I am currently at a political type summerschool where we are also taking place in debates. I ended up with a debate on whether we should reform the 2nd ammendment to not include the right to bear handguns. I plan on doing research at the library here, and online, but i wanted to get some points and thoughts from you guys. Just throw out some points or numbers that i should look into more. Thanks for all the help guys, im one of the few Republicans here, im vastly outnumbered but this is a right that i care about strongly and will debate the hell out of the otherside.
Debate on 2nd Ammendment Reform
- Thread starter Sawyer
- Start date
XavierBreath
New member
From Middle English armes= weapons. from Old French, pl. of arme= weapon. from Latin arma= weapons. see ar- in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English armen from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma.
Thus, "To keep and bear arms" means to keep and bear weapons. Not duck guns, not hunting rifles, not target guns, but weapons. Weapons. Devices designed to defend one's life, with lethal force if need be. That includes handguns. Period.
The only rationale for "reforming" an amendment is that one does not agree with it's premise. The second amendment is not in need of reformation. Your opposition is in need of education. Realize, however, that you may be debating an entrenched party that is blinded by emotion, and refuses to see reality. Part of the pro-gun defense is choosing your battles wisely. As soon as you agree to enter a debate on reforming the second amendment, you have lost. The amendment is well defined as it stands. A favorite tactic of the anti-gun crowd is to waste the time and energy of the pro-gun side. If you find yourself debating an irrational opponent, simply agree to disagree. It drives them nuts.
Just Facts on Gun Control
Equal Rights for CCW
A Human Right
Thus, "To keep and bear arms" means to keep and bear weapons. Not duck guns, not hunting rifles, not target guns, but weapons. Weapons. Devices designed to defend one's life, with lethal force if need be. That includes handguns. Period.
The only rationale for "reforming" an amendment is that one does not agree with it's premise. The second amendment is not in need of reformation. Your opposition is in need of education. Realize, however, that you may be debating an entrenched party that is blinded by emotion, and refuses to see reality. Part of the pro-gun defense is choosing your battles wisely. As soon as you agree to enter a debate on reforming the second amendment, you have lost. The amendment is well defined as it stands. A favorite tactic of the anti-gun crowd is to waste the time and energy of the pro-gun side. If you find yourself debating an irrational opponent, simply agree to disagree. It drives them nuts.
Just Facts on Gun Control
Equal Rights for CCW
A Human Right
Xavier, i was thinking the exact same thing. if they want to argue things that are not relevant to the debate i will simply not argue. i know they will bring up murder/accident numbers, but really all this debate about is the constitution and the fact that it is OUR right as stated in the constitution. i havent met with my group yet, but it looks like we have a good mix of people. thanks for the help so far.
You might have a chance of educating and reforming some fence sitters. I would also reccomend reading what the founding fathers had to say about the 2nd Amendment. My opinion is that all 10 are a package deal. Once you start reforming one the other 9 will be up for grabs. The first 10 amendments were put there for a reason. Some of the acts that the BoR forbids government to do were done to the colonists by the British.
I would also mosey over to the Brady website and look at the arguments they give for gun control. That way you might be able to counter some arguments they make with facts.
I would also mosey over to the Brady website and look at the arguments they give for gun control. That way you might be able to counter some arguments they make with facts.
there are 250 students here, i believe on an issue like this many of them will be either uneducated, or only know of some of the propoganda spit by anti-gun organizations. i fully intend to use this as an oppurtunity to sway some people.
what would you guys say for the argument that the ammendment is outdated because Madison, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and company could not imagine the firearms that we have today and wrote this for the rifles of their time? i heard some people bring up this argument in class earlier today. I was thinking, they didnt know about the internet, tv or radio, but we still have freedom of speech and press.
what would you guys say for the argument that the ammendment is outdated because Madison, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and company could not imagine the firearms that we have today and wrote this for the rifles of their time? i heard some people bring up this argument in class earlier today. I was thinking, they didnt know about the internet, tv or radio, but we still have freedom of speech and press.
