The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED
Debate Rounds (3)
Let the arguments begin.
the BOP is to you .
Therefore, as they in their time, and us in our own time have, are, and will continue to learn (or observe, in lieu of learning), a protected and well armed civilian population serves as both the deterrent and last line of defense from both governmental and domestic oppression.
They came from a country that ravaged their homes. They forced them to keep their mouth shut about their government meaning they couldn't actually speak their mind if something bothered them. And of course they could never defend their land because their government wouldn't allow them to own guns.
The reason for the first paragraph is this. the 18th amendment had its trial and failed so we the people recognized this and it was repealed. the 2nd amendment is an old law that is no longer needed.
We now have a strong military and strong law enforcement to protect us and regular citizens don't even need a gun any longer for the reason the 2nd amendment was written.
People seem to want to demonstrate that they have a right to bear arms simply for the ability to carry a weapon in Walmart, McDonalds, or other public establishments though there really isn't a need for them to carry, they just "want to".
In the USA, the death rate calculated by guns is estimated to be about 10 million. Including accidental, Homicide and Suicide.
Repealing the amendment will not eliminate this issue, but it will drastically reduce it.
Comparing the countries that do not allow "the right to bear arms". the death rate via gun is substantially lower for example Canada only has about 3 million deaths by gun and they have no such 2nd amendment rights. They seem to be doing just fine.
The Crime Rate seems to be also effected as crimes committed with guns are substantially lower in Canada than here in the USA.
All in all,
It is an old law and it is time to repeal and revise.
Hypocritically, even while pro-disarmament Americans rant their reasons to repeal, typically supportive of the Democratic party & president Obama (& admin) with his agenda, the president requested/send automatic guns to war torn/battling nations, and not fairly in the interests of humanitarian aid to all, but selectively to groups/nations of geopolitical interests (not saying Bush/GOP didn't): West Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Syrian rebels, SOUTH AMERICA, ect. So, should we wait only till people are lethally oppressed before we restore arms or request international help?
The 18th amendment & it's deletion serves as a prime example of people/gov'ts attempting to use law/force to criminalize a fundamental human right, of a few outlined by the BORs itself. It's failure & costs is likewise the reaction the Red Coats faced when the 'powerful' attempt to oppress a 'powerless' people. Guns, like beer, don't vanish with law, but contrary. Banning guns doesn't stop murder, but only changes the statistics of how. It takes one with a gun to stop another.
If one calculates gun death rates against US, one will both then & now see that it has been the nations/regimes that disarmed their population that led to tyranny, oppression, 'slavery' , and similar bloodshed in the NAME of the law. You use law/military to justify their arming from an enemy, but what happens when the government becomes the enemy, as we see & seen. Louisiana; 'good' cops in bad times
Do you really see a foreseeable future in a citizen uprising militia to over throw a would-be tyrannical government?
Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, and still hasn't had the need for an uprising yet.
Nor Australia founded on January 1, 1901 having much stricter gun than here.
Is it because we are an older country that we have higher risk to becoming "tyrannical"?
While America would be dis-armed, it's military and law enforcement would not. Most anti-gun countries at least understand that the necessity of a well armed militia is required to defend a country.
I believe by repealing the 2nd amendment we can save many lives as it would not eliminate all guns but would drastically reduce the problems associated with guns and become a much more peaceful like our great white neighbors to the north. (White referring to the snow there not the race.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 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:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: pro was only one to use sources
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.