the right to bear arms
Debate Rounds (3)
Arms- upper limbs of a body.
I'm not sure what the 2nd amendment has to do with bear arms, but I'm sure my opponent will explain.
I don't think people should be allowed bear arms. Many species of bears are endangered and it would be a shame to make them go extinct for this wierd fascination to own parts of their bodies, plus owning bear arms, has no benefit to anybody other than the bear.
1. The second amendment was created in the infancy of the United States. The United States was mostly rural and was pretty easy to invade without a standing military or border security. Part of the reason for the second amendment was national security from foreign forces. It's important to remember when looking at laws, the spirit in which it was written, so that we can make sure it's being applied according to the spirit. One of the reasons the constitution was written is to give the courts flexibility in creating laws, so they could keep with the spirit of the laws. We no longer need to worry about invading armies, due to the fact we have decent border security, and a pretty good standing military. The United States is the only super power in the world at the moment and nobody is going to go to the United States and go toe to toe, regardless of whether civilians can carry weapons or not. So we're not going to meet that purpose by arming the population.
2. The second amendment may have also been created because of the threat of wildlife in these rural populations. With the United States being mostly urban and suburban the Right isn't necessary. Homeowners now have access to fences, can get away from the situation easier or take advantage of animal control. There really is no need for guns for these purposes in even the rural areas. If it was necessary in the rural areas, it no way means that people living in suburban or urban areas would need guns for those purposes.
3. The second amendment was also implemented because the founders felt people should be able to defend themselves from each other. We have police now who have access to guns who can help average citizens if things come down to that. There are also other weapons that could be used to take away any advantage an attacker has, pepper spray, tazer gun, baseball bat etc.. The problem with guns is the access to them. Sometimes the bad guys buy them legally. Any outlawing of them would prevent the bad guys from getting guns. A second way the bad guys get access is to steal them from people who bought them legally, or buy them illegally from somebody who purchased them legally. If we completely outlaw guns, it would be extremely rare for a a bad guy to have one at all. By restricting access to guns, it no longer becomes necessary for citizens to need them as an equalizer. Now ordinary citizens will have the ability to use other less lethal options as remedies, and best of all the bad guys will have a harder time killing people. The right to guns is not necessary for people for this reason, when all access is eliminated.
4. The fourth reason for the second amendment is that the founders of the United States had just escaped from the clutches of a tyrannical nation. They wanted to be sure that no despot could take power and subject the United States from tyranny. No matter how big a military the despot created, the everyday citizens would have the same resources to fight as the military. We'd have some musket on musket action. This seems sensible for that period of time. Now it is no longer sensible. If congress did make somebody dictator (and they continually keep granting more power to the president, so.....), ordinary citizens armed to the teeth would stand no chances. We couldn't take down tanks, grenade launchers, helicopters, drones, surface to air missiles, etc. we stand no chance. It is better for the ordinary citizen to just surrender to the despot, no need getting crushed by an unstoppable force. We can't expect to stand up to that, and no amount of guns will stop that. What we have now, that could stand a chance is the local police and national guard. Do you remember where the second amendment said well regulated militia? Well that's the national gaurd. Now the national guard and police could stand up to the United States military. They probably wouldn't win, but they could if they combined their forces probably secure a large portion of the United States and create enough bloodshed to make an up and coming dictator think twice. Any dictator taking controll of the United States military, would probably win that civil war, but there would be a legitimate threat to his life and him winning. We clearly serve the purpose of the second amendment through other means.
Conclusion- The second amendment is not relevant in today's society, at least not in the same exact way. We have a national guard and a police force which serve most of the purpose for the second amendment. When you take into account the amount of lives saved by completely eliminating access to guns (or coming close to it), than we can say that repealing the second amendment or interpreting it in accordance with it's spirit means that the people, average citizens, should not have the right to bear arms.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all of Con's points and essentially forfeited the debate. Thus, con gets conduct and args.
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.