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

The 2nd amendment is not compatible with today's times

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
BigLippin has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 113942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Due to the fact that I did not see the notification of the acceptance of my previous debate, I am opening up this debate again. I will pay closer attention this time

Round 1. Acceptance
Round 2. Claim
Round 3. Rebuttal
Round 4. Conclusion

Any rebuttal in round 2 made by con will be ignored. Round 2 is strictly for the claim.
I look forward to debating this topic.

My position: The 2nd amendment is NOT compatible with today's times.


I accept and will argue the 2nd amendment is still compatible. This is my first debate so I look forward to learning something.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello con. Thank you very much for the acceptance of this debate, and welcome to the site. This will be my first debate on a political issue, so I look forward to learning something along with you. I wish you the best of luck going forward and I look forward to having a civil discussion with you.
First off, let"s specify exactly what the 2nd amendment states, as written by Thomas Jefferson: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My arguments with the lack of compatibility for today"s cruel world will be based off of these three main points. A. The fact that the Bill of Rights was written centuries ago. B. The vagueness of the amendment. C. Firearms have changed, people have changed.
A. The Bill of Rights was adopted on December 15, 1791, 2 centuries ago. This was a right written in a time when people used horse as a main source of travel and you couldn't"t speak to anybody in a form other than face to face. Our founding fathers wrote this for an enthusiastic nation who has just gotten out of the hands of their oppression mother country. This was a time that a militia was necessary to secure the safety of the common citizen from enemies or possibly a corrupt government. James Madison, a federalist, argued that state militias, "would be able to repel the dangers" of a federal army. Now, one can argue that the right to bear arms would be needed now more than ever, which would be true, but with regulation. Specific regulation. You have to remember, this was written during a time where a common militia had nothing but a ball and musket that could take minutes to reload. We live in a time where we have semi-automatic assault weapons that can shoot several rounds of bullets in a matter of seconds. We also no longer have a militia system today that is similar to the ones used in the post-revolutionary time period. In today"s society, we have what is commonly known as an "SDF" or "State Defense Forces." Not only are these systems of people well trained in what they do, but they also are governed by the government and do not apply to the overall right to bear arms of the average citizen.
B. The 2nd amendment is also completely vague and it does not give a clear-cut law on how to regulate our issues with firearms and to what extent it goes to. "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Which arms? Who? What is the processes to retrieve these arms? There are way too many questions and clarifications that needs to be asked, which simply means that there is some sort of modification that needs to be set. This is the perfect time and place to put those modifications into place. That is something that our country deserves. Let's look at Australia's gun laws, shall we. According to, Australia passed a law in 1996 after a man with a semi-automatic assault rifle incarcerated 33 people in what is known as the "Port Arthur Massacre." This law banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and put on stricter licensing and registration programs for the ones that were available to buy. Then, in 2002, they imposed even stricter gun laws on their citizens. These actually restricted the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns. Due to these changes, from 1997 to 2007 there was an overall 20% decrease in the amount of homicide that took place in the nation annually. This may not seem like the greatest revelation that could come out of something like that, but at least it was something. Now that there were more strict, specific gun laws in Australia, there is an immense decrease in the number of people that would"ve died otherwise.
C. As stated earlier in this argument, and as something that can come off as pretty self-explanatory, firearms have changed, and people have changed. This amendment in a time when an assault weapon wasn"t even a thought. These firearms are capable of doing terrible things to incredibly innocent people. Kids in schools, people who want to watch a movie, even people in worship! There is absolutely no reason that the common citizen would need an assault weapon, and that is something that our second amendment doesn"t cover. The right to bear arms is incredibly important in today"s world, the protection of ourselves is important as it plays a role in how we survive. But weapons that can destroy lives, end them, and alter them? Ones that can kill several people in a matter of seconds? Why do you need that? You don"t. That"s a simple fact. Our second amendment needs to be more specific so that way we can maintain the innocence of this nation before they all get killed off.

Reminder: Please don"t rebut in round 2. It will be ignored. Save what you have to say about statements made above for round 3. Thank you.

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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 2019browntyler 3 years ago
@american_citizen my rebutall to your argument is in round 2. Either address points made there or your argument is not valid or respected.
Posted by american_citzen 3 years ago
If the second amendment is not compatible because it could have been changed to become unconstitutional then so have all other amendments. Including Freedom of religion and Freedom of Speech. Freedom from cruel and Unusual Punishment and Freedom that others rights cannot influence your rights. The fact is that those rights cannot be taken away without the complete fall of all rights and government. Sure you can live without Guns but you can also live with freedom, the ability to express beliefs and many other things. The fact is that our right to have Guns does not mean you have to have one. The thing is our second amendment is definitely compatible today because of all you complainers trying to take it away from us without understanding what it will do to the nation. I do not suppose this comment will change any of your minds because like all humans we are naturally stubborn. But take in count that without guns or weapons we cannot protect ourselves from, animals, rapists, murders, and robbers. They will find a weapon illegally or legally. To say the second amendment is not compatible and that gun control is good proves that you have not thought about this and do not understand it fully. Yes all rights of the constitution are compatible today.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
We don't need the second amendment, we don't live in the wild west and we don't need to hunt for food, we have grocery stores and we have law enforcement agencies, nobody needs a gun today
Posted by 2019browntyler 3 years ago
No, I am not arguing whether these things are constitutional. I'm arguing with whether or not the specific regulation of the the right bear is in a compatible stage in today's world. I am also not referencing the Constitution in it's entirety, just the 2nd amendment itself. My resolve isn't the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, but the modification.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
The point that the United States Constitutional 2nd Amendment is not compatible with today"s Time might simply suggest that change made on calculating time have become unconstitutional. It should be noted that the Constitutional right to Bear Arms does in fact come from the preamble of the United States Constitution itself.

What you are by fact arguing is if a States does, or does not have a right to establish militia in the form of law enforcement, or National Guard. The principle of your argument is that you resolve to remove and/or abolish liberty and independence not change to constitutional principle.
Posted by 2019browntyler 3 years ago
I swear I didn't write all the apostrophes as quotation marks. idk why it did that
This debate has 4 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.