The Instigator
Brody27
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
superclip
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

2nd Amendment Wording Change

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 119512
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Brody27

Pro

Amendment 2
"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. "

If the people of America have the right to own a gun, And not have that right infringed, Then why can't I (An under 18-year-old American citizen) have a gun? Am I not part of "the people"? If I am, Then my right is being infringed.

NOTE: I do not think that children should be able to own a gun but, The wording in the constitution makes it seem like they can.
superclip

Con

First off, The 2nd Amendment is not the gun laws for America. It, Like all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, Is a written assurance that the Government cannot take away the people's guns. It does not lay out the laws for purchasing and owning a gun.

Secondly, It is a horrible idea to go about messing with the wording of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we changed this, It would open up an opportunity for other Amendments to be changed, Like the freedom of speech & religion.

Overall, The 2nd Amendment is not meant to lay out the rules for the age you can purchase a gun at, But to secure the people's guns from being taken away.
Debate Round No. 1
Brody27

Pro

I understand that the amendment is a written assurance that the government cannot take away the people's guns, But if I would have a gun, The government could take it away from me. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, But other gun laws change the way the amendments work.

I also believe most Amendments should be changed to include better wording in order to create clarity. There are many areas that need clarification such as in the second amendment, What is a free state or what is a well-regulated militia. These definitions are up for interpretation.
superclip

Con

superclip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brody27

Pro

Brody27 forfeited this round.
superclip

Con

superclip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Brody27

Pro

Brody27 forfeited this round.
superclip

Con

superclip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Brody27

Pro

Brody27 forfeited this round.
superclip

Con

superclip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
First off it should be noted that an Amendment is a change made on something else, And is not self-explanatory to the expression of representation. A free state is one without cost or carries assigned value by its definition in relationship to written laws that become precedent by amendment of a united state which assign a value on liberty, Which is our right by declaration to independence. Meaning we can gain liberty not freedom as we the people hold are-selves independent.

The argument is that slavery is a means for governing authority to have autonomy over who shall pay for the debt of War. It was never limited to skin color or race by precedent. To have something remain without cost or self-value the only way this can be insured for posterity is when a person has the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear arm. This includes the self-expression, Right of self-representation explained by the 1st Amendment as common defense to filed grievance. Be it spoken or written, Religious or non-religious.

All ownership of fire-arm is dependent on ability to defend, Protect, And preserve the united state constitution, Which in its text provides a separation process which also can be used to insure freedom in the way of liberty for all. To make something perfectly clear as a united state all men are created equal by powers granted by United State Constitution, With use, By way of, Wording describing one man as President of the United States. It is a self-evident truth describing how testimony has an ability under oath to create separation in a society. This same process can easily be applied to woman as well as men when they can be characterized by constitutional principle as all equal, Woman under oath one at a time, As a created word such as Prasedera of the United States would share that principle. Independently to woman.

Good luck with the debate win or loose it is practice which shape our abilities.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
And only dummies vote.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
The US constitution was written by a bunch of lying hypocrites who said all men are created equal, Yet they all had slaves. And it wasn't written all that well because no one thought it was going to be having to stand through a technology ultra blast. And the writers were basically a bunch of stuck up aggressive fighting types. In other words pretty low quality writers.
Only dummies take it seriously.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.