Should The Second Amendment Be Repealed? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should The Second Amendment Be Repealed?
in Politics

Convince me that the Second Amendment should be repealed  
  1. Live Poll

    Should The Second Amendment Be Repealed?

    14 votes
    1. Yes
        7.14%
    2. No
      92.86%
    3. Unsure
        0.00%
https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • There's no need for an outright repeal, so I voted No.

    But I wouldn't mind a little update though, it's been 228 years since we installed v1.0... Is it still performing efficiently? Maybe at least open discussion about moving to v1.5, look at the specs, test-runs, see if the system stays stable before moving on to v2.0?  The Constitution is or should be treated as (in my opinion) a living thing, the worst mistake is to set it in stone tablets, just like that guy Moses did with his idea of a good text, see where it brought us... I'm not a fan of ideas with biblical proportions... ;) 
    Zombieguy1987AlofRICYDdhartaHunterJuneau
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    edited February 16
    It should be repealed in the sense that it should not be needed. There should be one statement in the Constitution that prohibits the government from infringing on people's property rights in any way, and the effects of the current Second Amendment will naturally derive from it.

    Why are any "amendments" needed in the first place? Because the original version of the Constitution was pretty sloppy and, when interpreted literally, allowed the government incredible powers over citizens. The amendments were introduced later in order to mitigate the potential for abuse that the original version created.

    I would say that the entire Constitution should be rewritten in a brief and concise way, so that its legal consequences are immediately clear, and so it does not require any modification in the future. In my opinion, the law in general should be written in a way that both covers all the possible situations, and is independent of time. The law should not depend on the technological state of our civilisation, on the shifts in our collective thinking, on the individuals who are currently in charge of protecting and interpreting the law, etc. The law should be simple, concise and to the point, rather than, as it is now, written in a way requiring professional lawyers with decades of experience to decipher.

    I propose the following Constitution:

    1) The property rights of the individual cannot be infringed upon by either federal or local government.
    2) The bodily autonomy of the individual cannot be infringed upon by either federal or local government.
    3) The government, federal or local, has the right and the obligation to fulfil clauses 1) and 2) of the present document to the extent that fulfils them for all involved parties, barring those that violate the clauses.
    4) Should the government, federal or local, violate clause 1), 2) or 3), it is to be retired. The new government will be elected democratically by the people subject to its sphere of influence.

    This covers everything: individual rights and their protection, and prevention of governmental abuse. What else do we need from the Constitution, really?

    With regards to the original Constitution and its implications on the people's ability to defend themselves from the government that has gone too far, see the famous speech by Patrick Henry:

    http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php

    ...A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited: Exclusive power of Legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square; and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies: Those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: All power will be in their own possession: You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, Sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimitted. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress: The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous: So that this pretended little remains of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: Nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shewn, that a very small minority may prevent it; and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression: Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance?...

    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceCYDdharta
  • @MayCaesar ;

    The idea of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitutions introduction of truth and fact is greatly misdirected from the whole purpose of truth as legal protection in writing. It provides to the Armed Service of any United State. The basic principle maintained though not shared openly at liberty is that all person who holds a common defense for the general welfare are allowed to peacefully assemble. Even though this idea creates the definition of militia. The guideline is of specification to the accusation by others of militia set in motion that a republic of well regulation must be held accountable for the gathering under military order.  

    What question does the 2nd Amendment hold to be presented in civil action of constitutional separation. In any shooting of large casualty rate, or small, which inflicts the use of lethal force upon others, had the witness been armed would the shooting still have taken place. Would the action be in common defense to the general welfare? Or simply in retaliation of action?

     In not arming yourself, and /or in obstruction of bearing arms to others, are you fully aware of the burden you place on others to do so on your behalf? As by your abandonment to common defense, those who lack in the legal burden of defense are dependent on others, and in so making this choice become just as guilty as those who become overzealous in applications of lethal force in their presence.



    AlofRIZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • An amendment that was written to allow people to have muskets to defend themselves, to allow them to band together and train because we had people with large armies that really didn't like U.S.. To actually allow the defense of our very small government from those who might want to take it over, or from those who would try to take that government away from we, the people, was good at that time. 
    NOONE could have envisioned a weapon that could be held by one person that could mow down a whole army of that time, before they even got in range, with hundreds to over a thousand rounds per minute.
    The weapons have outrun the amendment. The number of people who are against government of and by the people (for some dumb reason), has grown. We HAVE a "well regulated militia" in our National Guard, manned by our friends and neighbors, sister and brothers. THEY are not going to join up with those who want to destroy our democracy, OUR government. THAT is the only militia we need to protect U.S..

    I have nothing against people owning a gun. If we had a better system to control just who can buy one … like a person on a terrorist watch list … we wouldn't have such a dire need for "protection". I've owned guns all my life. That doesn't instill fear in anyone who knows me. I was an NRA member for years, a proud one. I wouldn't be today because they used to sell gun safety and education. Now they sell fear.

    We need a second amendment, but, one that has caught up with the weapons and dangers of today, not 1776!
    Zombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • While I believe that guns should be regulated, I don't think they should be banned or abolished.
    AlofRI
  • Of course not. Although there should be a revision of the system of purchasing firearms, so that mentally-ill or psychotic individuals do not obtain them, the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed. And the same dumb excuse: "Oh they were talking about muskets!" Were they? Because if you read it, it does not say anywhere "right to bear muskets".  The righteous and sane American people deserve the right to life, and the right to protect themselves from danger.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRINathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • edited February 17
    "Welp I was going to kill all of these people, but it's not legal for me to own a gun"- What gun control advocates think will happen.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
    Former Flat Earther

    Libertarianism and Fascism are not the same thing. Libertarianism argues for limited to nonexistent government, Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • "Welp I was going to kill all of these people, but it's not legal for me to own a gun"- What gun control advocates think will happen.

    "Welp if we ban guns, then criminals won't shoot up schools"- Gun control advocates

    Bans guns and another shooting happen

    "Wait?! we banned guns and shootings are still happening! We need more gun control!!!"- Gun control advocates

    "What did you expect? There's such a thing called the Black Market!"-Me and other people with common sense

    George_HorseAlofRISilverishGoldNova
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 the flaw with that line of thinking is prices for guns on the black market will skyrocket, pricing many people out. Other methods of terrorism would become much cheaper and easier to accomplish than buying guns. People will just follow the Boston bombers tactics. Homemade explosives are harder to make than simply going down the street and buying a gun. However if you had to go to the black market for one it would become easier to buy the bomb materials as they can all be acquired legally. 

    Where I stand on it all is either full repeal or actually remove more regulations. Gun control does nothing. In Chicago people drive out to buy guns in the suburbs and rural areas, then drive them into the city to resell them. If a black market was the only way to buy guns it's no longer a simple as an hour long drive to purchase a weapon illegally to turn around and sell it for a profit in an afternoon. A national black market would be a lot more involved.

    At the same time if the amendment stays we should be allowed to purchase and control far more weapons than we currently can. I should be able to buy an RPG or a tank if I have the money. It's a right to arms, those are arms therefore I have a right to them.

    If guns are legal you can't get too upset or want to solve mass shootings. Guns are dubbed a necessary part of society and with a society that embraces guns comes mass shootings inherently. 

    If they are legal I will own one, if they aren't I will give them up. I don't really care either way.

    Since I see control as useless and repeal as almost impossible to happen, I would prefer more public education on gun safety, allowing felons to withhold their criminal history when applying for a job, free or affordable mental healthcare. These things would cut down on gun violence but I'm willing to bet their is a significant population that would rather have the gun violence than to pay for these programs. So don't view it as a tragedy when it happens, it's just another part of society.
  • We require a license to drive a car. That doesn't stop everyone from driving without a license. We set regulations on DUI. That doesn't stop everyone from driving under the influence. Most states require a drivers test. That doesn't mean all drivers are good drivers.
    No one expects reasonable background checks to stop ALL shootings, but, if they stop one or two or three, they're worth it … especially if it's your sister? Brother? Mother?
    That's all anyone (well, nearly everyone, there are always some radicals), wants. Other radicals blow this out of proportion for their own selfish reasons. We need to do something, as we did with driving. No one can say driving regulations don't save lives! Not EVERY life, but, enough to make them worth it.
  • The flaw in repeal of the 2nd Amendment is proving that the change of basic principle on Constitution was not a common defense set in the United State for declaration of Independence from England in our nation’s use of lethal force during any War including the one of independence from England.

