Should We Take The Second Amendment Away?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Closing arguments
Im against the idea, im looking for a strongly liberal opponent with the interest of taking gun rights away, and is extremely passionate about it, Cite your sources, and give free opinions. comment if you are open to debate!
Many liberals say that the AR carbine is the exception to one of our rights, They say that the 2nd amendment is outdated and unneeded. They say that when they put the 2nd amendment for hunting, and that it should be used as a militia because yes, indeed it does say " to keep a regulated militia" I believe myself, the citizens need to bear arms, such as the AR-15, and the AK-47, because if the government were to in fact turn into a tyrannical government, then we would have no way to stop that, or rise up.
If you've ever actually owned and shot an AR-15, or AK-47, you would know that it is semi-automatic. You cant sit there and squeeze the trigger and blow off a whole magazine. And you cant put a gun to your own head, or maybe even someone else's (not even touching the trigger) and it go off, guns dont have a brain, it does not feel, it does not act unless acted upon. So why are we trying to take them away when really the only thing we need is to change the way that mentally ill people can get a weapon, without making it a hassle to buy a gun, and not be in the government data base that you have it.
So tell me, why would you want one of your unalienable rights taken away?
You begin by stating that the founding fathers were creating the constitution to be perfect for our country's future. The Bill of Rights was not even an idea for the first government neither for the initial Constitution. It was forced by the states that demanded it. That said, what is contained is still important, but it is still not infallible and should be up to our discretion still. It always has been. We have amended the Constitution seventeen times since its birth (not counting the Bill of Rights of course) and obviously we needed it. The Second Amendment is one that had become outdated.
I know you addressed that "liberal" point of view that I just mentioned. As you can suspect, I have never shot or owned a gun ever. What you apparently think about the liberal opinion is that we don't desire the Second Amendment for our safety, while you want to keep it so you can have a militia and arms for emergencies. Let me ask you this: if you're planning prematurely on possibly having a war against the government and you think you need arms and militia for it, why do you need that same government that you are fighting to guarantee you the right to bear arms?
You state that the real problem comes from having people whose intents are malevolent, not from guns. That is true. But, let me tell you--how do you plan on getting rid of all those issues that can stop someone from wanting to kill another person? As far as I know, that's impossible. There are any number of reasons that homicide would occur, and to eliminate those would be great, but hypothetical at best.
One problem with your viewpoint is that you call it an "unalienable right," but why is that so? If you follow the documents that found our nation, why must you honour the Second Amendment on a greater level? I hardly think that the writers of our Constitution believed that it would be proper for a person to hoard tanks and missiles and even biological weapons; but, if you insist on following what it says, how could you honestly and whole-heartedly admit the possession and use of any "arms?" All the extreme weapons I described above would follow under that extremely loose definition. Is the preservation of the Constitution that valuable? Why must it be preserved at all? Our world has undoubtedly changed; they didn't know that the future would hold such destructive arms.
If I want to give up a right, I will have good reason, and I do. Maybe I can't trust our government, but it's better to have a proper constitution that we amend to be current than to not even try at all. What I really can't trust is that people won't abuse the power and get ahold of weapons of mass destruction that they are defended for by the Second Amendment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: He's right.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.