The Instigator
cjmousseau
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Farooq
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

2nd amendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,037 times Debate No: 1663
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

cjmousseau

Pro

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms 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. if you look under the term infringe or Infringement it states go against rules and laws if you look under the constitution the second amendment it is in the bill of rights under our constitution it states shall not be infringed.

now if we had to look at the revolutionary war we had the Militia and to day we still have the militia if you were called up by you mayor or congressman or even a mayor after a major storm you and your neighbors will be a militia now during WWII law abiding citizens voluntereed on the home front to defend our boarders and also in europe in WWII Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners New research into Adolf Hitler`s use of firearm registration lists to confiscate guns and then execute their owners teaches a forceful lesson. It is a lesson that reveals why the American people and Congress have rejected registering honest firearms owners.

It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people.

I am writing a book on Nazi policies and practices that sought to repress civilian gun ownership and eradicate gun owners in Germany and occupied Europe. The following sampling of my findings should give pause to the suggestion that Draconian punishment of citizens for keeping firearms is necessarily a social good.

The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany`s Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 9, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces `Disarming` of Jews," explaining:

"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been `disarmed` with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."1
On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately. . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire. . . The F�hrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."2

All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away.

Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.

Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung �ber Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").5 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation.

The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and Hitler`s message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank assaults compose the grand finale.

France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Mus�e de l`Ordre de la Lib&�ration). A photograph of the poster is reproduced here, including a translation.

There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind:

Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?19

The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA`s firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."20 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression.

Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide.

Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world`s most insidious tyrannies.
Farooq

Con

Considering the illogical premises of your position, I congratulate you your exceptional organisation and research into the matter.

Most of your debate is based upon the historical circumstance in which gun control was used as a tool in lessening resistance to the NSDAP dictatorship in Germany. No doubt this establishment knew that having firearms in the hands of people that may resist their rule was not a good thing, and acted likewise to preserve their rule over the people.

However this was not the only way that NSDAP controlled the lives of their people. Somehow I am inclined to believe strong military, thorough censorship, suppression of opposition, and leadership popularity played more significant roles in asserting NSDAP control of Germany than controlling the civilian possession of firearms.

Consider also the numerous other nations of the world that currently also severely restrict the civilian possession of firearms, specifically handguns and assault rifles such as Sweden or even the Federal German Republic. Just because on particular instance a governmental function is abused does not mean it is inherently bad. Are we to say that Goebells's usage of the airwaves is a reason to ban public radio? BBC shows no signs whatsoever of intense racial persecution. In fact the US is one of the few developed countries in which people believe it is for some reason a right of their right along with free religion and speech, to carry around expensive combat weapons without governmental restriction.

Why is this? The reason for the 2nd Amendment is rooted deep in history and at the time was based on logic and national survival. Keep in mind that America's founding fathers were banding together to rebel against London but after they had achieved victory they did not have really much of a standing army. In days when America was weak and with enemies of strength (namely Britain), her states divided and volatile (hence Civil War later down the line), Natives often clashing with Appalachian settlers, and virtually no constabulary to keep the peace. As governments go, it was rather small (public employees measured in hundreds, rather than millions). No doubt it was feared that due to the current volatile political state of America at the time it was feared that gun-control would be abused.

" Bearing Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" goes the Constitution of the United States. Key word being "militia". How else was a poor nation able to arm it inhabitants for a time of war or unrest than, in a way, privatise the military? But in today's America, which has a stable political climate, a strong military, and effective police force, should not this historical law be replaced by ones more appropriate to the times?
Debate Round No. 1
cjmousseau

Pro

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment guarantees: "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."

This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.

James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...."

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." http://www.usdoj.gov...

The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."

Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.

thanks
charles h mousseau jr
NRA member
Farooq

Con

Your presentation was highly eloquent and seeping with appropriate references, though I must concur that your argumentation has failed to address several of my key points and is rather redundant to what you stated in your opening statements, but I shall do my best to rebut your assertions.