    As a man that may speaking for all men, it can be said the state of the union made on gun control, is a burden of lethal force the civil court is attempting to remove, or take off the victim, for not being willing to take on the equal responsibility of lethal force, on their own behalf, is then set on authority as their negligence.

  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 434 Pts
    edited February 18
    @AlofRI but is regulation really the best way to do that? Or is it better to get people in a position where they don't need to resort to gun violence? If Felons can get jobs easier there will be less need to use gun violence to pay rent. If mental healthcare is more prevalent then maybe that high school kid can have a chance to work through their issues. 

    This accomplishes your goal without limiting, or putting road blocks in the way of people that aren't abusing guns. This can also have an impact on the people who would but an unmarked gun where regulations can't.

    Ask yourself, who does regulations prevent from abusing a gun? The way I see it is someone who currently has an official record of either severe mental illnesses or a crime. Lots of mass shooters are committing their first serious offense at the time or have a mental illnesses that was never officially noted anywhere. Regulations do nothing to stop them. What if someone buys a gun then years later has a breakdown. They don't need to buy a gun at that point but mental health intervention could be effective.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @AlofRI

    The license requirement to drive a car is not necessarily reasonable. We do not expect cyclists to have a license, yet one can just as well kill themselves or others with a modern electric bike, as with a car. If anything, the license requirements make it much harder for people to practice driving, as they can be very solid drivers - yet still require someone to be on the front seat of their car to be able to drive.

    I was ready to take my license test approximately 2 months after I started practicing with the instructor - yet I had to drive with the instructor for 4 more months just to be able to take the test. Had I been allowed to take the test immediately, I would have had a much easier time practicing driving, as I would be able to do it alone legally. 

    The government always wants to regulate everything "for the greater good". Well, I do not see any greater good in people not being able to sneeze without violating anything. It increases levels of stress in the society, puts obstacles everywhere making it very hard for people to achieve anything, wastes a lot of money on extremely inefficient bureaucratic federal and state organisations... What do we get in return? A 5% lower chance that someone will kill us? 5% out of the already negligible percentage. Does anyone seriously think that this is a good deal?
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • edited February 18
    @Zombieguy1987

    Feel free to share this picture with gun control advocates.


    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987George_Horse
    Former Flat Earther

    Libertarianism and Fascism are not the same thing. Libertarianism argues for limited to nonexistent government, Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • AlofRI said:
    An amendment that was written to allow people to have muskets to defend themselves, to allow them to band together and train because we had people with large armies that really didn't like U.S.. To actually allow the defense of our very small government from those who might want to take it over, or from those who would try to take that government away from we, the people, was good at that time. 
    NOONE could have envisioned a weapon that could be held by one person that could mow down a whole army of that time, before they even got in range, with hundreds to over a thousand rounds per minute.
    The weapons have outrun the amendment. The number of people who are against government of and by the people (for some dumb reason), has grown. We HAVE a "well regulated militia" in our National Guard, manned by our friends and neighbors, sister and brothers. THEY are not going to join up with those who want to destroy our democracy, OUR government. THAT is the only militia we need to protect U.S..

    I have nothing against people owning a gun. If we had a better system to control just who can buy one … like a person on a terrorist watch list … we wouldn't have such a dire need for "protection". I've owned guns all my life. That doesn't instill fear in anyone who knows me. I was an NRA member for years, a proud one. I wouldn't be today because they used to sell gun safety and education. Now they sell fear.

    We need a second amendment, but, one that has caught up with the weapons and dangers of today, not 1776!
    that is incorrect.  I'll give you some starting points you can search and learn for yourself.  Search up a gattling gun and about individuals purchasing cannons, pepper box and first repeating rifle etc.  to say it was about muskets and they didn't envision advancements was debunked a long time ago.
    guns were used for hunting, protecting live stock from predators and other things other than any kind of warfare.

    lol (bold part) such as?  how do you stop the illegal black markets?  terrorist watch list isn't a crime, they have NOT been convicted of anything right?  remember the dummycrats that were on the list by mistake?  so you are ok with guilty until proven innocent, sorry can't take you seriously.

    who's gun was used to kill Kate Steinle?

