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

The Right/Amendment (2nd) to bear arms should be REPEALED

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 58397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




This argument targeted is whether or not the 2nd Amendment, the individual's (civilian, not law officer) right to own & carry arms (guns), should be repealed. This target is NOT; the limitations on the type or arms that are/should be allowed/restricted, limitations on who should/not have that right, or limitations on where/when/how to carry, but the entire right as a whole, however these points may be used to supplement the target issue; repealing (or not) the 2nd Amendment entirely as it pertains to civilians.


Ok, I accept this debate.

Let the arguments begin.

the BOP is to you .
Debate Round No. 1


The Constitution of the United States is a framework for a new, free government that was born of out collaborative minds of free-thinking intellectuals that went to war and separated from a tyrannical, oppressive and overbearing monarchy. The Constitution was to serve as the supreme law of the land, but places the power of government in the possession of the people, and establishes the civilian as being sovereign. To identify, recognize, and highlights the rights that all humans are born with, members of the Philadelphia convention soon after created and then ratified the Bill of Rights consisting of 10 amendments. These were to be considered unalienable and guaranteed personal freedoms, explicit limits of governmental powers, and reservation for states rights. One of these, the 2nd Amendment, is the right and protection to have and carry arms. With the experience, tragedy, and lessons learned from freeing themselves from their previous tyrannical ownership, the framers of these documents sought to codify in their new government that "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". -BoR .

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.


When the 2nd amendment was written, we have to take it into context of why it was written.
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.
Debate Round No. 2


The context of the argument serves to further aid in understanding that is it through, not only the right, but the act of arming one's self and population that serves as that ultimate deterrence/protection to again inviting a tyrannical state. While the American population, in my opinion, has quickly and largely become ignorant to this own history and the lessons derived, many too are oblivious similar present-day international strife that requires such a civil defense and calls for this very right, one that may have prevented such.

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


Are you suggesting that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are in a state of tyranny? (To name a few who do not share the same views on "right to bear arms" as we do.

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.)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 2 years ago
dam, sourcing will be the end of me. I thought I would get away with common-enough references and thorough (enough) explanation. I should have translated URLs to tini-URLs for space that I didn't wanna give up.
Posted by Vere_Mendacium 2 years ago
lol, yes, that was a great argument, especially for playing Devil's advocate. So much so I'm sure you'll score comparable points.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
Hopefully I was at least a little bit convincing. :)
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago
Now I have to thoroughly shower after having debated this :P
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
He still has BOP. He made an affirmative statement that it should NOT be repealed.
Posted by thenewkidd 2 years ago

I, for some reason, saw this debate as someone that wanted the amendment repealed... my bad.

Oh well..

I will do my best to play devil's advocate, but this will be super hard taking a side I absolutely disagree with... well good luck to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: pro was only one to use sources