CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
29
Yes, it does! No, it doesn't!
Debate Score:34
Arguments:21
Total Votes:40
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it does! (3)
 
 No, it doesn't! (18)

Debate Creator

HTHAMES(46) pic



Does the Consitution allow for heavy gun regulation by the federal government?

Start by using the arguments presented in the relevant book chapter about the Second Amendment, then present your own arguments from whatever direction you choose.  Be sure to support your initial claim

Yes, it does!

Side Score: 5
VS.

No, it doesn't!

Side Score: 29
3 points

Yes, and the federal government has been doing for centuries. Back in the 1780's men aged 16-60 were required to own and know how to operate a musket. At one point in Boston, MA, it was illegal to keep a loaded gun in one's home. Pennsylvania was recalled guns to be cleaned. There has been multiple interpretations of the 2ND Amendment, but through all of that the federal government still has power to regulate the guns. Through the Commerce Clause, the federal government has power to regulate commercial activity between the states and commerce with foreign countries. In conclusion, the federal government has power to regulate guns and have had the power for years.

Side: Yes, it does!
dawsonhall(9) Disputed
2 points

Past the extent of an age requirement, background check, and required license there is no other form of regulation that the STATE government has much less the federal government. The right to bear arms simply put means that if one chooses to own a gun they can under the Constitution as long as they are of age. And there is no necessary or proper cause that would call for such a law to be enacted to really and truly restrict guns.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I fully agree with this idea that as the country and its relationship with guns changed so did its gun laws. When we needed men to fight they were required, and when it was a safety issue they were taken away. I believe this same concept should be applied to those gun laws today. There is a mass shooting issue in america so a counter reaction is needed. I am not saying take all the guns away but an extreme level of gun control is needed.

Side: Yes, it does!
5 points

The 2nd Amendment puts an emphasis on state militias, as they were a more prominent topic while drafting the amendment. However, "the right of the people" is specifically stated as well. The format of the 2nd Amendment is a little confusing to follow, but ultimately, the previously stated phrase ensure some right of gun ownership to the people. Heavy gun regulations that threaten to take away all weaponry would go against the idea that citizens have a right to keep and bear Arms.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment changed the implications of the 2nd. A lot of this debate has to do with definition and interpretation, particularly militias. Militia's changed from a state's protection from the federal government to violence based groups. Now, the idea of individual gun rights is the more relevant portion of the 2nd Amendment. The government recognized that people needed to protect themselves from such groups. Also, because the 14th Amendment says all people have access to the protections listed in the Bill of Rights, gun ownership is included in that, despite the 2nd amendment's previous priority of militias.

(personally i think guns should be regulated fairly well and the system put in place has many holes, but heavily regulating guns to the point of taking them away would technically go against the Constitution)

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I agree with you about the holes in the system. I feel like there should be a way to use due process in order to restrict guns from people who may not have the sense to use them in the right way.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

This is very similar to the point that I made. However I didn't make the point on militias. It's true that this amendment was written during a time when militias were very prevalent. But it is true that the exact words say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is necessary to "the security of a free state". America, being a free state, must allow it's people to have a weapon. Suddenly saying that it is within the power of the federal government to restrict this when the words of the Constitution blatantly state it is the right of the PEOPLE just seems wrong.

Side: No, it doesn't!
4 points

I believe that the Constitution protects individual gun rights without guaranteeing them. The 2nd Amendment directly refers to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

This wording, combined with the idea that a militia is not a set group of people, seems to suggest that the right to bear arms is a right in the Constitution. It is true, however, that rights are not always guaranteed. In the case of Schenck v. U.S., it was found that speech could be regulated if it creates a clear and present danger. I believe the same principle should be applied to gun ownership. If a specific person's gun ownership creates a clear and present danger, then it should not be allowed.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I think your acknowledgement of examples of when something like the first amendment has been glossed over within reason is a very important factor. Whether or not someone believes gun regulations should be somewhere in the reasonable gray area between both interpretations of the amendment, there's not really much evidence to support that viewpoint. The second amendment was written in a very polarizing way, in which you regard or ignore the part about militias. When you regard the part about militias it indicates that gun rights are purely for state organization, and that individual rights are to be defined by the states. If you disregard it, the amendment declares an unwavering protection of all individual gun rights. Without noticing that something like the first amendment has been limited before, a lot of people are forced to choose a more radical stance. Because of this the issue has become an incredibly heated topic, one which I've seen divide entire families. Most people would agree that guns are dangerous in the hands of everyone, without any regulation or licensing, but until they loosen their grip on the diction of the second amendment they are often pushed to that extreme.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I completely agree. The Constitution's second amendment gives American citizens the right to legally own weaponry for protection, legal hunting, personal hobbies/uses, etc. However, these rights can, and should be restricted or prohibited to those whom abuse this right to harm, rob, assault, or kill others. Therefor, violating laws that were made to protect the people. These are the cases in which these rights should be heavily regulated by the government.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I agree with your point on this. I feel as if the 2 Amendment allows the carrying of guns, however they can "restrict," this right not completely regulate it.

Side: No, it doesn't!
2 points

I don't think the Constitution allows for heavy gun regulation, because the 2nd Amendment literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think many people are against guns because a lot of crimes involve guns, but the root of the problem comes before that. If we want to remove gun-related crimes, or crimes in general for that matter, then we should focus on stuff like poverty and the negative aspects of society. While guns certainly are a factor, they are not the source of these offenses. Increased gun regulation solely based on this is unfair, I think. It's sort of like punishing everyone because of one student's actions, kinda.

Side: No, it doesn't!
2 points

I agree with your statement Sayun, I believe you have a good point. A person's actions cannot be completely blamed on the tool used to carry them out. I also agree that the Second Amendment blatantly gives the people to the right to keep and bear arms when it states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Side: No, it doesn't!
kevinezpz(4) Disputed
-1 points

I agree with the idea that the Constitution does not allow for heavy gun regulation, but as the rates of gun violence increases, it slowly becomes a problem for the government to handle. If the people that the government is supposed to protect begin killing each other, then it becomes their responsibility to protect the right to life that each citizen of the U.S. gets. So I believe that the Constitution doesn't allow heavy gun regulation YET.

Side: Yes, it does!
1 point

The Constitution does not allow the federal government to have heavy gun regulation. Yes, there is the second amendment giving the people the right to bear arms however using their commerce and taxing powers they could easily find ways to override it. However they rarely do like in U.S v Lopez the Court held that possession of a firearm in a school zone is not an activity that substantially affects commerce and that this provision was therefore not a proper exercise of Congress’s commerce power.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I do not believe the constitution allows for heavy gun regulations for multiple reasons. The wording in the amendment itself explicitly states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This line in the 2nd amendment directly protects the peoples rights to bear firearms. Not only do I believe that heavy regulation infringes on the 2nd amendment but I also believe you are taking away a peoples right to protect themselves. The constitution is outdated and was written in a time well before firearms were mass produced and anybody could get one legitimately or not. People have the right to protect themselves. This was found in the 2008 case D.C v Heller that the 2nd amendment indeed protects an individuals right to own a gun for purposes outside of service or militia, which includes defending themselves in their home.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

According to the wording of the second amendment, "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This specifically says that the people have the right to own and manage their own guns. While the first part of the amendment talks about a "well-regulated militia," it does not mention a heavily regulated militia, nor does the first line supplant the second. Finally, the original purpose of the amendment was to give people the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. That purpose cannot be fulfilled if the federal government highly regulates individual's gun usage.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

If you see the text of the second amendment as requiring one to be in a militia in order to keep and bear arms, then you must keep in mind that we no longer have militias. So perhaps at the beginning, it was meant for guns to be heavily regulated and restricted to militias. However, with the developmental changes to society, there needs to be a developmental change to this view of the Constitution. Otherwise, one is implying that no one should have guns but the military and police. This directly prevents the people from fighting back against the government should it corrupt, and the 2nd amendment was implemented to prevent this very thing. Therefor, I feel that the Constitution does not allow for heavy gun regulation in our new society.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

The constitution does not allow for heavy gun regulations due to the wording of the amendment saying "the right of the people" it allows for the american people to bear arms. And with the SCOTUS case McDonald V. Chicago incorporating the second amendment it is a right given explicitly to the people to bear arms and the federal government cannot impend on it.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

I would say the use of most regulations for something as common use as guns should not be heavily regulated. Sure the 2nd amendment is up to a lot of interpretation nowadays because of the language, but the right for the individual person to have it is still a main part of it to stupidly otherwise try to ignore. Gun violence is certainly a main problem as it always will be,but there will always be one other person trying to kill somebody else. So sometimes it's in the person's power to defend himself or loved ones when the government can't all the time. So I believe guns will be around to stay for a while and guaranteed as well, but only to moderate regulation as is like background checks and not having them with hardcore convicts.

Side: No, it doesn't!
1 point

The constitution does not allow for heavy gun regulation. Originally, Militias had guns so that states could protect themselves from the big scary federal government. Militias seem to have less prominence now, so people should fill that role. They get basic training and have a right to have guns to fill the role that militias originally filled. More often guns are just a threat that makes people think before they act, which wouldn't change with a government. Of course I believe there should some regulation, but if I had to pick more or less (some is kinda vague) then I would pick less regulation.

Side: No, it doesn't!
0 points

Does the Consitution allow for heavy gun regulation by the federal government?

It allows for more guns, not less.

Side: No, it doesn't!