Posted: Jan 31, 2014 6:40 pm
A quick point for clarification in case my opponent may have been confused:
In regards to my Constitution comment and how it causes confusion to many people outside the US, I trust my opponent had the grace to read in the last paragraph of my first part: "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." So I nowhere said that the US was the only country with a Constitution, I made a comment opening up why some people may find a Constitution, let alone the right to bear arms as part of it, necessary. It is indeed important for this debate.
Now onwards.
Obviously this debate is around this issue, but what does this right mean under the law? Why do we need such a right?
When the U.K. instituted it's ban on firearms in 1996 it was in a culture which already had a small amount of firearms circulating in it. Firearm ownership was an exception, not a normality. Countries like Switzerland, however, do not need to implement a gun ban, but do have reasonable gun regulation.
At the very end of my first post I mentioned amending the Second, but in reality we really do not need to. Why not? Because the SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that while an individual's rights to own a firearm is not to be infringed on, gun control such as background checks, such as permits, are not unconstitutional. Because of this a reasonable position on the gun control debate is implement reasonable gun controls. Ultimately my opponent's position is unnecessary on the sole basis of it can be fixed with reasonable gun controls. There is no need to do away with the Second Amendment at all. An individual can still own a firearm, albeit through stricter regulations and restrictions, something which is not barred from the Constitution.
Using Switzerland as an example, most men between the ages of 20-30 are enlisted into a militia, as Switzerland does not have a standing army. These men receive military training, including weapons training, and then are sent home with their equipment. There are a lot of "assault weapons" circulated in Switzerland, a progressive European country, and yet it has a low crime rate.
Why is this? Well aside from a prosperous economy and socio-political liberal ideologies, Switzerland has reasonable gun control. They require a permit and it restricts how many guns can be owned on that permit, bolt-action and single-shot firearms are an exception. To get a permit self defense, which I will get to a minute, is a valid reason to acquire it. Among other regulatory practices. It works.
In the United States such gun control, as well as a change in the socio-economic/political situation, would have effective power in limiting gun accidents and deaths. And all without needing to change or do away with the 2nd Amendment. Such a legal hurdle to try to implement is largely unnecessary.
The only way diplomacy successfully works is if you have something of value to the other guy. That can be a productive workforce, a land filled with plenty of resources, something to trade, OR enough intimidation of force. In the case of an oppressive government subjugating their citizens to authoritarian violence, the only hope for the people is either outside liberation, change in government which overthrows the authoritarian regime, or successful resistance to the authoritarian government. Now in America, things are not that bad, but with constant police brutality, a growing disconnect between Americans and their government, a huge wealth gap and other factors, and America is on the verge of crashing.
Sure it won't fall per se but it is losing its status as the leading world power and fast. All one has to do is look at the revolts in the Balkans, such as Serbia, Yugoslavia and Croatia to know how bad it can be when a government collapses or experiences massive complications. The people in those countries and territories were subject to violence and oppression by would-be leaders and political parties trying to assume control. In the race for the throne it is the little man who gets hurt.
Such a thing may seem farfetched to those of us who have lived in the Western world with a modicum of security, but if it does happen, which it can, what protects the people from the violent intents of power-grabbers? Sheep-like complacency may seem safest this is true, until that complacency leads to you being robbed of everything, or worse raped. No, in order to protect oneself from those willing to harm you, whether it be a government oppressing its people, an anarchist like society trying to pick up the pieces of a government collapse, or whether it be individuals willing to harm to another, the right to self defense is a reasonable right. A personal firearm allows for the best protection from such violence.
Most countries in the civilized world have laws dealing with self defense, in which a person can use reasonable force to stop the threat to their life. Some countries include property, but I am not going to argue the property clause, just the people clause. And it makes sense. Why should a person have to sit back and not at least try to defend themselves from an assault if they have to fear legal repercussions after surviving an attack that may or may not leave permanent injury.
Now obviously we have abuse of these self defense laws within the court, and those abuses need to be dealt with. But abuse in the courts is no rational reason to do away with the concept of the law altogether. A strict, and regulated enforcement of the law can easily fix these abused, just as a strict and regulated enforcement of gun control laws can easily fix gun crime and gun deaths.
In this regards both things are unnecessary. In short, I believe my opponents call to repeal the 2nd sounds warrantable, but is unnecessary and not needed. People should have the right to defend themselves from violent criminals. With stricter gun control laws those violent criminals would not be likely to have a firearm, but it can happen. The people should be able to have a regulated firearm in their home to protect themselves in a case such as that. The analogy of a fire extinguisher in the home comes to mind. The person may not expect a fire, and may do everything they can to prevent a fire, but fires can happen. The same can be said in regards to violent crime and ownership of a firearm. Because of this we cannot reasonably do away with the right to bear arms.
Even if in some strange universe the second amendment were to be repealed that does not mean the right to own a firearm is removed from the US society.
The Ninth Amendment grants rights to the people not listed in the Constitution.
So in conclusion, an amendment or even a repeal of the Second Amendment is unnecessary and useless for the issue of gun control. You can create appropriate legislation which is easier to pass and remains backed by the Constitution. So long as it does not ban an individual from a personal firearm.
