The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 111278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




1. The 200 year old second amendment, made U.S.A was being colonized
2. Its is NOT relevant anymore.. the threat of Indians is gone.

3. America, its over 200 years old !! .... OUTDATED, NOT relevant.. Time to get Civilized.
4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young.

5. The Government buys them back and destroys them!
6. And that is cheaper than generations legal, medical and welfare.
7. Only Dumb people with Guns kill, remove Guns and Dumb people just throw tantrums.

8. No Community Militia to counter attack criminals, that is NOT relevant anymore.


I would first like to ask that each voter take time to read each case carefully and chose the best case, and with that will begin to construct my first speech. I realize that in the last decade there has been a record amount of mass shootings, but banning guns is not the answer to the problem. As a weighing mechanism since my opponent did not provide one, I will use on balance, which states the most important issue wins and every argument must be looked at in a comparative method. The first reason banning guns is not the answer is people will simply turn to other means of getting guns and make it easier in turn instead of harder for the mentally unstable to get a gun. Two, by introducing a new amendment requires stricter background checks and gun laws that adequately deal with the problems we face today. Three, by tightening security in public places, were these mass shootings happen will lower them significantly. Going into my first point that people will simply to other means of getting a gun, people will go through almost anything get something they really want especially if they are used to having it. A good example is when we banned alcohol during the Prohibition movent we saw a growth in gangs and death from unsanitary moonshine that was being created because of the banned on alcohol. This event is relevant to banning guns because this will cause growth in gain activity, and this may lead to more homemade bombs and more dangerously homemade firearms. You may say this is based all on probability but we see that any time we banned something that a majority of people use there is a rise in crime and this comes from Also, the 18th amendment was the only amendment to be repealed because in order to repeal an amendment another one must be put in place and there is a lengthy process in which to do so.This leads me to point two which is, we should amend the second amendment and add more restrictions on who should be able to buy guns. By adding more restrictions and limitations as to who and what kind of gun a person can buy we will make it harder for those unfit to buy a gun to get one. By doing so we would lower the number of shootings and no one would kill themselves trying to make a firearm or explosive. My third point is, we should tighten security in public places because killers want a target that is easy to hit not a target that is well guarded. These shooters are normally mentaly unstable and with more security to recognize these people and stricter laws to prevent them from geting them, there would be fewer mass shootings and not as many people would die because an armed security personnel could shoot to injure. I will reject my opponent's points in the next as it would be fair since they could not defend themselves in this speech.
Debate Round No. 1


1. The 200 year old second amendment, was made when the U.S.A was being colonized
2. Its is NOT relevant anymore.. the threat of Indians is gone. It is an outdated, colonial law. This is an amendment made in the 1790's. It is entirely irrelevant and absurd think it necessary NOW to exist as then. The world was a different place then.

3. America, its over 200 years old !! .... OUTDATED, NOT relevant.. Time to get Civilized. To keep to a 200 year old law is to force an OUTDATED NEED into an EVOLVING society. Its entirely against SOCIAL AND ETHICAL FUNDAMENTAL DEVELOPMENT. Its like FORCING society to be retarded in growth. A retarded society.
4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young. Massacres occur my those who are able to get their hands on a mass killing machine, and you have millions of them lying around, in stores and in sheds. People kill people, make mistakes and loose it, have mental breakdowns, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Texas... YOU KNOW YOU CAN NOT STOP IT, ANYONE WHO IS A CON IN THIS DEBATE KNOWS IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN..


5. The Government buys them back and destroys them! That is a really simple idea.

6. And that is cheaper than generations legal, medical and welfare. Count the cost of mental, psychological, physical damage from 1 person, that should equal thousands of guns, let alone millions of people devastated by your LACK OF ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELVES.

7. Only Dumb people with Guns kill, remove Guns and Dumb people just throw tantrums. BUT how many dumb people are there, and how do we know who is dumb enough? Can we measure DUMB? NO.. instead we just become NUMB. We can not measure who can and who should not have a GUN and say YOUR A DUM DUMB, NO GUN FOR YOU DUMBO, that is DUMB.

8. No Community Militia to counter attack criminals, that is NOT relevant anymore.

FORCE pitted against FORCE only results in an EXPLOSION where the greater forces may win, but only with collateral damage.



Go ahead, in your comment try and justify HEINOUS and GUNS

REMOVE the risk and the risk is REMOVED !


