The Instigator
ASB
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Dmetal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Scalia was right in Massacring the Second Amendment. Changes to the Second Amendment are needed.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 14690
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

ASB

Con

I know that this is old news, but I’m sure that people still remember the Supreme Court hearing of this one security guard who had his handgun sitting on a nightstand for protection and got arrested for violating the Second Amendment. In fact, he claimed that he had his rights violated and the case eventually found itself in the Supreme Court. If anyone knows Supreme Court jurisdiction, only cases that involve the Constitution or is considered to be related to the Constitution can be heard in this court.




1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

As passed by the Congress:

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org...




2) Scalia


Scalia won the majority vote by this being his main argument:
Scalia disregarded the Second Amendment. Scalia said that since it was an old English right for men in those times to bear arms and use guns for self-defense. So the framers of the Constitution would have surely ratified for this to be the law if this case was addressed.

(Justice Stevens notes in his dissent, the “Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage” to include the civilian, individual use of arms, for hunting or self-defense.) http://www.progressive.org...

This really had been noted by Justice Stevens in this Supreme Court hearing.

Now that Scalia held the majority vote, probably all cases in the future ran by inferior courts will vote in precedence to this decision.



Antonin Scalia, quote: “The Constitution that I interpret is not living, but dead.” Close quote. Explain that one.
http://hotair.com...




3) So what is This Debate About?

So to get to the main idea, is it right for people to bear arms? There will probably never be another state owned militia, so there will be no sense in keeping the militia well regulated, so there is no point to bear arms.

My points are in affirmative to the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution should be taken literally the way it is written.

There are those who interpret the Constitution the way it is written (direct). Then, there are those who interpret the Constitution the way they think that the framers of the Constitution intended for the law to be (inferred).

Scalia is one of those Justices that infer the Constitution. To take this debate, one would probably be on the side of Scalia, or they may give a different reason on how or why to bypass the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Or one could try to convince the readers of this debate on why the Second Amendment should be revised entirely to meet the needs of the people.


Dmetal

Pro

The main problem I have here is that you create a false dichotomy: direct vs inferred interpretations. The Constitution has always been controversial. There is no way to interpret this thing "directly," or objectively. We have to think about why was it written; that creates context, so that we can understand the document. We also impose our own values and assumptions, many times subconsciously, onto this document. For example, in 1776, not all humans were equal. That was not a prevalent value at the time. Equality, or equal vote, equal opportunity, among humans is unquestionable today. It is a value that we impose on that document; it cannot be found "directly" in the Constitution. If it could be, then women would have gotten the vote much earlier, and slaves would have been freed much sooner. The Constitution has always been insatiably debated, even when it was written. The Constitutions says different things to different people, even though the words on it are the same. That fact does no matter because words do not have meaning. Words do not have meaning. Words do not have meaning, again because this is important. This is why no one can interpret the Constitution "directly" or objectively. We impose meaning on to words through sociological interactions. Those interactions are never the same from generation to generation. That's why words change meaning, and that is why people have different interpretations of the same document. Why do you think there are so may different denominations of Christians? They all read the same book but come to very different conclusions. The same phenomena is occurring with the Constitution.
Debate Round No. 1
ASB

Con


I only have a problem with the false interpretation on the Second Amendment. If I see problems regarding the rest of the Constitution I will address it.
1) Words Don’t Have Meaning:
“We also impose our own values and assumptions, many times subconsciously, onto this document.”
“This is why no one can interpret the Constitution ‘directly’ or objectively.”
“We impose meaning on to words through sociological interactions. Those interactions are never the same from generation to generation.”

So I guess these words do not have meaning.


2) I Have A Hard Time Reading My Opponents Arguments: Anyway on to my main argument
- My opponent never addresses the Second Amendment.
- He thinks that equality has something to do with the Second Amendment.
- It is hard to guess where my opponent sits with the Second Amendment.
- My opponent assumes that since a couple of Amendments to the Constitution needed to be changed due to generations changing that this condition follows suit all of the Amendments.
Some Amendments need to be kept the way it was written. For some Amendments, the way the law was written, is the way the law was intended. When the framers drew up the Constitution, they did not argue about using guns for self-protection. When the framers drew up the Constitution they had plenty of time to talk amongst their selves about the right to bear arms. Since there is no militia, there is no right to bear arms.
- We impose our own values and assumptions onto the Constitution. This is why nobody can interpret the Constitution directly.
Maybe if people stopped assuming the Second Amendment should change due to the times, there would be a direct interpretation to the Second Amendment.
Does my opponent suppose that we should hold arms for self-protection? Even when in the Constitution it does not say anything about using arms for self-protection.
Dmetal

Pro

Dmetal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ASB

Con

My opponent never addresses the second amendment.
Dmetal

Pro

Dmetal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ASB

Con

ASB forfeited this round.
Dmetal

Pro

Dmetal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ASBDmetalTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for Con.