Instigator / Pro

1500

rating

debates

36.36%

won

Topic

#4912

all gun control is unconstitutional

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Mr.Chaser

Tags

Politics

Gun control

Parameters

Publication date: 08.30.2023 08:32PM
Last updated date: 09.18.2023 02:35AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Mr.Chaser

1500

rating

debates

83.33%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Redpilled

08.30.2023 09:01PM

Pro

According to the Constitution of the United States, it is unlawful for the government to prevent the formation of "a well regulated (functioning) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (nation) and the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (freely carry) arms (weapons)"

Notice how to document doesn't specify what kind of arms. Sure they didn't have missiles back in the day, but they did have warships, which were powerful war machines, capable of leveling entire cities in hours, and they could be owned and commanded by a single man. Tanks and other modern tech is really no different to the warships of the day. I still think we should ban them as there are too many crazy people in our world today, but due to the limitless implications of the sentence, there must be a constitutional amendment stating banned weapons or weapon types.

Another reason for requiring an amendment, besides the fact that the foundation of our nation and very being demands it, is that it is harder to do than passing a regular law. A law only requires 51% of both houses and the approval of the president. AN amendment however, requires 2/3 of both houses of congress, or 2/3 of states to agree by either 3/4 of both state houses, or 2/3 of both state houses and the governor's approval. As you can see, it is very difficult to pass an amendment. This is by design because the fathers didn't want the document changed unless it was really necessary, in the case being discussed, it is. So if it's really as important as everyone says (which again I believe it is, but let's follow the rules here) then lets create an amendment, which will pass with ease.

Why have the politicians not already done this? well it all started in early America, where the first gun laws were passed to prevent blacks from owning guns. Every politician agreed to the law, and in addition blacks were not considered citizens, so the bill of rights didn't apply to them. So fast foward to 1934 when machine guns were banned, the politicians looked back on our history and saw that our ancestors had come inches within crossing the line, so they decided to pass it, perhaps not even realizing they had done so.

Finally lets clear up why the 2nd amendment was written. The amendment was written not because the citizens wanted to hun or target practice, but rather because they had just defeated a tyrannical government, and wanted to give their descendants the same power. Obviously the times have changed, the fathers couldn't have possibly predicted the combination of crazy people and technology we have today which is why they allowed the document to be amended. The reason the second amendment was written is also the reason we need access to all the weapons the militarily has (so we can fight them when they inevitably turn sour) but times have changed and so long as most of the citizens rather than just half, agree with giving up some of their liberties in exchange for public safety, than lets do it. But so far every gun law on the books has only had to been agreed to by half the population, and that's not fair to the other half and it isn't the way the fathers intended it.

Mr.Chaser

09.02.2023 07:53PM

Con

SECOND AMENDMENT

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country

My two cents

I believe that Americans deserve the right to own weapons, we are a country that from the start was protected by its citizens. There needs to be a line between owning guns to protect us and owning military weapons though.

INTRO

Now your argument revolved around all military weapons falling under this second amendment, granting us the right to own any military weapons. Apart from this being an endangerment to our society this mindset is also completely false.

America then

We must keep in mind that this amendment was created in 1791. At this time America had a total of just under 4 million citizens. The most commonly used gun was also a flintlock musket capable of shooting only 4 bullets a minute by a professional. At this time the so called warships were still using cannons, which were difficult to aim and and could fire no further than 2 miles. These are not even comparable to the powerful weapons of today.

America now

The United States now has a population nearing 400 million, or 96 per mile compared to the 3.5 of 1791. Now let’s take a look at what our modern weapons are capable of, tanks nowadays are nearly completely bulletproof and would require antitank weapons to disarm. Local police would be useless against an organized group of tanks, and with our higher population could easily kill thousands before they can stop them.

Why was the constitution made?

Now I want to go back to the reason why we made the constitution. Which was due to the United States having near zero military and of just defeated the British thanks to a bunch of farmers. The United States decided to allow all citizens to own guns in order to protect the country without a military.

Is the government allowed to restrict weapons ?

Yes, they can. This is because the amendments can be modified by congress, which it was. “The Supreme Court ruled in 1876 that the Second Amendment only applies to limit the federal government. This means, according to second amendment law, that the rights that are granted by the Second Amendment can be limited by state governments” Now this passing allowed states to regulate which guns they choose to allow under the second amendment, so it should be no surprise that missiles and tanks didn’t make the cut.

Conclusion

Today in America we have one of the strongest militaries in the world having no need for an army of citizens. Although we should still own guns in order to protect the country there is no purpose for owning military war weapons which do nothing but put citizens in danger.

The fact is that the government can and will continue to restrict guns in order to ensure citizens safety.

Round 2

Redpilled

09.02.2023 08:32PM

Pro

The 2nd amendment was created in order to prevent the need for a military.