"The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government"- You

Yes you have stated this before, that gun control is a way for tyrants to take too much control through force of their armies and constabularies and the citizens would have no defence against it. I have already showed you though that this is not a logical statement, for democratic tradition and economic stability are the main factors in this and other countries that do not share the USA values when relating to civilian armaments (such as pretty much every country in Western Europe) but there is another major logical fallacy in this argument. That is, if you believe the United States vulnerable enough to political destabilization, consider this: If the possibility of armed resistance could happen against dictators, could it not just as easily happen against democratically elected ones as well? Consider your nation's civil war in which the Federal Army was barely able to keep down the rebellions due to (partially) the wide ranging circulation of firearms and easy ability to form a militia resulted in rather negative effects for the country as a whole. Perhaps the notion of centralizing armouries in the control of government is not a bad idea after all. Than again, you point out that this too can be abused (such as in NSDAP's case) so it is logical to conclude that rather than putting your total faith in one particular gun-rights ideology it would be better to examine the political situation of the time and make restrictions or liberties accordingly. To do that though, it would have to be removed (or de facto ignored) from the constitution of the United States and made a legal decision for the current legislation.

Farooq Jahan,
Proud Citizen of a Country without Gun Rights or Tyrannical Aspirations
Debate Round No. 2
cjmousseau

Pro

Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense

"Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws.

Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers.

In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'"

Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

if we had to look over history like the revolutionary war to the war on terror. duing the revolutionary war men fought the red coats and if that read coat came near a mans house in the 13 collines he would have said i am going to get out my kentucky long rifle and i am going to shoot the SOB that comes near me or my family. now on the war on terror lets say we have a domestic terrorist group comming to break into your house you would say i am going to lock and load with my riot control shotgun and my M4A2 and my colt451911. i have a right to defend my self it staes it in the second ammedment it states 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. now in that right to bear arms it staes for the people to keep and bear arms. and it also states shall not be infringed and infringe states to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another and i am protecting my freedom. if you are a politician a member of the military or the president of the united states you are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

thanks
charles h mousseau jr
NRA Member
Farooq

Con

"There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them" stated Inspector-General Shlomo Aharonisk in regards to Israel's gun control policy. And who cannot look at the facts and assume a similar position on the subject of gun control? Why would any society with an adequately supplied army and constabulary ever notion that disarming the people would not lead to the lessening of power of non-governmental forces? In countries like British North America or British India Gandhi and Jefferson shunned the idea of depriving their citizens of firearms, but you must come to realise that these were the very sorts of people who wanted to cause political destability, which was certainly the moral high ground in Gandhi's time, but considering that the United States is democratic, stable, and has the principles of liberty ingrained deep in tradition and law, should this historical solution originally designed by rebels and criminals (Founding Fathers) be reconsidered?

I am by no means suggesting that the wide circulation of firearms is going become an asset in mass political destablizartion and revolution (though it has happened in American history, most notably 1960). You state that guns are needed to preserve the liberty of the people, but one must also conclude from history that it hasn't even helped father the cause of liberty, for it proved inadequate in the various slave rebellions that lit up America. Yet the sad fact remains that gun-related violent crime at the hands of mobsters and street gangs is rampant in many major American cities. Critics point out that gun control doesn't work and point to examples like Glasgow where knife-crime is rampant. Yet the liberal production of assault rifles, handguns, and other hobby guns seethes across the United States, and cities like New York that have issued restriction polices have only yielded benefits, such as a slight decline in violent. The problem created in United States even travels north across the border where Canadian officials are powerless to stop the flow of legally produced armanments that often find their way into the hands of Torontonian or Vancouverite gangs and tarnishes American image as a people of hapless rednecks that can't even control military supplies.

Again in your rebuttal you visit another moot issue that you believe to be truth merely because it was written in a several hundred-year old document, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…" is no longer valid because the United States has evolved past its stage as wayside colony scared of being gobbled up its former mistress or raided from the West by Aboriginal raids. Now she is a nation among nations, a superpower more committed to the cause of democracy than most others, stable, and protected by a regular army (not had in Jefferson's day) and elite constabulary that makes criminals both home and abroad scared to attain America's wrath, but on occasion using one the very constitutional principles of arms-bearing to blacken the efforts of American law enforcement.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
In my honest opinion, Pro did a pretty poor job in this debate.

Did anyone else notice that his main point was "It's in the constitution, therefore it is right?"
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
"In addition to the variety of errors of fact you've got going for you, you're plagiarizing wholesale the writings of Stephen P. Halbrook."

Someone else noticed!
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
I was considering posting something along these lines and look forward to debating you CJ. This should be interesting.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
cjmousseau -

In addition to the variety of errors of fact you've got going for you, you're plagiarizing wholesale the writings of Stephen P. Halbrook.
Posted by TheLetterK 9 years ago
TheLetterK
I don't know many people who are "against" the second amendment. I think you're arguing interpretations here.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
cjmousseauFarooqTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03