My opponent had failed to attack any of my points head on and only expanded a little on his points so, therefore, I should win this debate. The right to bear arms is still relevant because we still hunt and have law agencies and a government. It is critical to realize that replacing the second amendment would actually lead to more death because of homemade firearms and explosives. Also, it would most likely lead to another civil war which we don't need or want. Aging we need to amend the second amendment, not repeal it. Buy adding more constraints as to who can buy a gun it would significantly lesson mass shootings and by adding more security to public places it would get the mass shootings down to one every year at the most. Plus we can seriously benefit from a country form the jobs that adding more security would create. If we did increase security fewer people would be killed when a someone attempted a mass shooting. It is vindictive for my opponent to say that dumb people commit murder when it takes a smart person to operate a gun. He says we have a lack of ability to protect ourselves now does he think that we will be able to better protect ourselves if we have no guns and the psychopaths have more accessibility to them then we do? There are times when you have to fight fire with fire and when someone has a gun and does not listen to logic please do explain why we should not fire a weapon to disarm them. My opponent seems to be going outside the parameters of this debate topic and arguing for guns to be taking form everyone not just civilians as is stated in the topic. Before I ask questions I would like to address that my opponent came off as rude and condescending in last speech and no civil.

My first question for my opponent is do you realize how many people have guns in America?
If what would you suggest we put in place if we repeal the second amendment?
Do know what actions would need to be taken in order to make a repeal happen?
If the seconded amendment needs to be repealed because it so old then do we need to repeal all the 200-year-old amendments?

I would like to remind voters that the set weighing mechanism for this case is on balance.
Debate Round No. 2


Excuse me, but your arguments are twice refuted, to assist allow me to point out the following.
The opponents argues what I contests in point 7, that it is not possible to assess mental suitability for a citizen to own lethal weapons. We simply do not possess effective and fool proof strategies to do this.

The argument appears convoluted but I will honor the Con and provide persuasion to change.

1. Yes, mass shootings has increased in the last decade - and nothing has been done, thousands have died - but YOU who support the NRL talk only of your CIVIL needs to shoot metal pellets and blame PSYCHOLOGISTS effectively for not flagging and alarming us to POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CITIZENS. This should read as science fiction as.

2. The ONLY way to add restrictions is to assess a MENTAL fitness. Hence, there are two very dangerous issues here.
A database would be created with those who can not have a gun. And this data base could be accessed by any group with authority or access. What will the implications of a NATIONAL MENTAL STATUS registrar - does a person say, "Oh, I did not qualify or meet the requirements", meaning, I was too DUMB.

What is a background check, there is NO effective measure and check. The guy next door could be the next mass murderer.

But if you remove guns, the guy next door has a bad day and does far less damage.
You are wanting a national DUMB registrar. If you are on it your are DUMB. And again that can not be assessed. Look a the people who massacred.

They WERE NOT apparent at risk, or seemed to be likely to kill.
People FLIP and when they do they go for what is readily available, GUN - machine GUNS or rapid fire.

They hate the world and want to shoot the world down.

3. GO ahead suggest people will mass make bombs and guns when they cant go to Kmart and get all they need. Some will, it will soon fade, it will be a transitional tantrum. Police will only have to find and shut down the pathways to make illegal guns, and that is far easier than naming people too DUMB to own a GUN.

4. You have not attempted to address my 8 points but have been on a rant, which is to repeat points within your arguments, and to be convoluted, for example, your second point is almost at the end, but it is a repeat of what you said earlier, your argument is impassioned, emotive, convoluted and confusing, it is a immature. Mature people are ordered, structured and balanced. Mentally unfit people are similar, they are convoluted, confusing, emotive, impassioned and get offended, frustrated and feel justified to be irrational. To take life is irrational and a distortion of justice.

5 YOUR argument IS INDEED IRRATIONAL - YOU can not address each of the 8 arguments, but seek to voice your own.

6 the initial 8 arguments of PRO have NOT been contested, they remain unchallenged, this is not a game, it is not a win or loose scenario.




My opponent stated I did not refute all of his points but I did because my own points refute his and blow a hole in his case. He also only attacked the matter of a stronger database that flags more people.Also, he did not answer in of the questions in my previous argument so therefore I will assume that one he does not know how many people own guns in America, two he has no proposal for a plan to put in place if we were to repeal the second amendment, three he does not know what actions need to take place in order to repeal an amendment, four he thinks we should repeal all the two-hundred-year-old amendments. He also came off as extremely rude when in called me immature and said my writing style was comparative to that of the mentally unstable which is rude and out of bounds in a civil debate and shows terrible sportsmanship. Since he wants a detailed refute I will give one.

