The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 32449
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Here are the rules for the debate.
1)Forfeit a round, forfeit the debate.
2)Swear and you forfeit the debate.
3)Name-calling and you forfeit the debate.
4)Break any of the stipulations to be mentioned after, and you forfeit the debate
5)Burden of Proof(BoP) is shared.

Round 1-Acceptance only.
Round 2-Debate
Round 3-Debate
Round 4-Debate
Round 5-Conclusion. Keep under 1000 characters and no new points



Okay, let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


The resolution before us is "The Second Amendment should be defended and enforced"

Definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and
Defend (ed)-"to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism"
Enforce (d)-"to carry out effectively"
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."

Here are my main two contentions
1) it is our authority.
2) It maintains and protects our freedom.

Contention 1-It is our authority.
The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which, according to the University of Missouri-Kansas City, was ratified by the required number of states specified in the Constitution. It part of the fabric of this country. Now, let us look at this with the definition of defend. Defend does not mean defend some of it. It means all of it. In order to defend the WHOLE second amendment, you must look at the last phrase of the amendment. It says "shall not be infringed." This means that no law may be passed coming anywhere close to this right. Just to make it clear, let us look at the definition of "infringed."
It means "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." The second part is already known, so let’s look at the first part. “To encroach upon” is clearly showing that you cannot come anywhere close to this right. So, we must defend it and enforce it because it is our law.

Contention 2- It maintains and protects our freedom.

The first contention was the law argument. This is the common sense argument. Let’s look at why the second amendment was written. George Washington said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” It was written to help us retain our liberty or freedom.

Another man, George Mason, the co-author of the second amendment said, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” He is trying to show how emphatically saying how important our right is. Following this will be several more quotes from Founding Fathers.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"-Richard Henry Lee

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."- Richard Henry Lee

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."- Alexander Hamilton

Here are some quotes as to what would cause freedom not to be maintained.

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."- Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."- Thomas Jefferson

These quotes illustrate how important the second amendment is to maintaining freedom. So, those who want to maintain freedom and liberty in America. Vote Pro.


1)Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


3)University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School

4)All the aforementioned Founding Fathers.



1. Point taken that it's our authority to enforce and defend it. But that doesn't mean we should.
2. Just because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said it doesn't make it true.

Which leaves it to me to provide an argument that it shouldn't. I will merely remind the reader that the Constitution is not infallible. The Second Amendment was invented in a time when weapons were much less advanced, and the political climate far different--there was a legitimate threat of invasion from England in that era, and we didn't have the same sort of standing army we do now.

No right is absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute--I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, and most would agree that this is a reasonable restriction. The rights in the Constitution are commonly agreed not to be absolute; they can be abridged to protect the public interest (see my previous example). Even the recent Heller decision affirms this[1].

Debate Round No. 2


When you say that it is "our authority" to enforce and defend it, it is our authority, and it is therefore our duty to enforce it.
The definition of duty is "a moral or legal obligation." Something that is our obligation is something we should do. This debunks your rebuttal of my first argument.

You then say that “just because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said it doesn't make it true.”

That is true, but they are the ones who were instrumental in writing the 2nd amendment. So, what better source than them is there when talking about whether or not we should enforce the 2nd amendment?

Now I shall disprove your arguments.

First, you say that the Constitution is not infallible. Of course it isn’t. No book, save one, is completely infallible. But your premise that the 2nd amendment’s purpose was to protect us from an invasion is false. The purpose of the second amendment was to keep us (the people) from being oppressed by a tyrannical government. The founding fathers saw how important the right to bear arms was. It was the very protection of liberty. As David E. Vandercoy of puts it, “Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Anti-federalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.”

Next, you say that no right is absolute. Correct, but the second amendment comes the closest. It says something at the end that no other amendment says. It says “…shall not be infringed.” The definition of infringe (d) is “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress”. The only thing you thing you can TOUCH regarding the 2nd amendment is that you can restrict when a person is mentally incapable of handling his mind and/or physical body. Other than that, according to the Constitution, you cannot do ANYTHING. Just because the Supreme Court says something, does not make it truth. Remember that Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people, but appointed by the President.

In conclusion, you say that “they can be abridged to protect the public interest.” OK, but not enforcing the second amendment it would be a detriment to our liberty and freedom, not something that is good for the public’s interest. Voters, Vote Pro.



1. The Second Amendment could be removed, though. We have no legal obligation not to remove it--the Constitution was deliberately made that way. I also don't see any link between authority and duty, not in the manner which you stated. Why is it made our duty to defend enforce it from it being our authority to do so?
2. Scientists. They would have the necessarily skills and knowledge to assist in determining the effects of enforcing the Second Amendment. A cost-benefit analysis would then be performed to determine whether or not to keep it.

1. Well, gun ownership does not actually appear to be correlated with freedom or democracy[1]. In any event, there are different realities today. In the past you've said that you consider restrictions on things like bazookas to be against the Second Amendment; I take it this is still the case?
2. What about our safety? Would a sufficiently large death toll due to enforcing the Second Amendment be enough to make it not worth defending? If so, what is that death toll?

Tyranny isn't bad because it is tyranny. It's bad because it's harmful to people. If your precaution against tyranny is of minimal effectiveness and causes lots of damage, it may well be advisable to get a different precaution.