XavierBreath
New member
Using free press/internet as an analogy will be quickly dismissed as a straw man in a debate. To an unskilled debater, it is a good solid point, but to a skilled debater, it will fail.
It is far better to show that modern weapons still fit the definition of arms as used by the forefathers. Pistols/handguns were used, and even carried concealed by many people during Jefferson's time. Men did not travel without firearms. They were used for both self defense and crime, the same as today. The only difference is the effectiveness of the weapon not only for evil, but also for good. One balances out the other.
One such example, of the use of handguns in Jefferson's time was Samuel Whittemore. The story is that British soldiers returning from the Battles of Lexington and Concord were spotted by Samuel Whittemore(1694-1786?) in Menotomy (modern Arlington). He loaded his musket, and took aim at the approaching soldiers from behind a nearby stone wall. He fired, killing one of the British troops. He then drew his dueling pistols and killed another soldier with his pistols. Having no time left to reload before the soldiers advanced to him, he drew a sword and advanced toward the British, attacking them with his sword. He was shot, bayoneted, and beaten by the infuriated troop of British soldiers. Villagers came to remove his body after the British left. They were amazed to find him still alive. They removed him from the field, and he lived to recover from his wounds. He lived until he was 91 years of age, and was regarded by the locals as a hero of the revolution.
Obviously, to Mr. Whitmore and other men of his time, pistols as well as swords were considered arms. They were carried and used for defense. Thus, there is no argument that the arms mentioned in the second amendment includes pistols and other handguns.
DunedinDragon
New member
First of all, in order to debate this question you have to establish there is a problem in the 2nd Amendment that needs correcting. You need to be prepared to argue that the reason the founding fathers incorporated this into the bill of rights is just as valid today as it was then. Look at some of the writings from the founding fathers such as Jefferson or John Adams for this.
Secondly, assuming they can build a case there is a problem associated with the 2A (such as gun deaths) they have to show compelling data that would show their approach would change those facts.
If I were you I'd gather some data regarding Great Britain, Australia's, Washington DC, and Chicago crime rates after their gun bans. Don't be tricked into talking guns. Guns is not the issue, violence is. It does no good to correct one problem only to create others. They have to prove that reducing the amount of guns reduces VIOLENCE...not just gun deaths.
Secondly, assuming they can build a case there is a problem associated with the 2A (such as gun deaths) they have to show compelling data that would show their approach would change those facts.
If I were you I'd gather some data regarding Great Britain, Australia's, Washington DC, and Chicago crime rates after their gun bans. Don't be tricked into talking guns. Guns is not the issue, violence is. It does no good to correct one problem only to create others. They have to prove that reducing the amount of guns reduces VIOLENCE...not just gun deaths.
Richard Hanson
New member
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve in the people the capacity to defend their liberty against the tyranny of of any government including their own government. This is not surprising considering that the men who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment had recently overthrown a tyrannical government in an effort to secure their liberties. The founding fathers where literally revolutionaries.
As weapon technology advances, then so also must the weapons protected by the Second Amendment else the people will become significantly outgunned by their own government (which has happened) and the government will begin to intrude on their rights (which has also happened). If a weapon is a part of the regular equipage of a soldier in the service of this nation, then it is also protected by the Second Amendment even if our government has treated that right with a casual contempt.
Also, when you look for statistics about violence in unarmed populations compared to armed populations be sure to include not only those killed in crimes but also the many tens of millions of people killed by their own governments in places like China, the former Soviet Union, and Cambodia.
I do, however, find the entire premise somewhat amusing as a "collective" rights interpretation of Second Amendment would mean that rewriting the Second Amendment to exclude handguns would remove handguns from the equipage available to the various state and national guard organizations. Basically, the premise of the question accepts as axiomatic that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and not a collective right else the proposed change is nonsensical, irrational. What purpose would we have in denying hand guns to members of our Guard units? I would start the debate by graciously thanking your opponent for conceding that very significant point in the broader debate concerning the proper understanding of the Second Amendment which is certain to be rather galling to the pro-control faction which was probable responsible for framed this debate topic in the first place. If they are going to be that stupid, you might as well take advantage of their error and I would certainly insist that any right should first be vigorously enforced, which in this instance would include the incorporation of the Second Amendment against the various state and local government under the Fourteenth Amendment, before any substantive judgment could be made as to whether or not a proposed change to that same right would be beneficial or detrimental to the cause of our sacred liberty.
