look people the Second is being violated. People should have the right to bear arms. if you are attacked a gun would protect you. The criminals that use guns would ignore the law anyway. so take a side with me and say Yes to guns.
"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." -Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Regulation means "To make regular" and Merriam-Webster defines militia as: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
subject to call or the whole body of able bodied male citizens subject to call to military service. I ask pro where is a individual right for guns?
I'm not sure the judges here will take kindly to ad hominem and it is not necessary. To regulate means to make regular or "put into good order" (1) We also see in precedent with the Commerce Clause where regulation means "to make regular" commerce among the several states. (2) I would call upon pro to actually address the argument I made in its entirety with rational response.
individual right to guns comes when people attack you or are trying to inflict harm upon you or others. Pearl harbor could of had Japanese soldiers on american soil killing civilians. I ask you if a man was attacking you're loved ones what would you do? without guns you are able to be attacked. in gun free zones people are killed and police are often too slow to help people under attack. so take a side with me and say YES to guns!
It has been said that the Japanese were afraid to attack the mainland because of weapons concentrated in the hands of citizens. Also some private ownership of firearms for self defense can be justified but you haven't addressed this in terms of the Second Amendment. There is no language in the Second Amendment that clearly defines an individual right to have arms. Having arms for self defense may be a good idea but there is nothing to codify it as an individual right that is inalienable.
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, Pro made an unnecessary ad hominem attack, which Con actually refuted by giving the definition in context of the Constitution. Con proves that there is no protection of individual gun ownership, with no rebuttal or really any arguments made by Pro.
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.