rationalskepticism.org

I would like to thank the mods, the followers in the peanut gallery, and Byron my opponent for giving me the chance to debate this issue. I also give Byron a hat tip for arguing the devil's advocate position as it is not as easy as one would imagine. Now onto business!

The Second Amendment to the United States is one of the most controversial amendments we have in the United States Constitution. My introduction will be divided into three categories: 1) The importance of a solid Constitution and constitutional government, 2) Interpreting and modernizing the Second Amendment and 3) Why it matters.



To my non-American friends viewing this debate, the entire Constitution seems frivolous and unnecessary. From the outside looking in, I have heard people say Americans worship, revere, or cherish their Constitution as if it was a holy text. But their perception I think is warped from a skewed perspective and before I can even begin defending the Second Amendment I must provide a rationale for the existence and adherence to a Constitution, let alone an Amendment to the legislation itself.

In 1215, King John of England signed a document brought to him by the lording barons restricting the power and rule of the monarchy. This began a stepping stone towards an ideal which would be developed as Republicanism. When the colonies in America successfully revolted and routed the British forces, they had an opportunity to create another monarchy and an empire, but they chose to create a confederacy. This confederacy was based around incredibly loose policies and ultimately failed as Congress was unable to protect the interests of trade, the interests of the states, or maintain the peace as Shay's Rebellion demonstrated. This brought forth the roll of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a binding contract for the United States government to obey, which regulates and restricts various powers and responsibilities divided among the various branches of the government to create a checks and balance system as well as a proper division of power. However, people were afraid the Constitution gave the government too much power and so James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights to propose to the congressional convention. This Bill of Rights restricted the government from infringing on an individual's rights and made it clear that the power in this country by law went from the rights of the people, to the rights of the states, to the rights of the federal government. The people had the most rights and freedoms with the states and the federal government being restricted progressively.

So is the Constitution necessary? Yes. A constitutional republic gives a solid background against tyranny of the state. The civil rights movement began not only because it was a social injustice to segregate and discriminate, but because the government was tyrannically infringing on the rights of the people, be they women or black, etc. What the constitution allows is a basic and plain backing for US legislation. If a piece of legislation violates the Constitution then the courts bring that legislation to be reviewed.

Furthermore, it is not an end all document. It can be amended further reflecting the wishes of the socio-political culture. It is a very important document and many other countries have a successfully established constitutional governments in which their legislation has to be backed by their Constitution. It is an effective system.



Onto the subject of this debate. We know why the Constitution is important, but the Second Amendment has caused confusion via its wording and whether or not its applicable to the general populace or not. Now our gracious moderator THWOTH has provided for us the text of the Amendment above, so I will not repeat it, but I will choose the keywords of the amendment to discuss.

1) militia- Many people think of militia as a town guard, or paid conscripts and soldiers. In modern times they are called our national guards, and coast guards. This is not necessarily the case. In the United States, all men at the age of 18 have to register for selective service i.e. the draft. All men are eligible at anytime the United States calls forth a draft to report to wherever they send you at a given time. It has barely been 50 years since the draft for Vietnam. All of those men were part of what is called the militia. In the past, it was the militiamen's duty to provide their own supplies and ammunition. During the Civil War this was one of main advantages the Union had over the Confederacy, better guns and ammunitions from having richer families and more industrial goods.

2) free State- To prevent the tyranny from the government, both local and abroad, a free State is important. When that free state turns into an authoritarian government, the people can be subject to cruelty and massive infringements on their rights. Now the argument that a gun cannot stand up against a drone strike is oftentimes thrown out in the discussion and I would like to point out that many regimes in Syria, Pakistan, etc. are successfully rebelling against their Russian backed governments and managing fairly well in their resistance despite inferior weaponry and equipment.

3) Arms - Many people assume this refers to all armaments, and the context does nothing of the sort. Small arms was a concept back in the day, and it referred to individual/personal firearms. It didn't count infantry support or mortars, etc.

So interpreting the second amendment in order to fully understand it's implication:

All men (women are not required to register for the draft) of the years 18 and over who are eligible for the selective service of the United States are necessary for the protection of the freedom of the people from both foreign and domestic enemies, the right to bear personal firearms shall not be broken.

Pretty straightforward material, and that is how the courts have interpreted in recent years.

Far from being archaic, the message is pretty universal. Now you can argue that the draft is obsolete, but as of now the draft is still legal and can indeed be enacted at anytime by Congress.



The argument that you can still have gun rights without the second amendment is oftentimes debated. Through the course of this debate I am hoping to convince others that the importance of the right to keep and bear small arms can be well regulated and restricted, but not completely infringed. The Constitutional amendment ensures the American people that the government cannot legally at anytime pass legislation to violate their rights to own a gun. Sure you could do away with the Amendment, but at the peril that a ban like the 1996 ban in Britain can occur.

At most, and I will touch on this throughout the debate, you can always amend the second amendment to be more modern if the people felt it was too out of touch with reality. But as has been argued by the SCOTUS, gun control itself is not unconstitutional, so long as it is not restrictive from stopping a law abiding citizen from owning a gun.

With this I close my opening introduction and wish my opponent the best of luck and for those watching to enjoy what I hope to be an engaging debate. Thanks and best wishes!