constitutional rights...right to bear arms.Plz Help PLZPLZPLZPLZ?

Question

Alright long story short Tomorrow in government class we are having a debate about the second amendment of the constitution.I have to argue anti-guns which means I must have some good reasons why guns should be done away with but I really need to know why shouldnt they so that I know how to back my answers up and my opponents questions or statements up...

Answer 1

(1) Think about your argument VERY CAREFULLY.
Are you required to argue that guns should be banned? ALL guns should be banned? Some guns should be banned?
These are tough, and very tough arguments.
Think of arguments like --
Assault weapons serve no purpose other than to kill humans. They are not necessary for self-defense; they are easily accessible to criminals at gun shows and the like, and keeping them legal only increases the supply for criminals.
Thousands people are killed from gun related accidents in the home than are "saved" or "protected" by guns at home.

But is the issue you're supposed to debate whether the Second Amendment constitutionally REQUIRES that gun ownership be permitted? That's a WHOLE different question. You're not arguing whether guns SHOULD be prohibited, you're aruguing merely whether guns CAN be prohibited. That has to do with the text of the Second Amendment (look it up), what a "well-regulated militia" means, whether the Framers meant it to be an individual right, and what, if any limits there would be on that right (for example, we have a right of free speech, but governments can outlaw child porn, libel, and speech that causes a breach of peace... likewise, even if the Second Amendment did give a right to bear arms, that right certainly wouldn't be unlimited -- I'm guessing that states could prohibit people from owning a nuclear weapon.)

---
PS Don't listen to Derek. Part of learning is arguing on behalf of positions you don't necessarily agree with -- it's the best way to understand those positions' weaknesses. This is a very important issue that should be debated, and Derek is ignorant to think that the teacher is "liberal" merely because he assigned one student to argue a position that is currently the majority position in most state legislatures, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Debates take two sides.

Answer 2

Here are a few links which may help.

The reason the 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights is because an unarmed population is powerless to stop abuses by a dictatorial government, or remove the abusers from power. We could never have gained independence from the British and formed the United States of America if our founders had no guns.

Certainly times have changed, but the power to cast off tyranny (should it ever arise), must always remain with the people.

There is also the issue of personal safety- since most criminals get their guns illegally or through the black market, banning them simply takes guns away from law-abiding citizens who may need them to protect their homes and families.

Answer 3

The Second Amendment was adopted in the wake of the War of American Independence. The thinking was that the men of America had the ultimate guarantee of liberty sitting over the fireplace: a long rifle. If a ragtag militia with rifles could guarantee liberty in the face of the world's #1 superpower, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, then it could guarantee our liberty against tyrrany at home.

Now things have changed. In order for personal weapons to serve this freedom-guaranteeing purpose, we would need stinger anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, maybe even small, portable nuclear weapons.

After more than 230 years of elections, with only a few well-known examples of electoral fraud (Tilden-Hayes, Bush 2000), the American people rely on the ballot box and the civil rights lawsuit as their guarantors of freedom.

The Second Amendment does not work any longer. All it does is get little children machine gunned by rival drug dealers fighting their turf battles. It served its purpose, but its time has come and gone.

========================
By the way, what Coragryph wrote is wrong, dead wrong. The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, which applies to the States pursuant to the 14th amendment. The states can regulate but not prohibit bearing arms. In New York, I have an absolute right to own handguns in my home, and to carry long arms in my car. I have to register them, but it is my right to own them and to bear the long arm in public, though I am sure the police would violate my rights in doing so.

Answer 4

Two things -- first, the 2nd Amendment as it is currently interpreted only applies to federal gun control laws -- states are still free to regulate firearms all they want. That's the current law, whether people like it or not.

Second, to your point -- the govt has always been allowed to regulate behavior -- even for things that are constitutionally protected (speech, search warrants, etc.) -- as long as the need is compelling enough, and the restrictions are closely tailored to suit that need.

So, for your position, you can try arguing that the govt has a compelling need to prevent gun-related violence (human life being a compelling interest) and that keeping guns off the streets may be the only reasonable way to accomplish that. It's a tough sell, but one possible approach.

Answer 5

Think about every time some gunman has used loopholes in the gun laws to kill and maim innocent people (Virginia Tech), or that disturbed kids got guns (Columbine).

People argue that the 2nd Amendment covers all guns, but I disagree. Hunting is fine, and having a gun to protect yourself and your home (although stats show that you're more likely to kill someone in your home than an intruder) is fine, but no one needs assault rifles and Uzis to do that. Those guns get made and legally sold here, criminals get their hands on them, and the next thing you know, the cops have to have the sawed-off assault rifles to keep up with the bad guys.

It's all a vicious circle because Republicans think the only part of the Constitution that should be taken literally is the 2nd Amendment.

Answer 6

The first thing that you will probably face is the statement "guns dont kill people, people kill people" which is true, a gun doesnt have a mind and cannot pull its own trigger. People are required to do this in order for the gun to cause damage.
Second, it is in each and every americans right to own and use a gun as long as they are not convicted of a felony or other crime that would remove that right from them.
We are allowed this right in order to defend ourselves and our property against those who would wish to harm it or us.
Gun ownership is currently monitored by the government. You have to pass a NCIC background check in order to purchase a handgun and several other firearms, thus keeping (or attempting to keep) guns out of the hands of those who are not legal to have them or who are considered dangerous.
Guns can be used to benefit the livelyhood of a family, entertain the marksman, and defend onesself against harm.
Requirements are made that handguns now be sold with trigger locks to prevent children from harming themselves. On the other end of the debate (your end) many parents and owners of guns do not properly use these locks and children are harmed by the guns because they get ahold of them.
The way that things are going in the world today, I feel that people should be prepared to defend themselves in time of war, but they should be responsible about the containment of guns, the handling and the maintenance of them.
I hope this helps and good luck.

Answer 7

Tell your teacher that after reviewing the subject, you cannot take the side of anti gun. To be anti gun is to be anti constitution which is, in turn, anti american. To argue for anti gun it would be calling into question the validity of the U.S. constitution. Stand your ground, do not let this liberal teacher force you into this corner. This debate is inappropraite for the classroom. Ask him what would have happened if that crazy korean wasn't the only person with a gun. Gun Free Zones are slaughter houses for the innocent. I employ you to stand up to this liberal teacher and and don't buy into thier anti american rhetoric.

Answer 8

arming nutty people with guns is an accident waiting to happen.

the benefits of outlawing fire arms are obvious: crime rate would drop. some argue that people who really wanted them, like criminals, would still be able to find weapons. yeah, that's true. but the fact is not ALL would be able to find guns. and they almost always prey on those that likely wouldn't have a gun, so the fact that we're keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens is inconsequential

however, on the flip side, i would like to point out a story about this one town in texas, where they made it mandatory for everyone to carry a gun, and crime rate dropped to almost zero. still, i think accidents are bound to happen. one kid in my town that went to my school accidentally got shot by his cousin, when they were playing around with the one kid's dad's gun (i think he was a cop).

Answer 9

You can always go with the big points;
1. written when arms where swords & muskets not AK-47s
2. States "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" not that you can have gums for any reason, just to keep a well regulated militia.