Respectfully,
Richard
As weapon technology advances, then so also must the weapons protected by the Second Amendment else the people will become significantly outgunned by their own government (which has happened) and the government will begin to intrude on their rights (which has also happened). If a weapon is a part of the regular equipage of a soldier in the service of this nation, then it is also protected by the Second Amendment even if our government has treated that right with a casual contempt.
Also, when you look for statistics about violence in unarmed populations compared to armed populations be sure to include not only those killed in crimes but also the many tens of millions of people killed by their own governments in places like China, the former Soviet Union, and Cambodia.
I do, however, find the entire premise somewhat amusing as a "collective" rights interpretation of Second Amendment would mean that rewriting the Second Amendment to exclude handguns would remove handguns from the equipage available to the various state and national guard organizations. Basically, the premise of the question accepts as axiomatic that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and not a collective right else the proposed change is nonsensical, irrational. What purpose would we have in denying hand guns to members of our Guard units? I would start the debate by graciously thanking your opponent for conceding that very significant point in the broader debate concerning the proper understanding of the Second Amendment which is certain to be rather galling to the pro-control faction which was probable responsible for framed this debate topic in the first place. If they are going to be that stupid, you might as well take advantage of their error and I would certainly insist that any right should first be vigorously enforced, which in this instance would include the incorporation of the Second Amendment against the various state and local government under the Fourteenth Amendment, before any substantive judgment could be made as to whether or not a proposed change to that same right would be beneficial or detrimental to the cause of our sacred liberty.
Respectfully,
Richard
A more recent use of firearms for self defense was during Katrina when the NOPD simply could not provide law and order. Some Citizens had to rely on thier privately owned firearms for self defense. Look at the Armed Citizen on the NRA site. Hundreds of examples where firearms are still used to prevent crime and save lives on a daily basis. Self defense is part of the reason for firearms ownership.
If anybody thinks the police can protect them 100% they are being naive.especially as we saw during the recent disasters of 2005.
The folks who founded this nation knew that if the citizens could own arms it would remain free from any type of coup or takeover. The armed forces and police only constitute a very small percentage of our population. The gun owners outnumber them greatly. That is the reason the gun grabbers do it incrementally starting with registration. The folks who want to grab your guns know that going straight for the guns would be a disaster and would fail.
If anybody thinks the police can protect them 100% they are being naive.especially as we saw during the recent disasters of 2005.
The folks who founded this nation knew that if the citizens could own arms it would remain free from any type of coup or takeover. The armed forces and police only constitute a very small percentage of our population. The gun owners outnumber them greatly. That is the reason the gun grabbers do it incrementally starting with registration. The folks who want to grab your guns know that going straight for the guns would be a disaster and would fail.
i have just thought about this fact.
so lets say that we did pass the reform. How would they go about collecting all of the handguns from the American people? Have the police and government confinscate these from houses?
I believe that enacting this reform and the collection of firearms would directly violate both our 2nd and 4th ammendment rights. that is 1/5th of the bill of rights right there.
so lets say that we did pass the reform. How would they go about collecting all of the handguns from the American people? Have the police and government confinscate these from houses?
I believe that enacting this reform and the collection of firearms would directly violate both our 2nd and 4th ammendment rights. that is 1/5th of the bill of rights right there.
Sawyer, this is a little bit lengthy, but it may be exactly what you need - The Justice Department's Opinion for the Attorney General. It specifically addresses issues such as individual vs. collection rights and things like militia. Go get'em, tiger! sundog
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
DunedinDragon
New member
That may or may not be true depending on how they would implement it. In all likelihood an outright ban on handguns would more likely be done by having a period in which handgun owners could freely turn in their guns without retribution, followed by strict enforcement of penalties if you are found to have one.
