Young, The Masses, 1917.
In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army or navy with an intent to disrupt its operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended by the Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the Government of the United States. These laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1919 decisions Schenck v. United States (concerning distribution of flyers urging men to resist the draft) and Abrams v. United States (concerning leaflets urging cessation of weapons production). Schenck led to the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" explanation of the limits of free speech. The laws were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.
it is outdated it needs to be abolished
--> @RationalMadman
I have made a typo in round 2 that may cause some confusion. I meant to write “gang violence” rather than “gun violence” in my second rebuttal. I didn’t realize my mistake at the time as I was writing round 2 at 10:00pm and can’t really focus. Sorry.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
They conceded.
I believe we do need to change the second amendment. I want a Harrier jet with heat-seeking missiles!
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
"I resign the debate as I have broken my own rule"
this was stated by Con and seems to be a concession.