Thursday, November 14, 2013

Whoops! Constitutional Argument Over Gun Blows Up In Leftists' Face

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS

WHERE DO YOU STAND? 

FOR THE MOTION

The social costs of widespread firearm distribution—foremost, the high murder rate in the U.S.—outweigh whatever degree of liberty gun ownership is seen to protect. When the practical consequences of a right becomes counterproductive to society, it has outlived its usefulness.
While armed citizens ensured the security of a free state in 1789, personal guns are no longer a civilian’s main protection or democracy’s best safeguard. Today, the U.S. has a standing army and a well-trained police force that provide for our security and protection.
When the values of society at large have significantly changed, a stubborn allegiance to the constitution should not blind us to the incompatibility of certain tenets with modern society.
Technological advancements have created guns with capabilities far beyond those envisioned in 1789, and the Second Amendment is not capable of regulating such arms.

AGAINST THE MOTION

The individual right to bear arms, like free speech and trial by jury, is fundamental to our American identity. It safeguards democracy, guaranteeing that all citizens have power relative to the state and to each other.

The Bill of Rights is meant to place certain rights beyond political controversy. Authorizing judges to nullify a constitutionally guaranteed right based on it being “outdated” puts all constitutional liberties in jeopardy.

Stricter gun laws do not necessarily decrease crime or prevent mass killings. Criminals will get their hands on guns legally or not, so we should address gun violence as a social and economic issue, rather than a legal one.

Technological changes have not rendered other constitutional rights useless over the past two centuries (i.e. the internet and freedom of speech), and the same should hold true for the right to bear arms.


No comments:

Post a Comment