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

The second amendment should be repealed

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: 3/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 110181
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




1. First round for acceptance. No new arguments or rebuttals in the final round

2. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to the following definitions...

The second amendment: the second amendment of the United States constitution, stating "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."

Repealed: Removed from the constitution using the existing legal means

3. The affirmative has fiat power to enact the resolution (no "this could never happen" argumentation)

4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, etc.


No it shouldn't.
Debate Round No. 1


First, thank you for accepting this debate. I am excited for this round and I fully believe we are discussing an important issue for our world today. I will start out with brief background, then move to my arguments as to why the second amendment should be repealed.

The second amendment was passed in our bill of rights. The era that wrought this amendment was far different from our world today. America is bolstered by its ability to adapt, and currently we are at another crossroad. We must recognize that we are being devastated by a policy that has long ago reached a point of obsolescence.

The second amendment was created in the era of muskets. These arms could fire one to two rounds per minute, and it took nearly two centuries for the first semi automatic weapon to be designed in Germany in 1885. (1) This outdated allowance for the common man to have weapons of war must be abolished.

My first argumentation will be the harms of guns in our world today. Guns are ravaging America. Guns are threatening our schools, with 2015 having 64 school shootings, 65 in 2017, and 17 in just two months of 2018. Yet, it seems the issue is far larger. There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015 alone.(3) When we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, we see a shocking truth, we are the only industrialized nation to have this issue. When compared to the United Kingdom, an American is 51 times more likely to be killed by gunfire.(4) We also see that the United States ranks above Jordan, Yemen, Palestine, Turkey, and Iran, and even Syria with gun deaths per 100,000 people.(5) We see that the United States is being decimated by our ownership of guns, and there must be solvency.

My proposed solvency would be the repeal of the second amendment. This, in accordance with law, would require a constitutional amendment, therefore requiring approval from both the state and federal governments. The funding would be through normal means, though there is no firm cost.

Due to logical restrictions, the government would be unable to do what our president has said, and just "take the guns," but the most logical, practical, and stable solution comes in two steps. First, an immediate ban on the sale of firearms to anyone but the government. This allows for the number of guns to begin to decrease instead of the increase we have seen in the past. The second step is a slow phasing out. This would allow a smooth transition over years to cope with the massive political and social change. We can look to Australia"s buyback program.(6) This delayed approach allows for the addressing of this issue in a manner that is far more palatable to those who would advocate for guns, and also allows for the issue to be fully addressed. Though this policy may seem radical, a half measure would fail us dramatically. We must fully address the issue.

After the passage of this plan we will be able to garner solvency for these crimes. We can look again to Australia, which saw their number of gun deaths decrease by 74% post the passage of their incredibly restrictive gun programs.(7) Furthermore, we can look to the number of mass shootings that happened in Australia, which dropped to zero.(8) Next, we can look to Japan, where restrictive laws make the ownership of guns near inexistant. Codified in Japanese law is the following phrase: "no person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." This law, passed in 1946, has allowed Japan to escape the terrors of gun violence Americans face today. Japan, A nation of 127 million people, only sees on average 10 gun deaths per year. The United States nearly 3000 times this. In Japan, only six gunshots were fired by police in entire year of 2015. (10) Officers in America must fear that the individual they are confronting is armed, and they see their lives in danger. In Japan, police can safely assume that the individual they are apprehending does not possess a firearm, allowing more leniency.

We must act if we truly want to save lives in America. We need to understand that these weapons, while they may make us feel safer, cause nothing but more harm to all of us. We must remove these tools of death from our homes, our hands, and our culture. We must repeal the second amendment.

For the Negation to win this round, they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second amendment garners unique benefits for the United States, or that the passage of the plan will cause significant harms.

In short, upon the risk of saving lives, I strongly urge a vote for the affirmation today.


America is a different country then the ones you listed. Massacres are still going to occur even with guns gone, and you're right when you say it will decrease damage but consider this: They are going to get the gun illegally if they really want to. If a person is planning out a school shooting, they are also planning out buying guns.
Debate Round No. 2


America is a different country then the ones you listed.