The focus point for this is one of the reality of implementation. How much would it cost and where would the money come from? Are they prepared to place an otherwise law-abiding citizen in prison for a felony, and affect his family and his livelihood for the rest of his life? What's the social impact? How many NEW criminals will be created by their approach?
I don't know the parameters for the debate, but you might want to be prepared for something less than an all-out ban, such as enforced registration and such. I think you can apply the notion of any approach being both expensive and potentially disruptive to society by creating new criminals where there weren't criminals before to virtually any approach they might promote.
Basically I guess I'm saying your strongest arguments against any implementation plan are going to be based on whether any modification to the 2A could be realistically applied in today's America. By doing that you discredit their approach regardless of whether they win the debate on IF it should be done.
maybe this helps? i hope so.
Let me suggest that you have lost already: wasting time about how to collect all the guns, etc is not only playing defense; it makes the concession that YOU AGREE HANDGUNS COULD BE BANNED, BUT IT’LL BE TOO HARD TO ROUND THEM ALL UP. You are playing damage control, not playing to win! Don’t do it!
Remember the words of Gen. Macarthur “…I send you one single thought, one sole idea - written in red on every beachhead from Australia to Tokyo - There is no substitute for victory! "
they have framed the arguement to just talk about handguns. This is a smokescreen to make you think "Oh, they're leaving other guns alone" but in reality, they have already gotten you and MORE importantly the audience to subconsciously -or not- agree that SOME firearms are worth banning and its just a matter of the details.
To win a framed arguement you need to take an aggressive posture from the beginning, and take CONTROL of the arguement again. Your prepared oration MUST be very clear and flow is ultra-important so that the audience can follow your more complex-than-usual talk. Because you are going to walk them by the hand outside that framework and then back in again, where they realize they do not belong! That's the overall strategy.
First, tell them what your going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you said.
Tell them what you are going to say:
start with your skeleton arguement: COTUS protects our right to keep and bear arms. Reform of the 2A contravenes the foundation of the laws that define the US, is ineffective in reducing crime; and FURTHER endangers the safety of citizens from violent crime; and therefore should not be done.
Now tell them:
Reform contravenes the intent of our Constitution:
The full text WITH CORRECT PUNCTUATION of the 2A is (insert here) So in order to answer our original question, we must know first the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Great consideration has been given to the opening words, ‘A well-trained…
here look up: The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html and summarize it by saying that the opening words are in fact a “… present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective…” Provide a full text for their reference.
Then tell them it is the right of the People, which is every citizen as it is used in all other areas of the document. Then define ‘keep’ as it was used by the authors. BRIEFLY define ‘bear’, ‘arms’ and ‘to infringe’ in the same way; as suggested by others.
Use the argument mentioned by a previous forum member that The People cherish the other rights protected by the Constitution so much that their freedom of Speech, to include such controversial subjects as pornography, are rigorously protected. We do not accept censorship, even if we call it ‘reform of the 1st Ammendment’. Nor should we, nor will we, accept infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.
It endangers the safety of citizens:
Then reiterate the question: 'What then are the implications of restricting the 2a to exclude handguns?’ This is Two questions:
1.What are the implications of restricting the 2nd Amendment?, and
2." " the possession and bearing of handguns?
Then ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FOR THEM, don’t give them the chance to disagree by asking a question- even a rhetorical one. ‘the answer to the first question is easiest. As Dr. Copperud explained in his essay (which they have in their hands), that the intent of the Highest Law of The Land was that the FREEDOM to keep and bear military arms for personal defensive use is not to be restricted in any way. Why is this freedom relevant to modern times?
