The 2nd amendment is not compatible with today's times

Hello con. Thank you very much for the acceptance of this debate, and welcome to the site. This will be my first debate on a political issue, so I look forward to learning something along with you. I wish you the best of luck going forward and I look forward to having a civil discussion with you. First off, let"s specify exactly what the 2nd amendment states, as written by Thomas Jefferson: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My arguments with the lack of compatibility for today"s cruel world will be based off of these three main points. A. The fact that the Bill of Rights was written centuries ago. B. The vagueness of the amendment. C. Firearms have changed, people have changed. A. The Bill of Rights was adopted on December 15, 1791, 2 centuries ago. This was a right written in a time when people used horse as a main source of travel and you couldn't"t speak to anybody in a form other than face to face. Our founding fathers wrote this for an enthusiastic nation who has just gotten out of the hands of their oppression mother country. This was a time that a militia was necessary to secure the safety of the common citizen from enemies or possibly a corrupt government. James Madison, a federalist, argued that state militias, "would be able to repel the dangers" of a federal army. Now, one can argue that the right to bear arms would be needed now more than ever, which would be true, but with regulation. Specific regulation. You have to remember, this was written during a time where a common militia had nothing but a ball and musket that could take minutes to reload. We live in a time where we have semi-automatic assault weapons that can shoot several rounds of bullets in a matter of seconds. We also no longer have a militia system today that is similar to the ones used in the post-revolutionary time period. In today"s society, we have what is commonly known as an "SDF" or "State Defense Forces." Not only are these systems of people well trained in what they do, but they also are governed by the government and do not apply to the overall right to bear arms of the average citizen. B. The 2nd amendment is also completely vague and it does not give a clear-cut law on how to regulate our issues with firearms and to what extent it goes to. "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Which arms? Who? What is the processes to retrieve these arms? There are way too many questions and clarifications that needs to be asked, which simply means that there is some sort of modification that needs to be set. This is the perfect time and place to put those modifications into place. That is something that our country deserves. Let's look at Australia's gun laws, shall we. According to factcheck.org, Australia passed a law in 1996 after a man with a semi-automatic assault rifle incarcerated 33 people in what is known as the "Port Arthur Massacre." This law banned certain semi-automatic assault weapons and put on stricter licensing and registration programs for the ones that were available to buy. Then, in 2002, they imposed even stricter gun laws on their citizens. These actually restricted the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns. Due to these changes, from 1997 to 2007 there was an overall 20% decrease in the amount of homicide that took place in the nation annually. This may not seem like the greatest revelation that could come out of something like that, but at least it was something. Now that there were more strict, specific gun laws in Australia, there is an immense decrease in the number of people that would"ve died otherwise. C. As stated earlier in this argument, and as something that can come off as pretty self-explanatory, firearms have changed, and people have changed. This amendment in a time when an assault weapon wasn"t even a thought. These firearms are capable of doing terrible things to incredibly innocent people. Kids in schools, people who want to watch a movie, even people in worship! There is absolutely no reason that the common citizen would need an assault weapon, and that is something that our second amendment doesn"t cover. The right to bear arms is incredibly important in today"s world, the protection of ourselves is important as it plays a role in how we survive. But weapons that can destroy lives, end them, and alter them? Ones that can kill several people in a matter of seconds? Why do you need that? You don"t. That"s a simple fact. Our second amendment needs to be more specific so that way we can maintain the innocence of this nation before they all get killed off. Reminder: Please don"t rebut in round 2. It will be ignored. Save what you have to say about statements made above for round 3. Thank you. Resources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.heritage.org... https://www.factcheck.org...