This really does not factor into my argumentation. The logical step I take is clear, less guns means less death. This happens regardless of country, this is a universally applicable truth.

Massacres are still going to occur even with guns gone, and you're right when you say it will decrease damage

If you remove the weapon that allows these to occur, it ensures it does not. This is akin to saying arsonist will still burn buildings even if you remove their ability to start fires. This plan removes any ability for these massacres to happen, and there is no warranted analysis as to why it will not.

They are going to get the gun illegally if they really want to.

First, There is no analysis as to how these guns will be obtained. Second, you do not see this in any other nation with restrictive gun policy. Look to my warrants of Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Third, Even if someone were to obtain a gun illegally, authorities would be able to know instantly that said individual is breaking the law, instead of having to navigate a confusing web of legislation today. In short, it makes the identification of threats child’s play.


Link me your sources?
Debate Round No. 3


all of my sources were in the debate comment section, as is the norm on this platform.

In short, the debate is now over. There are no new arguments that can be made, and most of my argumentation has been dropped from the debate. My warranted analysis, the magnitude of the issue, and the full solvency I maintain all encourage a firm vote for the Affirmative today.

For the readers of this debate, Remember the last speech cannot per the terms of the debate contain new arguments. This is to ensure no participant can have their argument escape scrutiny by posting arguments that cannot be refuted.

Today, I have clearly demonstrated that the second amendment should be repealed, both due to the fact that my demonstrated benefits have not been refuted, as well as the fact there are no clear demonstrated harms from the negation

Vote Affirmative


Thanks for writing my school research paper for me lol.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by YakovF 3 years ago

I know already I was just too lazy to type it out. I was only using this debate as a way for me to get a school research paper done faster. Credit will be given, I'm not a plagiarist.
Posted by DebateAllTheWay 3 years ago
An easy answer to Pro is that

1. The first amendment repeal ignores the intent of the second amendment which is to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Imagine if the Thirteen colonies had no access to guns, would we have won independence?

2. But also the fact is the problem with killings is those people are mentally ill. So harm can be inflicted in many other ways without guns. Sure you might reduce deaths, but the real solution is to stop those with an unstable mind in the first place (a. Preform background checks and ban those with mental illness access to guns and b. Help those in desperate need, so that they might not resort to desperation and ill thought.)

3. It is hard to believe that you could actually enforce Pro's plan as well, how can you stop regular gun happy law abiding citizens from owning their guns without more violence in the process?

The Answer is simple: Banning the Second Amendment is too far and is not the best way to solve these problems and would further reduce the power of the people against an ever growing and distant government.
Posted by YakovF 3 years ago
Don't worry I'll give you credit.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Wow the con wasted their entire argument to say show me your sources come on. This argument is really one sided not because one side is correct and the other is incorrect, it is because one side has no idea what they are doing. I don't think it is fair to compare countries to other countries I mean you can compare America to Australia but also America to Switzerland so it can go both ways.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Pro is a pretty competent writer. Too bad Con didn't offer much of a challenge...
Posted by ShouldBePresident96 3 years ago
You shouldn't compare the US to Austrailia or other countries with a similar ban. They are entirely different places with entirely different roots, and an entirely different CULTURE. The cities in the US with the strictest gun laws lead the US in gun violence/crime/homicide (Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.)

Also, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to possess guns to be able to defend yourself and loved ones for threats, including a tyrannical government. The 2A is one of the most important amendments in the entire constitution because of that aspect.
Posted by WaywardSon 3 years ago
1: Jewison, Glenn; Steiner, J"rg C. (2010). "Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher". Glenn Jewison.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several coherent arguments, such as why the 2A loses contextual meaning in today's day and age and that repealing it would allow an easier way to eliminate gun ownership, which Pro demonstrated was detrimental to society. Con replied with a few sentences of general talking points that Pro responded successfully to, such as pointing out how illegal guns weren't widespread in other countries that implemented restrictive gun measures. Con did very little to debunk Pro's case and didn't respond to Pro's rebuttal of his points. Thus, I give arguments to Pro.

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