*Here is where you go for the jugular. Don’t BS, don’t water it down. This part is also where you may disagree with me and my tactic; and your actual plan may veer from mine at this point*
Bluntly, the Founding fathers did not trust the British Government. Our own Declaration of Independence describes the ‘long train of abuses’ to which they were subjected. The colonists knew they needed arms to win and maintain freedom when all other means had failed! To be equally blunt, MODERN governments are not to be trusted either. Governments are made up of human beings. Human beings have not changed significantly in their basic desires and weaknesses over the last few centuries. Recall that ‘Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.’ A monopoly on the use of force is a sure way to corruption as seen in:
(here go into the examples listed in this document: http://www.jpfo.org/deathchart.htm and emphasize the huge numbers and compare to the total deaths of all World Wars!)
deflect their rebuttal in advance by addressing:
Yes, it can happen here! People are basically the same everywhere. The next dictator can be born at any time. Recall that Germany was a Democratic Republic prior to the rise of Hitler. It can happen here.
Don’t dwell on this point, as you then get into an unending argument on human nature. Leave that to the sociologists.
So we have answered question part 1 by stating that rkba shall not be infringed. we cannot stop there
So part 2 asks, why might one restrict handguns?
The most common and popular (don’t say ‘strong’ or lend them any inadvertent credibility!) reasons quoted are:
1.they are not the primary defensive arm for military defense.
2.they are used by criminals to do harm because of their ease of concealing a handgun etc
3.a handgun is more often involved in the accidental death of a child
then shoot down each of these premises with well-prepared references. For example, anticipate that they will cite fbi and Klinton statistics on the number of children ‘killed by guns’ and give those numbers specifically and accurately so they cannot claim you are misrepresenting their side. Then destroy their argument in advance by pointing out that the statistics includes ‘children’ ages up to 19 years old (i.e. it includes adults); then give a more reasonable number using the definition of children under age 5, or whatever.
point out that the Klinton-stats included the Criminal use of firearms, especially by adults aged 18-19. Give the REAL number of ACCIDENTAL deaths in CHILDREN, so they don’t have to do any math in their heads.
Give some references to emphasize that accidental deaths are due mainly to parental negligence in unsafe handling/storage. Back it up with other tragedies like education and whatnot that are COMMONLY and by the mainstream media attributed to parental negligence. That way, they admit that parental negligence both exists and is a problem.
Then give a few specific comparison numbers from the same time period as the Klinton references that show firearm deaths of children <5 are lower than those from swimming pools, auto accidents, and even candles!
Also issue a pre-emptive strike on part 2, points 1 and 2 of course. Such things as
- the necessity that the protected arms be the ‘Primary’ type of defensive arm is not found anywhere in COTUS. You can include some historical use of handguns if you want and if you can find any specifics, but ONLY if that example was famous or by a famous person, in a military or righteous defensive use; and if it is a GENERALLY ACCEPTED HEROIC use of the handgun for the cause of the Good Guy!!!
- attack criminal use by stating that criminal intent, not the inanimate object, is the cause of crime. Here you may want to address their anticipated assertion that a handgun makes it ‘easier’ to do harm. Don’t deny it. Of course it is easier to harm someone USING a firearm than a knife,rock or bare hands, that’s why they were developed! It is similarly easier for a good person to defend HERself using her handgun.
It is unnecessary and ineffective in preventing violent crime:
Then address their assertion that ‘if there weren’t any handguns, the woman wouldn’t need one’. Point out WITH REFERENCES that criminals get their weapons outside the law (specific #%) of the time. It is always and only the law-abiding, good citizen that will comply with a legislated ban.
Modern examples are not of former dictators, but of todays England and Australia. Crimes soared immediately following their new gun laws. Furthermore, huge increases in stabbings and beatings reinforce that it is the criminal intent, not the weapon, that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Criminals will use whatever is at hand to hurt you: YOU who has complied with the ban and handed in your firerms!
Etc. etc.
summarize by refreshing their memories and bringing them back to the now destroyed initial question: We now see that ‘reform’ of the 2nd amendment in any way, not only limited to handguns, not only fails to achieve its stated goal of reducing crime; but empowers both criminals and dictators, makes defenseless the common citizen; and undermines the law that made this country free.
