Debate on 2nd Ammendment Reform

I don't know if it was mentioned before (only read the first couple posts), but on the arguement of arms progressing to levels unseen by the founding fathers, I'd like to point out that they did allow themselves arms equal to those of the military.

Had they wished for civilians to have arms less than equal, wouldn't they have said "no muskets, only swords" for civvies?

Cheers,
Wolfe.
 
As noted by others: agree on definitions/terms... militia (organized & UN-organized per 10 USC 311), well-regulated, necessary, free state, right, keep and bear, arms, shall not, infringed. Include handguns, long guns, crew served, edged weapons.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/06/research_on_mil.php

http://www.billstclair.com/rkba1982.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html
Might need to discuss collectivist right vs. individual right... as well as historical background of 2nd taken from various state constitutions noted RKBA clauses...

Use of handguns... and/or outlaw of same... in the name of racism... from guncite (link below quote)
Act of Dec. 25, 1837, Digest of the Statute Laws of the State of Georgia in Effect Prior to the Session of the General Assembly of 1851, at 818 (1851). "Such pistols as are known and used as horsemen's pistols" were exempted; these were the largest and heaviest then in use. The statute was voided as a violation of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).

[21] See, e.g., Act of Mar. 18, 1889, 1889 Ariz. Sess. Laws 16 (prohibiting carrying of pistols within any settlement, town, village or city); Act of Apr. 1, 1881, 1881 Ark. Acts 191 (prohibiting sale of "any pistol except such as are used in the army and navy of the United States"; upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1883)); Act of Feb. 4, 1889, 1889 Idaho Sess. Laws 23; Un Acto Prohibiendo el Porte de Armas Mortiferas, 1868-69 Leyes del Territorio del Nuevo Mejico 61; Act of June 11, 1870, ch. 13, 1870 Tenn. Pub. Acts 28 (prohibiting carrying of handguns and certain other weapons in "public assemblies of the people"; partially struck down in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165 (1872)); Act of Apr. 12, 1871, ch. 34, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25 (upheld in English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872)).
Click to expand...
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html#fn20

Then, onto the issue at hand, i.e., handguns, appropriate for defense of free state (freedom) or not? Here you will have to steal their thunder (your learned opponent's thunder, that is) and acknowledge, as XB noted, guns are used for both harm by bad and defense of good and as Jeff Cooper once wrote, "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it". (or words to that effect) Thus to deprive a human of any one tool against evil (in this case a handgun) is to set him up for a fall, to champion evil... something no thinking human being who champions Liberty would ever allow.

You may then wish to delve into the female portion of the equation, in that depriving a woman of a device that can most easily grant her equality to fight evil and remain a free individual is not in the best interest of Liberty or Equality. (reach for and touch their emotions here... see Suzanne Hupp-Gratia, Luby's, Killock Texas, I think it was). Handguns = self defense, Rifles = self offense... but only in the hands of a moral and upright society who value their freedoms and liberty.

go get 'em Sawyer. Let us know how you do.
 
Many of the weapons carried by the people of that time were state of the art.Our forefathers knew this when the 2nd amendment was written.These men were highly intelligent and knew firearms,like everything else would continue to evolve.
 
Ah, the 2nd Amendment... one of the few Amendments that the United States Supreme Court has avoided addressing time and time and time again...

XavierBreath said:
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.
Click to expand...
I strongly suggest you do not adopt this argument because you will crash and burn when your opponent responds, "Then, should we allow grenades, stinger missiles, and land mines; all "weapons," to be freely distributed as well?"
 
guys, i won my debate 15-9 with 6 abstensions. i would like to personally thank everyone who helped me at all. remember this was at stanford in the bay area, so i was really up against the odds.

thank you and god bless.
 
You cant just leav eit at that!!

Sorry, Sawyer- not letting you off the hook THAT easily!

Can you briefly give the strategy or approach you used, and some highlights?!?!?!

Was teh opposition prepared?

Did anything any of us here said (typed) help you specifically?

We gotta know.

And of course, congratulations on the win!
C-
 
Congratualtions on the win Sawyer.

As cplieri requested... give us the dirt. If you Please.

And Thank YOU! We can only hope that at least one child's mind was opened up with a seed properly planted.
 
Congrats Sawyer!

I agree, fill us in with more detail!

Zing Zang: I strongly suggest you do not adopt this argument because you will crash and burn when your opponent responds, "Then, should we allow grenades, stinger missiles, and land mines; all "weapons," to be freely distributed as well?"
Click to expand...
Crash and burn in what fashion? Are you suggesting that certain weapons should be off limits? That is a straw man argument, and easily dismantled by a skilled debater.
 
i promise i will write out a detailed report when i get some free time, i still have some more speeches and work left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top