Allowing assult rifles

Rebuttals: 1. I think your misreading the plain text of the second amendment. It clearly states the right of the people, not the right of the militia, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Yes the founders write like Yoda, so in laymen’s terms it means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shouldn’t be infringed because it is important for them to assemble a Militia to protect a Free State. So it basically is just giving one reason why it is important for the people to keep and bear arms. There is no need to argue who is part of the Militia as that is not a requirement to keep and bear arms. My opponent has tried to prove that the constitution doesn’t protect every citizen’s right to keep and bear arms and I have disproved that here. My opponent must still prove that the constitution doesn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms or I will content to our judges that we should allow assault rifles, simply because it is a protect right. 2. To understand what the founders meant by arms you have to look at the context of the time when it was written. This is what is known as original intent. If you look at it from that context then it would mean all weapons which are considered conventional for warfare; which during their time there was no such weapon that wasn’t conventional. So this would not allow for WMD’s. I’m going to finish on this topic by moving to your third contention as I am going to get on the topic of Article 5. 3. Yes this is usually where I refer all gun grabbers to go so they can attempt to make it constitutional to ban their guns. And it’s not a few votes. It appears that we agree then, as the constitution stands, Assault Rifles should be allowed since it would be unconstitutional to do other-wise. I do believe that an amendment should be passed to clarify the issue on arms when it comes to WMD’s. I believe having the term conventional arms would suffice. “The founding fathers of the united states lived in a time of muskets and small arms, none of which could do much damage. They never would have realized that automatic and dangerous weapons would one day exist, in there time it took over a minute to reload a gun, and the soldiers had a very limited supply of ammunition. They had no nukes and missiles, only cannons which had a very limited supply of ammo, and were hard to shoot and reload. So in the modern world, along with many other things, it seems fit for a change in the constitution.” I hear this one all of the time. It doesn’t matter what they envisioned the future of weapons to be, they wrote the second amendment to be able to keep up with the times. I don’t think it’s fair to bundle together automatic and dangerous since all weapons are dangerous. As I mentioned before I do believe we need an update to the constitution to make it clear that it applies to conventional arms only. The topic of missiles is a different debate, but I would contend that the manner of which you bear, not keep, these big arms could be regulated at the state level, but never at the federal level. I would note that this debate should be solely judged by the way the law stands currently, and not how either one of us would like to see it changed to. “You have made a very strong case, and as a new person on this website, I will use your argument a a guide for further debates. However , I want to argue against some points you have made.” Thank you, I have heard almost all of the arguments before. This is my first debate on this site, but usually the instigator sets up some rules or a frame work of what exactly is to be debated and how it is to be debated. “The thing here is that cars have become a neccesity, and we have become pretty much dependent on cars and motor vehicles. There really isn't an alternative to cars, but there is an alternative to an assault rifle, small arms.” A car being a necessity doesn’t make it not a deadly weapon. There are alternatives to cars; I tend to walk to the stores that are near me. I know in some areas of the country this may not be practical, which is why a one size fits all solution of an assault rifle ban would be just as impractical. There are alternative to just about everything. “I completely agree with this statement. Gun free zones are becoming a problem, all though I believe schools and government building should always be gun free. But in the argument of assault rifles, would someone in the theater have needed and assault rifle to defend themselves? There would be no way someone could just carry in an ak-47 without being questioned, and there really isn't a way to conceal it. So I would like it if areas could allow guns, but have restrictions as to what you are allowed to carry.” I will only touch on this briefly. You say you agree then but you still believe schools and government buildings should be gun free! If it is a public building let the people carry, if it is a private building that is a different story since it’s their castle and their rules. The theater is a private establishment which banned guns, which is well in their rights. They are also liable for everyone in the theater, since they have disarmed them. I’m not going to make a case for anyone to need an assault rifle in a theater. It is really that theaters call, I don’t believe this would erode my case since I believe in private property rights. “You also say that in the case of a riot or something like that, it would be nice to have an assault rifle, and I agree. But I feel that people wont just give up their guns if a ban was in place, and just leave them at home. So, even with a ban, you would be able to defend yourself and your property, with the assault rifle at home, and a pistol in public.” Okay so we agree there is at least one situation where an assault rifle has a potential civilian use. Wow, so let me get this right. You advocate banning assault rifles, but everything will be okay because most aren’t going to give them up and they can defend their home with their now illegal weapon. I’m sure this will go over real well with the police when someone actually does defend their home with an assault rifle. I find this logic to be self-defeating since you seem to be okay with the ban only because you don’t think it will truly be effective.