And above all, remember to command your language and terms: say that the constitution PROTECTS our rights it does not confer them. Never use the term 'assault weapon' or if you do make sure to state that it is a term fabricated by the senators who drafted the AWB and has no official accepted definition (if questioned by an astute opponent, state that an Assault RIFLE is a real item: the first of which was named so by Adolph Hitler, the Father of Modern Gun Control, and is a select-fire weapon already restricted heavily by the 34NFA, 68GCa and many state laws...etc...); use the term ‘firearm’ instead of ‘gun’. if you have to you should use ‘defensive arm’ to describe any gun.
C-
Let me suggest that you have lost already: wasting time about how to collect all the guns, etc is not only playing defense; it makes the concession that YOU AGREE HANDGUNS COULD BE BANNED, BUT IT’LL BE TOO HARD TO ROUND THEM ALL UP. You are playing damage control, not playing to win! Don’t do it!
Remember the words of Gen. Macarthur “…I send you one single thought, one sole idea - written in red on every beachhead from Australia to Tokyo - There is no substitute for victory! "
they have framed the arguement to just talk about handguns. This is a smokescreen to make you think "Oh, they're leaving other guns alone" but in reality, they have already gotten you and MORE importantly the audience to subconsciously -or not- agree that SOME firearms are worth banning and its just a matter of the details.
To win a framed arguement you need to take an aggressive posture from the beginning, and take CONTROL of the arguement again. Your prepared oration MUST be very clear and flow is ultra-important so that the audience can follow your more complex-than-usual talk. Because you are going to walk them by the hand outside that framework and then back in again, where they realize they do not belong! That's the overall strategy.
First, tell them what your going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you said.
Tell them what you are going to say:
start with your skeleton arguement: COTUS protects our right to keep and bear arms. Reform of the 2A contravenes the foundation of the laws that define the US, is ineffective in reducing crime; and FURTHER endangers the safety of citizens from violent crime; and therefore should not be done.
Now tell them:
Reform contravenes the intent of our Constitution:
The full text WITH CORRECT PUNCTUATION of the 2A is (insert here) So in order to answer our original question, we must know first the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Great consideration has been given to the opening words, ‘A well-trained…
here look up: The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html and summarize it by saying that the opening words are in fact a “… present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective…” Provide a full text for their reference.
Then tell them it is the right of the People, which is every citizen as it is used in all other areas of the document. Then define ‘keep’ as it was used by the authors. BRIEFLY define ‘bear’, ‘arms’ and ‘to infringe’ in the same way; as suggested by others.
Use the argument mentioned by a previous forum member that The People cherish the other rights protected by the Constitution so much that their freedom of Speech, to include such controversial subjects as pornography, are rigorously protected. We do not accept censorship, even if we call it ‘reform of the 1st Ammendment’. Nor should we, nor will we, accept infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.
It endangers the safety of citizens:
Then reiterate the question: 'What then are the implications of restricting the 2a to exclude handguns?’ This is Two questions:
1.What are the implications of restricting the 2nd Amendment?, and
2." " the possession and bearing of handguns?
Then ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FOR THEM, don’t give them the chance to disagree by asking a question- even a rhetorical one. ‘the answer to the first question is easiest. As Dr. Copperud explained in his essay (which they have in their hands), that the intent of the Highest Law of The Land was that the FREEDOM to keep and bear military arms for personal defensive use is not to be restricted in any way. Why is this freedom relevant to modern times?
*Here is where you go for the jugular. Don’t BS, don’t water it down. This part is also where you may disagree with me and my tactic; and your actual plan may veer from mine at this point*
Bluntly, the Founding fathers did not trust the British Government. Our own Declaration of Independence describes the ‘long train of abuses’ to which they were subjected. The colonists knew they needed arms to win and maintain freedom when all other means had failed! To be equally blunt, MODERN governments are not to be trusted either. Governments are made up of human beings. Human beings have not changed significantly in their basic desires and weaknesses over the last few centuries. Recall that ‘Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.’ A monopoly on the use of force is a sure way to corruption as seen in:
(here go into the examples listed in this document: http://www.jpfo.org/deathchart.htm and emphasize the huge numbers and compare to the total deaths of all World Wars!)
deflect their rebuttal in advance by addressing:
Yes, it can happen here! People are basically the same everywhere. The next dictator can be born at any time. Recall that Germany was a Democratic Republic prior to the rise of Hitler. It can happen here.
