The Instigator
magi800
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
G131994
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life.

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 6 votes the winner is...
G131994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 31671
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

magi800

Pro

500 Characters, this time for certain.
First round is for acceptance, no arguments, after that, argue all you want.
G131994

Con

The second amendment is applicable to modern life.
Debate Round No. 1
magi800

Pro

TY for accepting my challenge.

The second amendment was written during the post-revolutionary period when there was a lot of instability in America, it was refering to bearing arms against Native Americans, British attackers, corrupted governments, etc. It was a time during which attack was quite common, and weapons were generally necessary.

Today, there is none of that, when homeowners start carrying guns, then criminals start carrying guns. You take away the guns, it is all fine and dandy!
G131994

Con

The second amendment reads ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"". The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes. Yes self-defence is included, but also recreational purposes such as hunting, and target shooting, with over 40 million people participating in such recreational activities in the USA it is highly relevant.
Debate Round No. 2
magi800

Pro

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms.
You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities.
The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks.
Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!
G131994

Con

To bear arms means "" to carry weapons"" you say pointing a gun at a deer is not in fact bearing arms interesting (and wrong). Most club houses are not in fact big enough to store safely and securely all the guns of all there members / visitors it would also be a massive expense. So my argument is valid and you have provided no credible argument to suggest the second amendment is no longer applicable to modern day life.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
Yes we do.....
Lots of them......
I don't trust those Canadians, they are going to sneak over that border.

Ditto for Mormons.
Posted by SeantheScot 4 years ago
SeantheScot
You Americans really .... really don't need guns
Posted by G131994 4 years ago
G131994
That was not in my argument my argument was simply recreational use.
Posted by magi800 4 years ago
magi800
Wait, don't give me that whole, "We deserve the right to murder people in order to protect our property," thing, because it is immoral and incorrect, and the whole gun sports thing, is frivolous, and yes, you could have your gun kept secure. YOu don't need to have it at home to succeed in modern life.
Posted by rcnoe71 4 years ago
rcnoe71
"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..." -- George Mason
Posted by G131994 4 years ago
G131994
Was worried for a bit there :)
Posted by samurai 4 years ago
samurai
sorry meant to say pro
Posted by samurai 4 years ago
samurai
con those are awful reasons.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
magi800G131994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con schooled you! ha!
Vote Placed by po.osullivan 4 years ago
po.osullivan
magi800G131994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
magi800G131994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Short debate that had nothing to do with the militia portion of the 2nd amendment, only the right to bear arms. PRO makes interesting points, but in the end I found CON to be more convincing. To keep arms in a clubhouse is still "keeping arms", and CON pointed out how impractical this would be compared to full private ownership.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
magi800G131994Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It doesn't matter whether the people NEED the right to Bear Arms or not, the Constitution says the right shall not be infringed. Secondly, these rights must be kept open and unimpaired because some day we may in fact need the right to bear arms on a large scale. Also, some people do feel the need to bear arms for purposes such as self defense. Pro's case is completely refuted.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
magi800G131994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Why didn't Con attack Pro's a that criminals only carry guns because homeowners have guns? When a debate is so brief, such nonsense ought to be obvious. Nonetheless, Pro did not meet the burden of proof to show that the concept of self-defense is outdated.
Vote Placed by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
magi800G131994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that the right to bear arms includes carrying them when, hunting, when you have need for self-defense, and when you use them for target practice.