As for my opponents first, second, and third points, while this was created in a different time period it is still relevant because we still hunt and some of us are trained to handle firearms from an early age to prepare to go into the work filed with the police department, different military branches, and organizations. Also, how are we holding back our society when we are one of the leading nations in intelligence. We are not a retarded nation we are a nation that continues to move forward and set the standers.
As for point four, this is where my opponent's case starts to get hazy because he says " Grow up enough or die young.", and then he goes into how guns are just lying around. First off you have a license to buy a gun and to sell a gun, surprise, you also have to have a license to sell guns.This leads into my sub-point that we should tighten gun control and make more limits on who gets a gun. Also, I am not suggesting there be a so-called " dumbed register" I am suggesting database that flags criminals and potential killers. Also with in-store security to recognize the mentally unstable there would not be a problem with the next door neighbor becoming a killer. Also with heightened security in public places the killer would be immediately recognized because they are trained to monitor body language. As for the worry over people having access to this database I am proposing it would only be for law enforcement agencies and gun sellers because every gun seller has a right to know who they are selling a gun to in order to protect the community and every officer the right to try and keep criminals getting guns aging to commit crimes.

Point five is invalid and has no source or makes any sense in the slightest unless he suggesting they buy all the guns back and destroy them. Then it is simply a fantasy because over an estimated 156% of the population own guns. The idea that all of these people would be reachable and happy to hand over there guns is not reality.

I have already attacked my opponent's sixth point is not clear in some parts, but when he says we can't protect our selves now how does he expect us to better protect our selves without guns and with the criminals getting guns. Also, this plays into my point of heightened security, which he did not refute, which if there was more security in public places mass shootings would not ocure becuase the security could disarm the killer.

For your seventh point which, I have already refuted and given multiple ideas to help stop this I will say it all aging. If we create a database to flag criminals and the mentally unstable that in self would significantly lessen the number of mass shootings. Since you interpreted to mean to leave all the up the phycologist let me clarify.Yes, part of it would be left to them in the issue that they start seeing someone who they deem unstable and then restricts their gun license. When people are being tested for their gun license there would be a test to determine if the person was indeed stable enough to own a gun. Also, we should place security were guns are sold who can read body language to determine if someone was going to commit a murder of any type. Making more constraints on what type of guns people can own as well will make a difference also.

Moving own to my opponent's eighth point which is we no longer have a militia or need to counter-attack criminals. while we no longer have a militia people still enjoy collecting, hunting, and shooting for sport. As for we no longer need to counter-attack criminals what about when an armed person breaks into your house and your home and intends on killing ou would you feel safer to know you could disarm them or would you feel more comfortable knowing that you are at their mercy.

I will now briefly go over my points that I have already defended.
One, banning guns is not the answer is people will simply turn to other means of getting guns and make it easier in turn instead of harder for the mentally unstable to get a gun. Two, by introducing a new amendment requires stricter background checks and gun laws that adequately deal with the problems we face today. Three, by tightening security in public places, were these mass shootings happen will lower them significantly. I have defended and expanded on each of these points above and ask that the voters remember the weighing mechanism is on balance.
Debate Round No. 3


The Con respondent is using metaphors for a violent action - "blow a hole in his case" - a metaphor for shooting me.

This is why Guns should be banned.

Gun owners across America fantasize about taking life, this surfaces when they are challenged. And life is full of challenges.


When I said blow a hole in his case I was referring metaphorically to his debate case and the holes that I have pointed out in his case. It is his own fault for so wrongly interpreting a simple metaphor. To say that all gun owners fantasize about taking life when they are challenged is a false stereotype being used to scare people into believing we need too banned guns. While I do not personally own a gun I know serval people who have guns who have been put in stressful situations and did not start murdering the people are anyone that put them in that situation. They handled the situation calmly and like an adult, not a kid. Please stop judging someone because they own a firearm it is just like also being negative and living in fear. Also, this is like stereotyping someone because of their skin tone the last thing we need as a country is more prejudices. Besides after talking to many well-educated people in my community when asked if they would repeal or amend the second amendment they all said amend because there is no way to get rid of guns completely regarding the civilian aspect. I would like to remind everyone of the weighing mechanism which is on balance, and I would like to ask that they disregard my opponent's last argument because of the way my opponent misinterpreted a simple metaphor. I would also like to take a moment to point out that my opponent never answered any of my questions form round two and that they did not fully attack my case.
Debate Round No. 4