Don’t dwell on this point, as you then get into an unending argument on human nature. Leave that to the sociologists.
So we have answered question part 1 by stating that rkba shall not be infringed. we cannot stop there
So part 2 asks, why might one restrict handguns?
The most common and popular (don’t say ‘strong’ or lend them any inadvertent credibility!) reasons quoted are:
1.they are not the primary defensive arm for military defense.
2.they are used by criminals to do harm because of their ease of concealing a handgun etc
3.a handgun is more often involved in the accidental death of a child
then shoot down each of these premises with well-prepared references. For example, anticipate that they will cite fbi and Klinton statistics on the number of children ‘killed by guns’ and give those numbers specifically and accurately so they cannot claim you are misrepresenting their side. Then destroy their argument in advance by pointing out that the statistics includes ‘children’ ages up to 19 years old (i.e. it includes adults); then give a more reasonable number using the definition of children under age 5, or whatever.
point out that the Klinton-stats included the Criminal use of firearms, especially by adults aged 18-19. Give the REAL number of ACCIDENTAL deaths in CHILDREN, so they don’t have to do any math in their heads.
Give some references to emphasize that accidental deaths are due mainly to parental negligence in unsafe handling/storage. Back it up with other tragedies like education and whatnot that are COMMONLY and by the mainstream media attributed to parental negligence. That way, they admit that parental negligence both exists and is a problem.
Then give a few specific comparison numbers from the same time period as the Klinton references that show firearm deaths of children <5 are lower than those from swimming pools, auto accidents, and even candles!
Also issue a pre-emptive strike on part 2, points 1 and 2 of course. Such things as
- the necessity that the protected arms be the ‘Primary’ type of defensive arm is not found anywhere in COTUS. You can include some historical use of handguns if you want and if you can find any specifics, but ONLY if that example was famous or by a famous person, in a military or righteous defensive use; and if it is a GENERALLY ACCEPTED HEROIC use of the handgun for the cause of the Good Guy!!!
- attack criminal use by stating that criminal intent, not the inanimate object, is the cause of crime. Here you may want to address their anticipated assertion that a handgun makes it ‘easier’ to do harm. Don’t deny it. Of course it is easier to harm someone USING a firearm than a knife,rock or bare hands, that’s why they were developed! It is similarly easier for a good person to defend HERself using her handgun.
It is unnecessary and ineffective in preventing violent crime:
Then address their assertion that ‘if there weren’t any handguns, the woman wouldn’t need one’. Point out WITH REFERENCES that criminals get their weapons outside the law (specific #%) of the time. It is always and only the law-abiding, good citizen that will comply with a legislated ban.
Modern examples are not of former dictators, but of todays England and Australia. Crimes soared immediately following their new gun laws. Furthermore, huge increases in stabbings and beatings reinforce that it is the criminal intent, not the weapon, that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Criminals will use whatever is at hand to hurt you: YOU who has complied with the ban and handed in your firerms!
Etc. etc.
summarize by refreshing their memories and bringing them back to the now destroyed initial question: We now see that ‘reform’ of the 2nd amendment in any way, not only limited to handguns, not only fails to achieve its stated goal of reducing crime; but empowers both criminals and dictators, makes defenseless the common citizen; and undermines the law that made this country free.
And above all, remember to command your language and terms: say that the constitution PROTECTS our rights it does not confer them. Never use the term 'assault weapon' or if you do make sure to state that it is a term fabricated by the senators who drafted the AWB and has no official accepted definition (if questioned by an astute opponent, state that an Assault RIFLE is a real item: the first of which was named so by Adolph Hitler, the Father of Modern Gun Control, and is a select-fire weapon already restricted heavily by the 34NFA, 68GCa and many state laws...etc...); use the term ‘firearm’ instead of ‘gun’. if you have to you should use ‘defensive arm’ to describe any gun.
