The Instigator
dermonte757
Pro (for)
The Contender
passwordstipulationssuck
Con (against)

Change the 2nd Amendment

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
dermonte757 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 109410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dermonte757

Pro

The 2nd Amendment states 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.", I do believe it could be changed. The world today is full of craziness so allowing anyone to walk around with bear arms isn't a safe decision. Personally, for me I feel as though you shouldn't be allowed Bear Arms unless you have a registration or license for the gun itself; People such as "Gang Members" only want to have an affiliation with a gun to collect "cool points" or "Street Cred" But doesn't understand the potential danger that armed guns create. Also allowing people to carry guns bring suspicion especially in the eye of the public, children, and etc.
passwordstipulationssuck

Con

I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide any constitutional amendment only provided a rationale for one that is, frankly, deeply flawed. If my opponent would like to provide one I would gladly address it. My opponent proposes a gun registry. this would not, however, be a constitutional amendment or addendum. you also are already required in most states (if not all) to have a firearm license. Even if it already wasn't required, it still wouldn't be a constitutional amendment. My opponent brings us gang members that carry guns for "cool points" I would ask my opponent to clarify exactly how he would suggest we determine who is trying to get "cool points" and who wants a firearm for more legitimate purposes. My opponent argues that we should not have people carrying guns because it can draw suspicion. This is not a reason to amend the constitution. We should not have the government remove our right to self preservation because people are suspicious of people who carry guns (which I don't believe most people even are.)

To conclude, my opponents arguments are deeply and fundamentally flawed, and he should provide a proposed amendment so he can fulfill his BOP that a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by InSparksweTrust 2 years ago
InSparksweTrust
George Meade as well as the Maison papers classified the militia as the public citizens with the intent to protect from any threats. Many claim but back then it was muskets....Wrong search the puckle gun which could shoot multiple rounds without ever reloading. On top of this we have other examples of air rifles etc. Our founders expected such guns to exist and the advancement of technology, but again it was the 2nd Amendment right they cherished to allow the citizens if ever needed to combat our own government. Today we have many regulations on firearms and we cannot buy the very weapons our government has today, but going any further is dangerous, and against our rights as citizens of America, the 1994-2004 gun ban showed no lives saved by that gun ban. In other countries with guns banned the violent crime rate is far higher than the USA which was declining. It's easy to become emotional when schools are shot up by bad people but that was a bad person, I personally would love to have better security for schools such as the noise frequency devices our own govt uses in Iraq,Iran,Afghan etc., to paralyze people to the ground and even on our cargo ships they use these sound devices and stop terrorist attacks, pirates etc., why not use this security in schools as an alarm that forces everyone down until S.W.A.T teams can arrive?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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