The Instigator
blackkid
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ebagofgold
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment is Necessitates Firearms Today

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 61497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

blackkid

Pro

R1: Acceptance, Opening Position*
R2: Argumentation
R3: Rebuttal, Argumentation
R4: Rebuttal, Argumentation
R5: Closing Statements, No Rebuttals, Summary of your Argument**

*Opening Position: This is a short explanation as to why people should want to take your view. It is not your main argument but think of it like a thesis statement.

**Summary of your Argument: This is an encompassing view of your argument. Basically if a person didn't want to read the rounds your argument should be clearly stated and easily grasped in this statement. It will make it easier for the readers as it's comprehensive and ignores the verbal jousting.

--------------------

If one accepts this debate they agree to use this rendition of the 2nd 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.",

and while this may be interpreted no other form of this particular passage can be used in this debate.

Opening Statement:

I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect. I affirm that "well regulated" should be interpreted as community oriented and not governmental no different than a neighborhood watch. I affirm that any laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors is an infringement against the Constitution.
ebagofgold

Con

Opening Statement:

I deny that all laws that would detract from the right to protect the sovereignty of the individual and their neighbors necessarily infringe the Constitution. Moreover, the Militia referred to in the 2nd amendment has little to nothing to do with gun laws and regulations today (particularly, from a constitutional analysis).
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Pro

I will proceed to argue on three points as examined in the opening statements.

"I affirm that all citizens, within sound limitations, have the right to bear arms as a means to maintain the peace of the State in case of marshal law or the failure of the State to provide adequate means to protect", expounding upon this first I would like to explain what "Sound Limitation" is. I posit that the term refers to those who are mentally, physically, and emotionally stable as shown through a screening process which is imperative to firearm ownership. The person is also not at risk or in any particularly dangerous circumstances which would necessitate what may be considered "hasty use" of the firearm. With that covered I would like to explain what constitutes maintaining the peace with the use of firearms.

I would posit that maintenance of peace can be argued to the prevention of crime, the education of proper management of weapons, the explicit knowledge that citizens are indeed armed which would deter wrongful acts of violence, and that the knowledge that a neighbor can intercept a problematic situation armed and trained is a boon to society. A properly educated, properly weaponized, properly capable set of persons would know not only how to operate a firearm, how to treat firearm wounds, how to manage and diffuse situations to prevent fired shots, and also how to tell who is and is not armed and what signs to look for in violent individuals. No different than a neighborhood watch these individuals would be able to fundamentally act on their own should the police not be available however it is acknowledged that the official force, if capable to intercede, should be called upon.

Next I would like to define "Well Regulated"; I am arguing that the term refers not only to the proper management firearms and their safety but also the proper management of criminal situations (citizen's arrest) and the laws contained therein as well as proper protocol for confrontation if it needs to come to pass in order to minimize casualties caused by both crime and misunderstandings. Furthermore I would propose that additional boons be granted to those who choose to pursue further training in crisis management and in turn increase the value of the militia. In times of crisis (such as natural disasters) a well-trained force of citizens involves not only a set who can adequately defend themselves but also help one another.

Finally I would insist that any law which would inhibit the right to self-defense through any effective means including weapons threatens the individual. I would insist that the removal of firearms is one such inhibition. I would say that if the government and Constitution are for the people there is no logical way for this to occur without being a direct infringement and threat against the people.
ebagofgold

Con

ebagofgold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ebagofgold

Con

ebagofgold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ebagofgold

Con

ebagofgold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
blackkid

Pro

I wish him well. I am sure he is busy with his studies.
ebagofgold

Con

ebagofgold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by L0ll3risms 2 years ago
L0ll3risms
yes, I see your point about having people already on the spot, but wouldn't it be easier to have more police constantly patrolling, rather than numerous citizen militias? Also, having gov't control over this process would ensure more standardization in terms of training and equipment, rather than the mishmash that would inevitably result from citizen-run initiatives.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
The citizenry volunteer for the position though. Hiring more state-run resources would not solve the problem since state run resources are not necessarily the first responders that citizens can be. The solution offers a means for real-time immediate responses and actual security on the neighborhood level. We've already got part of this in action with general CPR training for the public, etc.
Posted by L0ll3risms 2 years ago
L0ll3risms
quick note, when I look at your arguments, it seems like you are calling for the widespread institution of what are effectively armed security guards/not-police who are not government-regulated. Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to just hire more cops and have them on more patrols?
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Well that is great! Apparently so do I.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I believe the people have a right to be armed.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Awe, the rounds got messed up. Pft.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
blackkidebagofgold
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
blackkidebagofgold
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire case is presented in a single round and comes to nothing more than assertions without warrants or support of any kind. I understand where he might have been going with it, but it's insufficient as an attack on Pro's case, and thus I vote Pro.