The Instigator
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Gun Ban in the District of Columbia

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: 3/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,819 times Debate No: 3300
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

MoonDragon613

Con

After the debate with the incompetent in :
www.debate.org/debates/Does-the-2nd-ammendment-give-us-the-right-to-own-guns/1/
And in consideration of the recent Supreme Court case, I've posted this debate stating that the Supreme Court should strike down the Gun Ban in the District of Columbia. I'm hoping for someone who actually knows federal law, and who actually has a clue what he/she is talking about when discussing the Constitution.

1. The Second Amendment was created to give individuals the right to own firearms.

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, If America learned anything, it was this. Farmers with guns were what defeated the British Empire. And if they could defeat the British Empire, they could also put a stop to the Central Federal Government if it steps out of line.

The DC ban is not in keeping with the Second Amendment in its broad restriction and should be struck down by the Supreme Court.

2. The law as it is poses a danger to all federal gun restrictions in the future.

The DC law as it is is unique in terms of Federal laws with blanket restrictions. If upheld, then it simply leaves room for a more conservative Supreme Court to strike down, not only the DC law, but all federal laws restricting gun control. The DC law should thus (from the pov of gun control supporters) be struck down in order to protect other Federal gun control laws so should an even more conservative Supreme Court seize control, they would have less controversial laws to work with.
bigbass3000

Pro

"1. The Second Amendment was created to give individuals the right to own firearms.", It was to ban England from taking guns from farmers. The right to bear arms was put into place for farmers as you said. Many of the right in the constitution were going against the times, but times change and if the constitution is the end all be all, than why was it revised to remover slavery and has had 17 amendments to it and had a amendment revoked. So we can revoke a amendment, but we can't revoke the first ten right wrong. there is nothing wrong with the D.C. ban.
2nd, you say it will hurt other gun laws, but if a law is bad, it should be dealt with.
Donna L. Hoyert, PhD, et al., "Deaths: Final Data for 1999," National Vital Statistics Report 49, no. 8 (2001): 68 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Supplementary Homicide Report, 1999. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center.
"A gun is far more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. Using federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1999 in a justifiable homicide, 185 lives were ended in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.", What this proves is that gun bans are not bad, because guns are used illegally, not against british soldiers.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999 [Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence, February, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org... ]
"Gun violence represents a major threat to the health and safety of all Americans. Every day in the United States, 93 people die from gunshot wounds...In addition to the human suffering caused by these injuries and fatalities, gunshot wounds account for approximately $40 billion in medical, public service, and work-loss costs each year.3 In short, gun violence is a significant criminal justice problem and a public health problem.", Guns need to be banned so this cannot happen. Guns cause serious probelms.
Debate Round No. 1
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
bigbass3000

Pro

I do not understand my opponent or my critics. Te supreme court can interp the 2nd as only militia have a right to be armed. Times change, so the law is interpreted by many in funky ways. But I think the supreme court should pass the Gun ban and not invoke the constitution
Debate Round No. 2
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
bigbass3000

Pro

All I have to say is that I have made claims and my opponent has not done anything at all to rebut, so the neg should win. I continued the debate as well, I didn't just give up and yes, I may have my assumptions, but my logic isn't bad. vote neg.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Well, he DID ask for someone who understands the Constitution and the Supreme Court...

Why'd you take it?
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
The Prohibition was revoked by a constitutional Amendment that revoked it.

Yes, you change an Amendment by passing another Amendment. That's one of the methods limiting the power of the Supreme Court. By Amending the constitution in response to a controversial interpretation.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I might miss my guess but I believe a change to an amendment requires a 2/3s majority vote through the house.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
No, they can't, without admitting that it's an amendment to begin with- something they can't interfere with.

"Then if you know SOOO much what can you do to revoke an amendment."

2/3 vote of congress to repeal the amendment.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Then if you know SOOO much what can you do to revoke an amendment.
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Actually they can't. What they COULD do is interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right to States to possess firearms to equip the militia. (You might want to incorporate that in your rebuttal)

What they CANNOT do is revoke an Amendment through interpreting it as "just an old idea".
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Yes and they can interpret what the amendments mean. So they have a right to interpret the 2nd amendment as the right to bear arms is just a old idea, which was done in response to the times at that time. Times change, live with it.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
The supreme court has absolutely NO authority to revoke a constitutional amendment! Retake high school civics, or point out exactly where the constitution gives the authority to the supreme court of revocation of amendments.... The supreme court can help with INTERPRETATION OF LAWS in relation to the constitution, they can NOT create or revoke CONSTITUTIONAL laws. They can, however, revoke a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL- but revoking a constitutional amendment is impossible.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
The supreme court can revoke it, because the supreme court can revoke it to pass the gun ban.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
Right, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand? The debate isn't on whether or not we should revoke the second amendment, the second amendment stands. The supreme court can not get rid of it.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by claytone 9 years ago
claytone
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Creator 9 years ago
Creator
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by independent 9 years ago
independent
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
MoonDragon613bigbass3000Tied
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