The Instigator
syndicate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Read the Constitution

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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 38465
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

syndicate

Con

In the Bill of Rights (The first 10 amendments to the constitution for those that don't know), The second amendment to the constitution is 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." For any stupid people out there, this is basically saying that the right to carry a gun or a weapon is unable to be infringed. This will probably never change, since you need 75% of the house and senate vote to amend the constitution, and it must pass through the supreme court, and be approved by the president of the United states. Also, if there would come a time where the constitution gets amended, how many criminals do you people think would freely give up their guns? Criminals will not follow the law. That is why they are called criminals. Also, for you liberals out there who want guns banned, have you experienced the real world? The amount of murders are extremely small in the crime pool and less than 40% of crimes occur with a gun. If you are still foggy after this post, then please go to your room and rethink your life
imabench

Pro

I accepted this debate because it took me all of ten seconds to figure out that con here is a complete idiot.

So lets get right into it.

"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." For any stupid people out there, this is basically saying that the right to carry a gun or a weapon is unable to be infringed"

I hate to break it to you skippy, but a well regulated militia is NOT necessary to the security of the state, especially the United States.... This isnt the 1700's where wars were fought with muskets and bayonets, technology has advanced so far that nations as massive as the United States can protect themselves 100 times over from outside threats with absolutely no need for militias at all.

The second amendment is flat out wrong in claiming that a militia is needed for the security of the state.... The US has been the military superpower of the world for 60 years now, and militias havent been relevant since the Civil War years





"This will probably never change, since you need 75% of the house and senate vote to amend the constitution, and it must pass through the supreme court, and be approved by the president of the United states"

LOL.... You idiot you dont need to amend the Constitution to pass gun control laws, there are close to 300 gun control laws already on the books:
http://cnsnews.com...

All of these laws directly curtail or limit the regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns, and none of them went through all the hurdles you imagine that gun control laws have to go through. Firearm registrations, assault weapon bans, handgun bans, magazine capacity limits, and restrictions on conceal-carry and open-carry laws all currently exist from state to state despite your beloved Second Amendment...... Why is this? Because the Second amendment, like any other amendment, isn't immune to alterations..... The Constitution and all of its amendments are open to interpretation which allows for things like speech and right to own a gun to be curtailed even though they are still 'protected'.....

So gun control isnt banned due to the second amendment. There are hundreds of gun control laws on the books, Amendments arent infallible and are open to interpretation, and most people even agree that there should be limitations to owning guns, such as background checks or limits to which types of guns should be owned.
Debate Round No. 1
syndicate

Con

syndicate forfeited this round.
imabench

Pro

Seriously?
Debate Round No. 2
syndicate

Con

syndicate forfeited this round.
imabench

Pro

fantastic -___-
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
What's your resolution, exactly?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
syndicateimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF... and I refuse to read into this to understand what con was spewing.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
syndicateimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF