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Should The Second Amendment Be Repealed?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
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
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...
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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!
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Feel free to share this picture with gun control advocates.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It was intended as a joke, but I can give you a few arguments justifying it's existence if you want.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 72%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 35%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Im to lazy to look at her profile, where does she live that she doesn’t have gun rights?
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Second Amendment    outdated Amendment   18th century dialogue   21st century  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Most Amendments to the united State Constitution are to address issues of legal precedent set in the workflow of constitutional representation before the courts so a court might become more efficient. It is not expected to stop the work flow before the court system of separation. In a state of Constitution the argument made on gun control is about lethal force not the gun al all. A military draft is not constitutional legal, in basic principle the common defense is acting as civil relief of command of the appointed burden of lethal force. So. an illegal public draft takes place when a democracy legislates the burden of lethal force upon others without holding that burden equally themselves.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: united State Constitution    military draft   illegal public draft   basic principle  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Second Amendment, is being abused, by the continuous sales of illegal guns, being sold to criminals, and offenders, by the illegal gun dealers.
And the Second Amendment, needs to be amended with the Death Penalty, as a way to reflect the abuses being waged on the public, by the illegal gun owning criminals, and offenders, and the first time offender, who committed a crime, with their guns, or gun.
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Second Amendment    Police Officers   various offenders   continuous sales of illegal guns  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Okay first an attack directed at any officer of the law is addition of a basic principle on its own and is away from the debate about the United State held in 2nd Amendment. It is the United States Constitution that is being abused and this is by more than one group and more than in one way.
The police serve and protect the united-State Constitution equally as a common defense to the general welfare. This is not a choice and is not an optional idea open for public vote. It is defended as legal precedent, or not. America is a republic that has democratic applications.
I keep repeating this TKDB and it is unclear if you can understand basic principle and legal precedent. The basic principle involved in mass shooting is abuse of lethal force. Though you are not paying by vote or buy money for this state of the union’s address in basic principle in question, but here it is anyway, lethal force.
There is a strange political idea of who a President works for by appointment of vote, it is not the people in whole truth, it is the judicial office of Government and the position is a stop gap opportunity with a job description. So, President is of the people, and the position is filled. I could take this a deeper in detail but it is not necessary at this time.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: United State    police serve   mass shooting   strange political idea  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
the second amendment makes judges and people think it's okay for people to have guns, when they are not even allowed to fly on a plane. it may not be the amendment that does it, but at least people's interpretation. and who can blame them, the amendment doesn't limit guns to criminals or those who might be a risk. so, what we are left with is the standard that someone must be more than more than likely to commit a crime, they have to be shown to already have committed a crime, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
also the amendment doesn't limit machine guns or nukes or grenade launchers and such, if we are being strict about it all that stuff should be legal. and like i said, criminals should be able to have guns too, even in jail. of course that's ridiculous.
we can have statutory rights to a gun. that way the legislature has more control. otherwise you give judges and other unelected schmucks too much power. it can be clear someone shouldn't have a gun, but the rules to get the guns away are too onerous.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: second amendment    reasonable doubt   machine guns   grenade launchers  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The ownership of a gun is a United State held in Constitution as a common defense. The limitations on object would be set upon a common connection made by a burden of lethal force. In the United State that holds atomic weapons no one person holds the powers of a Nuclear attack alone. So, it is not legally addressable as a common defense to the general welfare of people in application of lethal force.
In basic principle the 2nd Amendment is really the First Amendment on the United States Constitutions 1st Amendment. The argument made with petition of grievance by legislation is on a state of the union made with basic principle of assemblies. Stating that an assembly brought together as Armed Militia for the purpose of regulation of improved abilities as a group is outside the normal scope of equal burden of lethal force made by the Constitutions 1st Amendment.
It can be argued by state of the union address that the whole bill of rights are Amendments on the 1st Amendment not Constitutional Amendments by each of their united state.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: United State    basic principle   machine guns   2nd Amendment  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Local
"1 killed, 2 injured after shooting in Seattle's Central District"
"One person was killed and two people were injured in a shooting in Seattle's Central District neighborhood Friday afternoon, police said.
Shortly after 3 p.m., investigators said one suspect shot at a group of people in the 2100 block of East Union Street.
Police said the victims drove to Swedish Hospital."
"One died, and two others were in satisfactory condition at Harborview Medical Center.
Police did not immediately release a suspect description.
Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call 206-233-5000.
Investigators said the gang unit was doing an ongoing emphasis patrol in that neighborhood and other neighborhoods affected by gun violence.
See time-stamped updates below.
4:52 p.m.: Police gave a briefing and said they did not have a suspect description to release.
Three victims -- the man in his 20s, the man in his 40s and a third victim who died -- were shot shortly after 3 p.m. They were driven in a car with two other people to Swedish's Cherry Hill campus.
The two people who survived were taken to Harborview Medical Center, where they were in satisfactory condition."
These types shootings, are a daily occurrence.
But leave the Second Amendment, unamended, it's 18th century language, getting abused, by the 21 century actions, of some of the lawful, and the unlawful gun owners?
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
These types shootings, are a daily occurrence.
But leave the Second Amendment, unamended, it's 18th century language, getting abused, by the 21 century actions, of some of the lawful, and the unlawful gun owners?
Yes, leave the 2nd Amendment alone the basic principle does not address the use of lethal force directly. The first question is how to share the burden of lethal force equally?
Lethal force is a united state addressing the crime of imposed death. This is a basic principle.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: types shootings    Second Amendment   basic principle   18th century language  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: status of ownership of gun    status of lethal force   overall cost   change of Direction  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra