".. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the 2nd Amendment of the United States says. Being an American citizen, you have the right to vote, speak freely, and the right to bear arms. Banning guns would go in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves. If we are banning guns just because they are dangerous if they are not handled properly, knives can be dangerous so will we take away knives next? How far will we go?
It seems the first round is designated for acceptance and openings.
I accept, and shall be arguing that guns should be banned in the United States. It seems that this shall partially be a constitutional law debate, since con has stated that a firearm ban would negate the individual’s right to bear arms.
I will argue that the 2nd amendment does not permit the individual to bear arms, and this is clear from a linguistic, and historical analysis of the amendment.
However, the mere unconstitutionality of the right to bear arms does not entail that arms should be banned. Therefore, I shall also argue that the permissibility of firearms does profoundly more harm than good, and should consequently be banned.
This being said, I pass it back over to con, and l look forward to an interesting debate.
I thank my contender for providing me with an interesting point. My second point will be centered on the fact that guns do not kill people, people kill people. While guns can fall into the hands of a person who wants to inflict harm, guns can also fall into the hands of a family man that just wants to use his right to protect his family. Statistics show that a gun is used for self-protection 80 times more than they are used to take a life. The FBI's statistics show that concealed gun carry laws reduced crime rates. Like I stated above, guns do not kill people, people kill people. It is proved again and again that if guns land in the right hands, crime rates dip rapidly. I would again like to thank my contender for accepting my challenge.
1. The right to bear arms only applies to non-individuals. It has a history of applying to soldering. Within the context of American history, the phrase is derived from Josiah Martin, who states, :"...who shall join His MAJESTY’S Forces and bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province...". Furthermore, "A well regulated militia" is the first clause of the amendment, indicating this group is of concern. A militia is not an individual, and an individual is not a militia. If we mean militia to mean the following, which appears to be the context in revolutionary times, "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency", then there can be no doubt that the right to bear arms doesn't apply to the individual.
2. The US is disproportionately harmed by gun violence. "Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK." Also, the social cost is enormous.
Before I continue to my next point, I would like to respond to the above point. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution states directly,"... the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms..." The PEOPLE's right to bear arms. I would like to hear my contender's response to that fact that crime rates are significantly lower in states where you are allowed to carry a gun than states you are not. It is the right of the people, if they see fit, to protect and defend themselves from intruders with a firearm. In the UK, firearm possession is illegal even though their violent crime rate is rising. In 2014, the FBI reported the lowest crime rate in decades (that was WITH guns being legal!) The reason 10 percent of all murders in the UK used a gun is guns are illegal there. If you look at the overall murder rate between the United Kingdom and the United States, there are over 1,500 more murders in the UK out of 10,000 than the US' statistics. Please explain these facts.