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

Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 106700
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Gun ownership is not a right. Citizens should be allowed to have guns for hunting, sports and if they feel they really need it, personal protection. But criminals and the mentally challenged should not have guns. We need a better and universal background check system. Owners should be licensed and guns should be registered. Gun owners should be responsible for crimes committed with their weapons. Individual citizens do not need assault weapons and they should be banned for public sale. I would even go as far as making assault weapons illegal as in can be confiscated.

As far as healthcare, if you are a US citizen you should be covered for healthcare. How this is best achieved is an open question. My position is a single payer system but I can see where this may be difficult to achieve in America. Obamacare was a good start but needs fixed.


If you will notice, the Second Ammendment sdoesn't give us the right to bear arms- it states that the government cannot violate the right to bear arms. I.e. the right to bear arms is inhereit to he citizenry- it already exists, they already have that right in of themselves, and because the government didn't grant them that right, the government cannot take it away.

As far as healthcare is concerned- having the government control your healthcare is not a right- if you want that, go join the military and have fun waiting in line for months at the VA, and possibly dying before you ever see a doctor. f that souds like a good deal to you, by all means, go join the marines.
Debate Round No. 1


I don't agree that gun ownership is a right, granted by the government or inherent. It is a privilege with responsibilities like driving a car. Those who are unfit don't have a license, we are expected to carry insurance and are responsible not to drive drunk or pay for any accidents we cause. I am suggesting only the fit be allowed to own a weapon and they must keep that weapon secure so it's not used in a crime. Where do you stand on assault weapons?

I'm not suggesting the government has the right to control healthcare. Perhaps the answer is let the market provide healthcare like Obamacare. I believe we as citizens have the right to expect to be cared for when we need it. Every citizen should be covered, guaranteed. I don't know how that happens.


You don't need a liscence to own a car, you only need one to drive a car on public roads. You can still buy a car and even drive it in the middle of nowhere without a liscence.

Also- why should the government guarentee healthcare?
Debate Round No. 2


My understanding of the second amendment is it was meant for the citizens to be able to protect them, militarily if need be, from oppression, from their own government or outside influence (England). Arm the citizens to rise up if necessary. Do we feel this is still necessary? Are there not mechanisms to reshape our government without killing people?

We elect a government to provide for the common good. They provide for our defense, social security, a framework of laws and economy. Healthcare is for the common good.


The Second Ammendment is there to enable us to revolt if need be, as well as to defend our person and property, and yes- this is still necessary because if we ever do need to revolt because the government became tyrannical, trying to have a political campaign or ammend the Constitution isn't going to do anything.

We elect politicians to do their jobs, n[ot control our healthcare. I would like you to try and point to the part of the Constitution which gives congress the power to control our healthcare.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm suggesting their job includes providing healthcare. I think the patients control healthcare in a proper solution. As far as how it's paid for, that hasn't been resolved. Seems the easiest and most likely solution would be to fix Obamacare. Some suggest the government provide coverage but I don't see anything like that ever passing Congress. My original point was that healthcare is a right. Care should not be provided based on ability to pay. All citizens should have coverage.

As for the second amendment I still contend gun ownership is not a right but a privilege. Sure you can own a gun if you're fit, take legal responsibility and keep it safe. No one has been able to explain to me the need for assault weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens.


That would be Unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to George Washington with regards to the First Bank of the United States:
"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxesfor that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."


As for the Second Ammendment- owning a gun is a right, not a privelage, because if it were a privelage to be taken at the whim of government, the Second Ammendment would be devoid of any purpose. The bill of rights should not, as George Carlin said they were, be a bill of 'temporary privelages.'
Debate Round No. 4


Interesting you would choose a 200 year old opinion to argue a modern problem. What you've stated so far is my proposition is unconstitutional where I argue that maybe it's time for a change to that constitution. TJ argues in your quote that the government shall not provide for the general welfare but shall lay tax to pay debts and provide for welfare of the Union. I take it your point is you don't want government controlling healthcare. You're probably right and my opinion is a universal healthcare system should be patient-centered.

If you argue against gun control how do you propose to combat the proliferation of mass shootings and other violence that plague us?


We have the constitution for a reason- if we just changed it whenever it stood in the way of whatever bullsh*t we want to do, then as mine as well not have it.

My opponent states 'If you argue against gun control how do you propose to combat the proliferation of mass shootings and other violence that plague us?'

I don't know, how about ANYTHING ELSE?
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Minddagger 3 years ago
"mentally challenged"

I'm just going to pretend i didn't hear that...
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Your debate is flawed by giving Fire-Arm owners reason to use lethal force as it becomes a Common defense by the assumed crime of a others, you are prompting to placed upon them. You do not have this Right by power or authority.

Having some time I would like to debate the matter. I will however use very bit of a week to month to debate. As you are tying to topic points to one debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The greatest obstacle now against global health-care was the use of unconstitutional Law Enforcement. Think of it as the unprotected sex, and the social disease the medical industry contacted then spread due to its own actions. Not that of other organized religion.
Posted by SupaDudz 3 years ago
I think I saw u once in GTC live stream once and donated money
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The Right to Common defense is a Constitutional right to which the 2nd Amendment has not yet alienated. The ownership of a Fire-Arm is a Right that is Wrong by the attempt to illegally abridge Common defense to the general welfare.
Posted by MR.PRESIDENTGETDOWN 3 years ago
You don"t have to take out the second amendment to all that your talking about
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins. Pro's argument against the 2nd amendment was less of an argument, and more of a simple statement of his position on the topic. He repeatedly stated that he believes its a privilege, not a right, to own arms, however he never explains why. The only argument he makes is that the original purpose of the second amendment is outdated now, but Con negates this by noting that if a government goes truly tyrannical, then participating in the political process peacefully will be of no use. The second part of the debate was about healthcare. Again, Pro failed to provide evidence that universal healthcare is the best way to cover as many Americans as possible, he only states that he believes everyone should have coverage. He just assumes that universal healthcare is the best way to achieve this. Since the 2nd amendment argument of Pro's was refuted, and Pro's healthcare argument failed to affirm the resolution from the get-go, Con wins.

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