We know this not to be true because when the country was first founded, the Articles of confederation were put into place. The articles had no second amendment and also gave the federal government no authority to raise a military. Then Shay's rebellion happened so Congress was like " okay guys these articles aren't working out, we just had a rebellion that almost took over an entire city and we couldn't put it down because we have no military, what do we do?" So then they decided to create a military, but some members of Congress were scared that the military would be used to enforce the will of the government onto the people, just like Britain's had. In response to this fear, they created the bill of rights, which let the government know what it could not do to the people. The second amendment was included in case the government decided to ignore the other nine, so the people could fight them and be like "we want our right back" just like what had happened with the British. As you can see, the federal government created an army before they created the second amendment, essentially voiding your argument.

Citizens owning modern military weapons is a threat to society

I completely agree. However 99% of gun control has been created by laws. Laws which are unconstitutional according to the shall not be infringed part. I agree we need to ban missiles, but we need to do it in a democratic way that follow the processes that our founding fathers put in place. We need to amend the second amendment so that it states citizens can own certain types of small arms, rather than everything under the sun.

Is the government allowed to restrict weapons?

Yes, but as you stated they may only do so through a constitutional amendment, which has not been done. Rather the government continues to pass laws like the national firearms act or the national assault weapons ban, which are contradictory to the Constitution. The supreme court ruling you have stated is correct. States do have the power to regulate weapons within their own boarders. However, missiles and tanks are not banned by the states, they were banned by the arms export control act which is a federal act and therefor unconstitutional.

Conclusion
The second amendment was not written only to put citizens up against foreign countries, but rather to protect the people from all threats foreign and domestic (specifically a tyrannical government). It has been agreed upon by the countries best lawyers, judges, and historians that the second amendment was written for this reason. Unfortunately, while the concept is more relevant than ever, the wording is now outdated and must be updated the proper way ie a constitutional amendment, not more laws and acts.

Cons arguments are historically incorrect and based in poor context of the laws and the weight of a law vs an amendment. He states that military weapons ar not covered under the second amendment but they are. We must fix this by passing an amendment to ensure the safety of the general public while also being able to bite back when the government comes for our liberty, which they have already started to do.

Mr.Chaser

09.04.2023 02:35AM

Con

INTRO
Pros only true point in this recent argument has been that tanks and missiles were not banned by the states. Pro claims that tanks were banned by the Arms Export Control Act which is false. We will now discuss how this is a complete and utter lie.

What is the Arms Export Control Act?

The Arms Export Control Act authorizes the President to control the import and export of defence articles and services. This was put into place to ensure that the countries the United States sells weapons to uses them for strictly self defence purposes. In order to not escalate conflict between countries.

Weapon legality

During my research I actually discovered that owning a tank is completely legal in America. To my knowledge the Arms Export Control Act has little to no effect on the importing of tanks to America as it mostly applies to exporting tanks to other countries. Even if this law limits tanks being imported to America there are many tanks available for purchase in America.

Where they can be driven is limited along with needing a Destructive Device Permit in order to own one. The only cases in which tanks are banned is once again in the state level which is in line with the constitution.

In fact you can also purchase missiles, bombs, grenades, and even land mines. On the federal level the only gun restrictions are who can own guns (felons), and requiring extensive background checks and in some cases permits for certain weapon’s. Both of these are once again completely constitutional.

Why the government can deny people access to guns

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Those that the government Denys guns to are criminals of certain crimes who are allowed to be denied guns thanks to the “due process of the law”. In which the government is allowed to exempt felons of certain constitutional and human rights.

Conclusion

Pro chose to focus on discrediting me in his second argument. and I will admit to being wrong in some historical accuracy. Though his only real point in this argument was that tanks were banned under the Arms Export Control Act, making it a federal level law. This is false as tanks are not banned from being owned at all, only limited. I also have showed that all federal gun restrictions are constitutional as well as the state laws. So as of now, the gun restrictions the United States has in place are in-fact inline with the 2nd amendment.

Thank you to pro for debating me on this topic as I enjoyed it, and I hope that this debate encourages Pro to look further into our countries gun laws.

Trent0405

09.16.2023 01:34AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

In my opinion, most of this debate was not germane to the subject of discussion. Instead of arguing the legality of restricting guns, most of it seemed to be oriented around two main points:
1. The purpose of the Second Amendment
2. The practicality of removing all forms of gun control.
I feel like one of the debaters could have tried to make the first point relevant by reconciling the wording of the Second Amendment with its original intentions, but neither debater accomplished this, in my opinion.

As for the meat of the debate, Con effectively referenced an 1876 court ruling which clearly empowers state governments to impose restrictions on different types of arms. In his response, Pro effectively concedes the debate when he admits that the states are empowered to pass gun control. In admitting this, I, as the voter, can only side with Con. The statement "all gun control is unconstitutional" is simply not true when one observes the power of individual states to pass gun control legislation, as Con argued. Pro attempted to respond to this point, but it kind of confused me. He insists that "they [the government] may only do so [legally pass gun control] through a constitutional amendment, which has not been done," even though Con clearly outlined how the Supreme Court gave an interpretation of the constitution which empowered the states to pass gun control. I feel like a prompt along the lines of "all federal gun control measures are unconstitutional" would be a more interesting subject for a future debate.