The Instigator
Mojothesly
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should The 2nd Amendment be Removed or Altered for the Modern Era?

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: 11/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 64366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Mojothesly

Con

I will begin the argument stating that I believe the 2nd Amendment should remain a permanent fixture within the United State Constitution. my reasoning being that I do believe our forefathers intended us to keep ourselves armed in order to ensure that the United States Government be forced to abide by the Constitution and ensure they protect and observe our civil liberties as proclaimed through the Bill of Rights. I believe that a government who is aware that its people are armed and willing to fight are much less likely to infringe upon the people's rights, and are ever cautious as to our liberty.
It would also only be a logical argument that a foreign nation would dissuaded from invading the United States if it was aware that a majority of it's civilian population was armed and willing to fight off aggressors, the United States may not always have the world's most powerful military, but by ensuring that citizens (Law Abiding, Legally Sane Citizens) are allowed to arm themselves, it seems like a valid argument to say that we help defend this country from foreign invasion.
My third argument is for personal safety, it seems unfair to bar Americans who are law abiding and have proven no cause to suspect insanity or mental instability from owning weapons to use in their own self defense. I think a separate argument could be started on supporting legalization of handguns in cities with strict gun control and coincidently high homicide and violent crime rates, (Such as Chicago, D.C, New York).
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Hello and thanks for starting this debate! To begin, I will actually cite the second amendment.
"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."

I would not remove, rather just summarize this text so it is less open to interpretation. As a person who believes in the 2nd amendment, and to someone who appreciates firearms, I also understand that our system is flawed. So many people have weapons who should not have weapons. See this article: http://abcnews.go.com...

It goes in depth with the number of missing firearms. These statistics are inappropriate, and irresponsible. Now a days, any one can just walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm. This gives the good folks with firearms a bad name. The second amendment should look something along the lines of: "Firearm licenses are to be dealt with by the federal government to prevent inappropriate use of firearms. Missing firearms are to be found within 48 hours of going missing, and the firearms dealer will be held responsible (along with the criminal ) for any crimes committed with said firearm". I chose to say the federal government should regulate this, simply because states have a long history of disagreeing over licenses. If we start to hold gun dealers responsible for their mistakes, then less preventable crime will happen. Also, guns don't just go missing.

Thank you, and to reaffirm, I don't want to take weapons away from the appropriate audience, nor do I want to make it harder for the right people to have guns. It's the people who are unfit to own firearms that should not have access.
Debate Round No. 1
Mojothesly

Con

Mojothesly forfeited this round.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Mojothesly

Con

Mojothesly forfeited this round.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Very good analysis. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, they had plans to invade California . But scrapped those plans as unwise because the folks were an armed society. They would be facing a gun from behind every blade of grass.That is a quote from their military.

Personal protection. The police are not first responders. The victim is.An armed victim has a great chance of coming out ahead. An unarmed victim has no chance. Mexico has a very violent society. That could be fixed overnight if the people were allowed to be armed.And that would also stifle a very corrupt government. When the government fears the people. You have freedom. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.

Banning guns is foolish. Banning gun free zones is wise.
No votes have been placed for this debate.