The Instigator
MattHarrison
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kona22
Con (against)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,771 times Debate No: 31790
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MattHarrison

Pro

Round 1: agreement
Round 2: opening statement
Round 3: rebuttal
Round 4: rebuttal/closing statement

I read your comment on Gun/bullying control and thought this would be a fun debate. No sources necessary but fact checking is ok. Leave any questions in your opening statement and I will answer them in the comment section.
kona22

Con

A lot of people make the argument that guns have been a part of our countrys history for hundreds of years, and so we should continue to own as many and any type of guns we like, often saying it is our constitutional right due to the second amendment. But the Constitution was written in a very different time, when guns didn't have nearly the capacity to kill as they do now. Many aspects of our country have changed in the several hundred years since the constitution was written, and it does not make any sense to hold on to such an archaic version of a law that protects such advanced machines that can kill so easily. I do not think we should take away guns completely or abolish the second amendment, but i do believe we should regulate them with stricter laws and monitor them more carefully.
Debate Round No. 1
MattHarrison

Pro

Thank you con for accepting this debate. The 2nd amendment has been interpreted in many different ways, such as the right to bear arms for state militias in case of another war. In this case, the 2nd amendment would be outdated and irrelevant to our society in which we have a national military. Others, like my opponent, believe that the framers of the constitution wrote this amendment so the people could protect themselves, however, they were not aware of the advances in technology that guns would take in the future. These interpretations are wrong.

The second amendment was written for protection against two things, a tyrannous government, and anyone who imposes harm on a citizen, or their property. It simply comes down to this, I have the right to protect myself, and the government does not have the right to say by what means you can protect yourself.

In Nazi Germany, 1938, gun-control acts were passed giving the government full control over what guns a citizen could and could not own. The same law also banned all Jews from owning guns. Over the next decade, Nazi Germany rounded up, and slaughtered 6 million defenseless people. Because the government could control what guns you can and can not own, and who can't own firearms, citizens were left unprotected from the mad tyrant's, or Adolf Hitler's wrath.

Recently, Syria has enforced strict gun laws on their own people. As a result of these gun bans, the government has been able to easily capture and kill their own helpless citizens.

If our government was some how to become tyrannous, or we were taken over by another country. We should be able to protect our well being, and our rights as an American citizen.
kona22

Con

In your previous statement, pro, you made the point that we should be able to protect ourselves against a tyrannous government, as those in places such as Nazi Germany and Syria have not been able to. And I do agree that we should be able to protect ourselves, but in the places you mentioned, they had never started out with many of the rights and the democracy as we have here in the United States. Comparing our democratic government to the oppressive ones in Germany and Syria is unrealistic. The idea of events such as those in other countries with hardly any freedom happening here is very unlikely. Since it is so unlikely, we have to ask ourselves if all of the school shootings, senseless acts of violence and random fatalities are worth keeping guns so unregulated. And again, I didn't say that guns should be taken away from those people of sound mind, I only believe that they should be more carefully monitored to make sure they don't fall into the hands of those who seek to impose useless and, at many times, deadly harm.
Debate Round No. 2
MattHarrison

Pro

My opponent, in his last argument, stated,"I only believe that they should be more carefully monitored." The truth is, President Clinton signed a bill still in effect today mandating mental health evaluations before any citizen is to purchase a firearm. However, only 12 states enforce this law. The issues not passing legislation, the issue is enforcing legislation.

I would also like to point out the fact that our government could become corrupt, or that there is a possibility we could be taken over by another country. These things are not far out of reach, and guns would be necessary for defending ourselves in these cases.

Lastly, the government has no right to say by what means we may protect ourselves. Every American citizen has the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves,this we can both agree on. However, if I feel that a semi-automatic gun is necessary to protect myself, the government has no business to tell me I must protect myself by some other means.
kona22

Con

In his last argument,pro stated that the government has no right to dictate by what means we can protect ourselves. Even though we do have the right to protect ourselves with firearms, this right also makes very easy for insane people to cause needless violence. And the reason the government wishes to regulate high capacity guns is to limit this violence, not to harbor your rights. And the government is not forcing us to protect ourselves by some other means, they are only suggesting that the only way to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands is to watch them more closely.

Pro also stated that the problem is not legislation, but enforcing legislation. I would like to point put that the only reason people are struggling to enforce legislation is because they are blindly protecting a right that also enables those of unsound mind to acquire machines that can easily kill. Pro stses that the problem is enforcing the legislation, not the legislation itself, but seems to have a problem with government passing legislation that regulates guns.

In my last argument, I stated that guns should be more closely regulated. By that I meant two things. One, that the only way to keep guns out of the hands of those of unsound mind is to monitor them more carefully. Two, I was mainly referring to high capacity guns. On the topic, I beleive that high capacity guns are unnesscecary and overly harmful. There is no need to shoot an attacker dozens of times when one shot will effectively disable him. And, these high-capacity guns can fall into the hands of the insane, enabling them to cause many fatalities.
Debate Round No. 3
MattHarrison

Pro

In conclusion of a good debate:
1. My opponent has failed to contest the reason the 2nd amendment was written. If our American government becomes corrupt, or we are invaded by a foreign country, high-capacity guns are necessary to defend ourselves from the enemy. Examples of this can be found in Germany in the 1930's, or, more recently, Syria. These countries both restricted their citizen's freedom to buy any firearm they choose. As a result, both of these tyrannous governments were able to slaughter their own people.
2. My opponent has also failed to realize that it is an American citizen's right to choose how they can protect themselves. By restricting the ability to purchase any gun an American citizen chooses, the government is eliminating the right all American citizens have to decide for themselves what methods of protection suit them individually.
3. Lastly, I would like to clear an issue up. I am for the legislation passed by President Clinton that mandates mental health evaluations before an American citizen can legally purchase a firearm. If this was enforced by every state in the country, we would have less issues with gun violence. Mandating mental health evaluations is not restricting a citizen's rights.

I thank con for cooperating with the rules and for accepting this debate.
kona22

Con

kona22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.