The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not be changed
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
Con loses conduct point for forfeited round then trying to justify it with "I said what had to be said."
Con argues that "The second Amendment is actually a call for terrorist arms against the State."
If this is true, why haven't terrorists taken up arms against the State yet, even though the Second Amendment has existed for at least 200 years now?
Con argues that "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".
It's going to be extremely difficult for the government to do that since we also have the First Amendment, which protects peoples' right to free speech, and allows them to criticize the government and un-brainwash those people by giving them the real truth.
Con argues that "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."
This is an exaggeration. There are many places that "take guns out of the hands of criminals" and still have mass shootings, like the one back in March 15 2019 in New Zealand Christ Church. Not only that, but Con needs to be careful of Survivorship Bias, which is, in this case, when you focus only on places that banned guns and were successful, while ignoring the places that banned guns and were not successful in having less crime. There is more to crime than just guns alone, and Con is ignoring that.
Con argues that "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."
If that's true, why haven't we done that already? Why haven't we already used "sting operations, surveillance and much else" to get rid of the bad guys' guns in high-crime areas like Chicago?
Con argues that "defending against criminals who invade one's house, school or wherever, is actually not at all covered by the Second Amendment".
Yes it is. The Second Amendment refers to the "security of a free state," which means the security of a free state from people like criminals and tyrannical governors. A militia "is composed of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." http://archive.ph/eW2Z4
Finally, to answer Con's question about "How often is a 'well-regulated militia' that's fighting tyranny ever seen in the US?" It's not about how "often" we fight tyranny. It's about being able to protect ourselves in case of tyranny. It's like a vaccine. It protects you from pathogens in case you get infected in the future. The same thing goes for a well-regulated militia. We don't care about how "often" it's ever seen. We care about making sure it never happens, and making sure we have a chance to fight back.
No problem. Sorry about that. I would recommend glancing over the voting guidelines and CoC. In any case, welcome to Dart!
Ah okay. Gothca. I'll try not to vote until I have debated 2 times. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
Yeah, thanks for catching it. It is 2.
3?
You mean 2.
Only those with 2 non-forfeited non-troll debates, not 3.
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
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
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
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.