    How many people stopped by the NICS system are actually prosecuted?  what % do you think it is?
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @SilverishGoldNova

    I fail to see how citing the 2nd is in itself an argument justifying its existence... Care to point what I'm missing? Note that I'm not in favor of its repeal.
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • edited February 18
    @Plaffelvohfen Because some gun control advocates will say "It's just for muskets" and if you look into the top right, you'll "musket 0/0" 

    It was intended as a joke, but I can give you a few arguments justifying it's existence if you want.
    Zombieguy1987
    Former Flat Earther

    Libertarianism and Fascism are not the same thing. Libertarianism argues for limited to nonexistent government, Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @SilverishGoldNova It is a mentally stable person's CHOICE to exchange money for a gun. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. I might not have gun rights, but normal people do for protection.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @AlofRI So you're antichoice? If you can support abortion, I can support gun rights.
    Zombieguy1987George_HorseAlofRINathaniel_B
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Feel free to share this picture with gun control advocates.

    Gun control advocates: "But, but you put musket, not muskets!

    Me:


    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • AlofRI said:
    We require a license to drive a car. That doesn't stop everyone from driving without a license. We set regulations on DUI. That doesn't stop everyone from driving under the influence. Most states require a drivers test. That doesn't mean all drivers are good drivers.
    No one expects reasonable background checks to stop ALL shootings, but, if they stop one or two or three, they're worth it … especially if it's your sister? Brother? Mother?
    That's all anyone (well, nearly everyone, there are always some radicals), wants. Other radicals blow this out of proportion for their own selfish reasons. We need to do something, as we did with driving. No one can say driving regulations don't save lives! Not EVERY life, but, enough to make them worth it.

    Actually, stopping EVERY shooting IS the requirement of gun control.  The goal isn't just reducing gun violence, firearms murders are at historic lows now.  Murders per capita haven't been this low in over half a century, since the late 50s early 60s.


    This historic drop in murders comes just as there has been a dramatic rise in the number of firearms and concealed carry permits held by private citizens.  Relaxing self defense laws and allowing people to protect themselves appears to be working. If a good guy with a gun could stop one or two or three shootings, they're worth it … especially if it's your sister? Brother? Mother?

    Apparently not, since we still have people pointing to specific shooting incidents as evidence for the need for more restrictions.  The only thing that will satisfy that type of argument is a complete end to all shootings or at least a total ban of all privately held firearms.  I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner by using that argument.

  • The whole damn point of the second amendment is so that we the citizens have the full and complete right to stop a tyrannical government. And don’t pull the “but it was written when muskets were the only guns” BS on me because I’m pretty damn sure that the founding fathers meant for us to at least be kinda on par with the military. You can’t stop troops with automatic weapons with a bolt action hunting rifle that only has a three round mag *cough* California *cough*.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @SilverishGoldNova It is a mentally stable person's CHOICE to exchange money for a gun. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. I might not have gun rights, but normal people do for protection.
    *cough cough* I presume you @ the wrong person? 
    Zombieguy1987
    Former Flat Earther

    Libertarianism and Fascism are not the same thing. Libertarianism argues for limited to nonexistent government, Fascism is a form of totalitarianism.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

  • @SilverishGoldNova
    Im to lazy to look at her profile, where does she live that she doesn’t have gun rights?
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @AlofRI So you're antichoice? If you can support abortion, I can support gun rights.
    Literally what I say sometimes! Its not a problem to support abortion, but supporting gun rights is a bad thing?
    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @Plaffelvohfen @SilverishGoldNova @AmericanFurryBoy ;

    Um…..no. Citing the 2nd Amendment on gun right is to inform others. The amendment is a process of the change made to something that already tales place, exists. Legal ownership. The civil legal challenge is by taking a way a private right to own gun are you placing all Arm Forces at risk holding them accountable, this meant English, French, Russian, German, and what came to be American.  As these nations either had soldiers as Armed Services, or provided guns responsible for acts of violence, in the form of lethal force. It is the very same thing that is going on to date, without remember the new idea coming to the times of the formation of United States Constitution. The understanding was slavery was bad, and a slave was nothing more than a citizen taken as Prisoner Of War.



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch