Instigator / Pro
7
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#1558

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be changed

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

OoDart
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Please read the full description before accepting.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads 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, shall not be infringed."

Pro: The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be changed.
Con: The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be changed.

Due to the nature of this debate, there isn't a full-on Burden of Proof for this resolution. It is more of an opinion than a fact.

Debate Format:
Round 1: Pro and con provide their arguments.
Round 2: Pro and con provide their rebuttals.
Round 3: Pro and con provide their concluding statements.

No trolls and no kritiks, please.

Rules:
- Do not forfeit
- Be respectful
- No new arguments in Round 3
- For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate

-->
@DynamicSquid

No problem. Sorry about that. I would recommend glancing over the voting guidelines and CoC. In any case, welcome to Dart!

-->
@blamonkey

Ah okay. Gothca. I'll try not to vote until I have debated 2 times. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

-->
@Christen

Yeah, thanks for catching it. It is 2.

-->
@blamonkey
@DynamicSquid

3?

You mean 2.

Only those with 2 non-forfeited non-troll debates, not 3.

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 4 points awarded to OoDart

>Reason for Decision: "Oh wow, tough decision guys. This was one of the better debates that I have seen. Well done to both of you. But in the end, sadly I would have to go with Dart on this one. He provided much more sources and facts, and organized too. Madman, you actually also did great, but forfeiting a round did you no good. If you were to continue, you might of just won this debate, or at the very least tied it up. Don't get me wrong here, you did fantastic, but Dart just did an overall better job. Thank you to both of you, and I wish you guys the best of luck in the future! Later."

>Reason for Mod Action: Under the voting guidelines, only those with 3, non-forfeited, non-troll debates are eligible to vote. At this time, the user is precluded from voting. I apologize for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************

-->
@Harleygator

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership

states can form militias well regulated means the government runs them end of discussion and that's they wat the supreme court interpreted the constitution till 2008 and that bogus heller travesty

-->
@PaulVerliane

That is simply wrong. A militia is, by definition, an entirely circumstantial and non-codified collection of citizens, so it cannot be claimed that the 2nd Amendment granted the states a right which their citizens could not exercise as individuals. What you also seem to be forgetting is that the 2nd Amendment does not confer privileges, rights, protections et al upon individuals, as such, not does it grant such authority to the state, but instead sets out what the government is not to do, not what its citizens can do.

it should be ablished its obsolete in the most dangerous wat and and all it ever said was states could form militias

-->
@RationalMadman

I forgot to cite my sources for R2. Whoops. Here they are:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

Even though I'm pro-2A, if I had absolute power, I would change it just to correct the bad grammar.
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm aware that this is Kritiking, but even so, it would be nice to apply modern grammar to make it more clear.