In regards to my Constitution comment and how it causes confusion to many people outside the US, I trust my opponent had the grace to read in the last paragraph of my first part: "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." So I nowhere said that the US was the only country with a Constitution, I made a comment opening up why some people may find a Constitution, let alone the right to bear arms as part of it, necessary. It is indeed important for this debate.
Now onwards.
The Right to Own a Firearmp
Obviously this debate is around this issue, but what does this right mean under the law? Why do we need such a right?
When the U.K. instituted it's ban on firearms in 1996 it was in a culture which already had a small amount of firearms circulating in it. Firearm ownership was an exception, not a normality. Countries like Switzerland, however, do not need to implement a gun ban, but do have reasonable gun regulation.
At the very end of my first post I mentioned amending the Second, but in reality we really do not need to. Why not? Because the SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that while an individual's rights to own a firearm is not to be infringed on, gun control such as background checks, such as permits, are not unconstitutional. Because of this a reasonable position on the gun control debate is implement reasonable gun controls. Ultimately my opponent's position is unnecessary on the sole basis of it can be fixed with reasonable gun controls. There is no need to do away with the Second Amendment at all. An individual can still own a firearm, albeit through stricter regulations and restrictions, something which is not barred from the Constitution.
Using Switzerland as an example, most men between the ages of 20-30 are enlisted into a militia, as Switzerland does not have a standing army. These men receive military training, including weapons training, and then are sent home with their equipment. There are a lot of "assault weapons" circulated in Switzerland, a progressive European country, and yet it has a low crime rate.
Why is this? Well aside from a prosperous economy and socio-political liberal ideologies, Switzerland has reasonable gun control. They require a permit and it restricts how many guns can be owned on that permit, bolt-action and single-shot firearms are an exception. To get a permit self defense, which I will get to a minute, is a valid reason to acquire it. Among other regulatory practices. It works.
In the United States such gun control, as well as a change in the socio-economic/political situation, would have effective power in limiting gun accidents and deaths. And all without needing to change or do away with the 2nd Amendment. Such a legal hurdle to try to implement is largely unnecessary.
Tyranny From Foreign and Domestic Enemies
The only way diplomacy successfully works is if you have something of value to the other guy. That can be a productive workforce, a land filled with plenty of resources, something to trade, OR enough intimidation of force. In the case of an oppressive government subjugating their citizens to authoritarian violence, the only hope for the people is either outside liberation, change in government which overthrows the authoritarian regime, or successful resistance to the authoritarian government. Now in America, things are not that bad, but with constant police brutality, a growing disconnect between Americans and their government, a huge wealth gap and other factors, and America is on the verge of crashing.
Sure it won't fall per se but it is losing its status as the leading world power and fast. All one has to do is look at the revolts in the Balkans, such as Serbia, Yugoslavia and Croatia to know how bad it can be when a government collapses or experiences massive complications. The people in those countries and territories were subject to violence and oppression by would-be leaders and political parties trying to assume control. In the race for the throne it is the little man who gets hurt.
Such a thing may seem farfetched to those of us who have lived in the Western world with a modicum of security, but if it does happen, which it can, what protects the people from the violent intents of power-grabbers? Sheep-like complacency may seem safest this is true, until that complacency leads to you being robbed of everything, or worse raped. No, in order to protect oneself from those willing to harm you, whether it be a government oppressing its people, an anarchist like society trying to pick up the pieces of a government collapse, or whether it be individuals willing to harm to another, the right to self defense is a reasonable right. A personal firearm allows for the best protection from such violence.
Self Defense
Most countries in the civilized world have laws dealing with self defense, in which a person can use reasonable force to stop the threat to their life. Some countries include property, but I am not going to argue the property clause, just the people clause. And it makes sense. Why should a person have to sit back and not at least try to defend themselves from an assault if they have to fear legal repercussions after surviving an attack that may or may not leave permanent injury.
Now obviously we have abuse of these self defense laws within the court, and those abuses need to be dealt with. But abuse in the courts is no rational reason to do away with the concept of the law altogether. A strict, and regulated enforcement of the law can easily fix these abused, just as a strict and regulated enforcement of gun control laws can easily fix gun crime and gun deaths.
In this regards both things are unnecessary. In short, I believe my opponents call to repeal the 2nd sounds warrantable, but is unnecessary and not needed. People should have the right to defend themselves from violent criminals. With stricter gun control laws those violent criminals would not be likely to have a firearm, but it can happen. The people should be able to have a regulated firearm in their home to protect themselves in a case such as that. The analogy of a fire extinguisher in the home comes to mind. The person may not expect a fire, and may do everything they can to prevent a fire, but fires can happen. The same can be said in regards to violent crime and ownership of a firearm. Because of this we cannot reasonably do away with the right to bear arms.
But Even IF!
Even if in some strange universe the second amendment were to be repealed that does not mean the right to own a firearm is removed from the US society.
The Ninth Amendment grants rights to the people not listed in the Constitution.
So in conclusion, an amendment or even a repeal of the Second Amendment is unnecessary and useless for the issue of gun control. You can create appropriate legislation which is easier to pass and remains backed by the Constitution. So long as it does not ban an individual from a personal firearm.