Debate Round No. 3


You say that "The Second Amendment could be removed, though." True. The ability for us to vote could also be removed. That does not mean it should be. You say that there is no link between authority and duty. Au contraire, there is a huge link between them. Think of it this way. You are a leader of your community and you have the authority to enforce something that is beneficial to all the people around you. Should you enforce it? OF COURSE YOU SHOULD! The 2nd amendment is the same way. It is very beneficial to all those around. This leads me to your next point about a "cost-benefit analysis." According to a study done by Florida State University, approximately 2.5 million people use a gun in self defense every year. They later go on to state that through many interviews with the users of those weapons that a life is saved every 1.3 minutes by a privately owned firearm. So, if this is not beneficial to the general populous, please tell me something that is. There is your "cost-benefit analysis” for you.

When did I say that things like restrictions on "things like bazookas" would be against the 2nd amendment? Just curious.

As I already pointed out, the private ownership of guns make us safer. Let's look at an example: Chicago. According to, in 1929 the average number of murders per month was 26. There were very few gun laws then. Now the average is 42 per month. That is with the toughest gun laws in the country. This proves that private ownership of guns makes us safer.

So in conclusion, you are right that tyranny isn't bad because it is tyranny. It is bad because it restricts our freedom. That is exactly what repealing the 2nd amendment would do.



1. And did these studies about Chicago compare the area with surrounding areas without gun laws--that is to say, did it use controls? If not, it's useless. Real, controlled studies found that DC's gun laws saved 42 lives a year[1], and that just having a gun in your house makes homicide more likely (by a factor of 2.7)[2]. And the famous Kleck study was contradicted by the NCVS, which had a much larger sample size and thus is more reliable[3]--small sample sizes are vulnerable to extreme overestimations. For instance, a very small percentage of people answering dishonestly in the affirmative would throw off the percentage. Worse, the sampling isn't random in the least (it overrepresent people in the South), it gives single individuals too much weight (since they used households and then applied their findings to individuals), and presented weighted data without explaining their weighting method[4].

2. Round three, debate with wiploc. You argued that the government, under current law, couldn't take away WMDs[5].

Debate Round No. 4


You try to use a study by the New England Journal of Medicine in a gun debate. Why, because you can find no other studies to back up your arguments. You say that unless there are studies done of the areas around Chicago, a study done in Chicago is pointless. No, it is not pointless. The fact is that there are more murders today, with all the gun laws, than in the 1920’s when there were many fewer gun laws AND Prohibition was in place. That is a fact that is indisputable.

Now, please clarify how they know that DC’s gun laws “saved” 42 lives. That is a vague statement that is improvable.

Next, how do people “answer dishonestly” about murders? The studies are not done by asking the people. It is done by getting info from the police department.

Next, you state that having a gun in your home makes homicide more likely by a factor of 2.7. Why? What proof do you have that this is true?

Now, according to World Net Daily, a town that adopted mandatory gun ownership law had its violent crime rate drop in half while its population quadrupled. This is in contrast to Morton Grove, Illinois, which passed a ban on any guns except for police. There population decreased in size, but their violent crime rate increased by 15.7%.

In conclusion, I ask you ask voters to vote for the person who is supporting the side that will help you maintain the freedom you so love. That freedom is the freedom that gives you the right to post things on this site. Without that freedom, all open discussion ends. So voters, vote for freedom, vote for America, VOTE PRO.



Why yes, I’m citing a medical journal on guns. I fail to see any significant problem with this. Of course, it’s undoubtedly true that it’s the kind of thing that we wouldn’t necessarily expect to find in a medical journal. But we have no problem with considering the effects of things like sanitation systems, or air quality, in medical journals. Guns are a thing that affect injury and death rates, therefore they can be subect to similar analysis. If I can quantify the effect of a policy of not leaving standing water around on malaria rates, I can quantify the effect of a handgun ban.

Meanwhile, Pro can't quantify his argument. Without a real study, you can't tell any decrease or increase due to gun control laws from random fluctuations.

Presumably the handgun ban saved those 42 lives a year by preventing around 42 argumenst a year from turning deadly. Most murders aren’t carefully planned assassination attempts, after all. In most the cause is a personal conflict that gets out of hand[1]. Realistically, if someone remotely competent is trying to assassinate you, you’re already pretty much doomed. I mean, how are you going to defend yourself from someone who carefully monitors your daily routine, then rents a nearby apartment or room to use in order to shoot you from a rifle. Not much good a concealed weapon would do against that (and since I’m sure someone will bring up mugging: I’m not going to risk having to kill someone for the fifty dollars or so I’m carrying around).

If collateral damage and capture wasn’t a worry, one could alternatively plant a bomb. Or if one was particularly good with bombs, one could wire a very small explosive that would destroy the brakes as the car was reaching a certain speed.

The Kleck study actually was done by surveying individuals; I would suggest that you read more about its methods.

I did cite a source.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to refute cons contention that the second amendment is not absolute (even I, a pro gun enthusiast, would agree with that). Pro was unable to provide any proof for his assertions. Con backed up his opinions with credible references and simply cleaned the floor on this issue. Pro was unable to prow guns were essential to freedom, also. Con wins easily.