This is not a game,



A suggestion that we have "in-store security to recognize the mentally unstable" coupled over with allusions to Shooting Holes in me, having a right to Kill a thief who enters your home are all grossly speculative and allay layers of risk, breaches of civil liberty and privacy, and high potential for misinterpretation. I begs a society, even pleads that everyone live on edge, at milk bars, in school musicals, at parties, for the indications that someone has weird body language, strange behaviors.

I am sorry, but your arguments of assessing mental capacity have been addressed above as in Pro, round 2 point 7.

The only solution is to CHANGE. As suggested in Pro round 2 point 5 & 6.

As provided in Pro round 2 points 1- 4 America is at a state of flux and stress about an rule made hundreds of years ago. This is a good thing. Change only happens when something is not right. The NRL fight is causing America to be STUCK in a state of Transition. Stand down and Grow Up.

Thank you
Lots of love and respect to all the families and friends.
We, in other countries see a stark problem in inherent social stress and fear, where Violence does not fix Violence, but creates a bigger explosion.

Please remember,



This is not a game

May the people who have fallen never be forgotten and the loved ones left behind stay in our hearts

And may we

Go In Love And Peace


I will once aging refute the claim that I meant bodily harm to my opponent and will once again explain that I metaphorically stated that I blew a hole in his debate case. Not in reality nor did I wish to case him harm. I know this is not a game because we are talking about lives. My opponent fails to tie his case back to the weighing mechanism and my case compared to his case is stronger and has a better solution to the problem. We need to amend the amendment because a repeal will not fix the problems of mass shootings and shootings in general. Studies show that by banning all guns we would actually see a rise in crime rate. My opponent said it was a mere illusion to have people to recognize the mentally unstable and shooters when in fact law enforcement is trained to read such body language. He also said I said it was okay to shoot someone if they broke into your house I did not state that I stated that we have right to protect our selves and that does not mean murder when you can disarm someone without killing them. As stated before multiple times killers want an easy target, not a well-guarded target. If we amend the second amendment we can have more regulations on what types of guns you can buy and who can buy them. Also, a database for gun sellers that flags people who don't need a gun. My opponents' radical ideas are not supported by the American people and he has tried to twist my words to fit his case. He proposed no new amendment if we were to repeal the seconded amendment and he seems to believe that an amendment to amend the second amendment is not change. I ask for a negative ballot and I would like to thank my judges for judging. Our hearts go out to those who have lost family in mass shootings and otherwise.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
2. Its is NOT relevant anymore.. the threat of Indians is gone.

3. America, its over 200 years old !! .... OUTDATED, NOT relevant.. Time to get Civilized.
4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young.
For number 2 no the amendment was not made for the threat of Indians it was meant for self preservation against a tyrannical government AKA if trump tried to start a Mexican holocaust and do horrible things or any president at all we have guns to fight back if our words fail. Additionally it is pretty useful to have for self defense. Point 3 so by that logic just because it is old it is not relevant. By that logic the first amendment and all other amendments are non relevant.
Posted by brepop 3 years ago
Please vote.
Posted by EmeryP 3 years ago
Damn, wish I saw this sooner.

A repeal of the Second Amendment would not be effective.

A repeal does not remove existing firearms.
A repeal does not prevent states from enacting Second Amendment analogs within their state constitutions. (Which currently exist)
Even with a repeal, there would exist 'gun states' and 'gun control, or non-gun states' without any effective means to prevent firearm transportation across state lines.
Posted by John_Eaton 3 years ago
No, the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms and we will hold onto that till the day we perish!
Posted by Sirtycolt3 3 years ago
Ya I would defiantly get in on this action, but this is a topic I'm not messing with. I'm all for USA Guns, and I agree there does need to be some rule changes as our founding fathers didn't exactly know about Automatic or even semi weapons that could be hand held and be so damn deadly. A musket is a sure way to lose a limb, but you can't preform a mass shooting with it. But to get rid of it isn't helping either.
Posted by passwordstipulationssuck 3 years ago
so do you want to repeal the amendment or not? you appear to be on the pro but took the con. I will accept if you meant to be pro and you do want to repeal the amendment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 

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