The Instigator
TKogon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
n89
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Amending the Bill of Rights

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: 1/24/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 29503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TKogon

Con

You say that amendments are not set in stone, and that is true for most of them. However, the Bill of Rights is a list of RIGHTS. You can't decide that rights are no longer rights. If you want to change the 2nd Amendment, then why not the 1st? Why don't we just get rid of your ability to post anything online. Your argument is that we should change the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter what your reasons are because if you say it's okay to change one of them(for whatever reason), then it will be okay to change any of them...for whatever reason.
n89

Pro

To say amending one thing in the constitution sets a standard to amend anything with ANY reason (even invalid ones) is completely off mark. Does a change in treatment that is NOT working for a specific cancer constitute a change away from treatments that ARE working to alternatives that are not? I want to be clear that I do not we believe we have reached a solution to avoid gun violence just through gun control laws and understand laws of this sort have been ineffective in the past but if we do find the solution and it requires an amended second amendment to be passed are you stating you would oppose it? What about the changes in RIGHTS extended to black citizens and women? If RIGHTS can not change do you think that original rights extended to white males ONLY should have never been extended to others?
It is sad that we now live in a world that creates its own definitions and facts. The word amend itself means to CHANGE for the better, to ALTER by legal procedure or to REMOVE faults or errors. Your argument that my stance is to change the Bill of Rights as a whole, as it stands, is completely off base and has no validity. My argument is simply that AMENDMENTS are changes that WE the people are able to make to OUR constitution. They are NOT set in stone, not one of them. It is unconstitutional to state that we are unable as a people to make changes if need be following the amendment process specified in ARTICLE V of the constitution. Understanding this it is easily understood that your stance that the bill of rights CAN NOT be amended is entirely incorrect. You would be better to say it SHOULD NOT be amended IF it is a change for the worse that will strip the people of their freedom, but what if it is an improvement?
I am a gun owner myself and value the second amendment dearly. I do not believe that by limiting assault weapons you are in any way losing your second amendment right to be armed. You speak as if guns are outlawed completely and that your right has been revoked.
Does he first amendment guarantee us complete FREEDOM of speech and press? No. As Americans we are aware that this right is extended to a certain extent but that extent is not enumerated in the original bill of rights. Why is it limited? For the safety it provides against threats, defamation and slander etc.
Tell me, what do you personally need an assault rifle for, honestly? Does your bolt action rifle not do the trick for hunting? Does your shotgun not take care of home defense? And does your low ammunition clip handgun not suffice for target practice? I am willing to predict that the thought just now crossed your mind is that if there were a need for a revolution we would not be able to arm ourselves to regain freedom, but is that really the case? Wouldn't the armed forces stand to protect us? Would all military dissent? Would you be able to do nothing with the current guns that you have? Remember the rag tag patriots that won our freedom with limited resources and PLEASE have a little faith in the current citizens of the Union democrat, republican or independent.
Debate Round No. 1
TKogon

Con

Couldn't the military make due without assault rifles? Shouldn't they just work on diplomacy? You are willing to send kids to potentially die in the name of protecting freedom, only to have them come home(if they survive) to be told that they can't use anything like hat they have been trained to use for the protection of their own families? What do you need free speech for? We can't say things that are dangerous, it is also illegal to use guns to harm other people. Why do you need to have the internet to share your views? Why do we need television networks? Isn't the government capable enough of telling what we need to know? You're okay with trusting them with your protection, why not give up the rest of your rights? You can already be arrested without charges as a "suspected terrorist." They won't give you a lawyer or a trial. It's all in the name of national security, so it's l right. ...until it affects you, right? Forget about a revolution to stop tyranny. Tyranny is happening already when our RIGHTS are taken away. You need to understand that it is important to have rights, because they are not given to us by government, and we shouldn't be letting them take them away.
n89

Pro

I thank you for your response, although I would like to point out that no questions proposed to you in the previous round were answered. In addition none of the points I made a case for were addressed. I apologize if they were not clearly enough stated. I will attempt to restate my questions simply, in a list form and clarify what you have pinned me with saying and supporting.

Questions
1.) Do you agree or disagree according to the constitution (Article 5) WE are able to amend things, ANYTHING as WE the people see fit?
2.) If the solution to gun violence came in the form of an amendment (not that it necessarily will), you are stating you are 100% closed to that option?
3.) Where in the constitution does it state all amendments are changeable except the first ten?

There were more questions stated in my argument but we will start here.

Clarification
1.) You are making the false assumption that I have already clarified in my first round argument that I wish to strip everyone of all rights such as freedom of speech, press, and right to bear arms. This assumption is wrong and as stated above is NOT my stance. My argument is ONLY that the bill of rights legally CAN be changed if needed. For example if we find a solution to gun violence we CAN make an amendment to improve the current 2nd amendment. We CAN make changes to the bill of rights if NEEDED but SHOULD NOT amend if changes are NOT NEEDED. It is unconstitutional to state we are unable to freely amend as WE see fit.
2.) Soldiers NEED assault weapons in the battle field. That is completely irrelevant to this debate and never once did I state or imply SOLDIERS should be sent into the battle field without assault weapons. If you wish to debate gun control laws more extensively and my personal opinion to that solution, I would be more than happy to debate it in a different debate for that specific subject. For now let's not stray to far from this subject. I apologize I encouraged that straying from the subject.
3.) I believe in the social contract theory upon which this nation is built, but I also believe WE the people still control this republic. WE the people have the power and if any rights are taken away or amendments made it is by OUR own hand.
Debate Round No. 2
TKogon

Con

TKogon forfeited this round.
n89

Pro

n89 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.