C-
10,000 character maximum post length
I began writing this piece late last PM, fell asleep, and then hurried some more but I have to work. Please others help Sawyer with this! please accept my apologies if someone else has writtena similar response and this long response is unwelcome! It is also deliberately incomplete, as i dont know exactly the restrictions /requirements of your assignment.
C-
I began writing this piece late last PM, fell asleep, and then hurried some more but I have to work. Please others help Sawyer with this! please accept my apologies if someone else has writtena similar response and this long response is unwelcome! It is also deliberately incomplete, as i dont know exactly the restrictions /requirements of your assignment.
C-
Poodleshooter
New member
I think we lost that right during the Whiskey Rebellion.
The idea of armed revolt against the US government is anathema to most modern citizens (present company excluded).
The premise of the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be questioned. It's already been undermined by 2 centuries of a standing army, the disappearance of true armed militias such as those existant prior to the Civil War,and their essential replacement in the minds of our citizens by the National Guard. While the unorganized militia still exists in US code, the right to revolt has been constantly shown to be null and void throughout US history. When was the last time the "unorganized militia" were called upon to military action and were not simply incorporated into the standing army? We haven't seen that in large numbers since the Civil War.
The 2nd amendment today is perpetuated as a right to protect oneself against other citizens,or at most the right to defend the country against foreign aggression,rather than a right to protect oneself against governmental tyranny. Like it or not,that's what the vast majority of citizens will agree with.
guntotin_fool
New member
Be sure to ask if they think the Revolutionaries had the right to defend them selves at Concord and Lexington. Ask about Paul Revere's ride. Ask then what it was that the Colonists were defending at Concord and Lexington. IT was Powder and CANNON> The people started the revolutionary War over the possession of CANNON by the people.
Other arguments that hold water is that all of the Founding Fathers, truly believed that no people who did not have the power to over through the very government they had created, could ever be called free. It was the power to overturn the government that guaranteed the collective freedom of the people. Power in political terms meant force of ARMS. guns.
Privateers. The US government did not decry the use of privateers until the Hague convention of 1907. Privateers were citizens who performed armed warfare on behalf the commissioning nation to profit and expand influence in an area acting as private navies and soldiers. It was considered free enterprise for American sailors to attack and seize goods that came from nations with whom we had differences. ( not the just the US did this)
Other arguments that hold water is that all of the Founding Fathers, truly believed that no people who did not have the power to over through the very government they had created, could ever be called free. It was the power to overturn the government that guaranteed the collective freedom of the people. Power in political terms meant force of ARMS. guns.
Privateers. The US government did not decry the use of privateers until the Hague convention of 1907. Privateers were citizens who performed armed warfare on behalf the commissioning nation to profit and expand influence in an area acting as private navies and soldiers. It was considered free enterprise for American sailors to attack and seize goods that came from nations with whom we had differences. ( not the just the US did this)
Hugh Damright
New member
If the Second Amendment did not include the right to keep and bear handguns, that would not empower the US to ban handguns.
Is the intent to leave it up to each State whether or not to ban handguns? Or is the intent to ban handguns in the United States?
Why would 3/4 of the States ratify an amendment to the Constitution regarding banning handguns when no State wants to ban handguns?
It could be argued that the Second Amendment has never included the right to keep and bear handguns. There is some judicial history that there is no federal protection to keep and bear weapons that are used in brawls and can be carried concealed such as handguns. And there is some judicial history that the Second Amendment does not bind the States. So if a State wanted to ban handguns, the Second Amendment would not seem to stop them. After all, if the US needed to call forth a State's Militia, and all they had was rifles and shotguns, that would seem to meet the federal need.
But if it is up to each State whether or not to ban handguns, that is because the States are the bulwarks of such liberties. I do not believe that any State wants to ban handguns. So I just don't understand the premise of this debate ... I kind of think the idea is that the US is not a limited federal government but rather a monarchy limited by a Bill of Rights, and if we could just fix the Bill of Rights to not apply to handguns, then the King could proclaim that handguns are forbidden throughout the land.