quote:
Jon in Message 1:
I think a great strength in any debator is the ability to debate and defend any position well. So, to help everyone practice their debating skills, and to have some light-hearted fun at the same time, I propose we start a series of threads in which we take topics from current threads and debate them in the new threads but from the opposite (or at least different) position from the one we'd normally take.
I propose the first of these debates deal with the issues of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A good starting point will be the OP of one of the earlier threads on the matter:
quote:
Nuggin in Message 1 (from Guns):
Here's the 2nd amendment
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.
Here's a definition of "arms"
A weapon, especially a firearm
So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.
But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.
Where do we draw the line?
Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.
I think a good way of summing that up is: based on the 2nd Amendment, what controls are and are not Constitutional on firearm ownership?
Take your opponents' position and do your best to defend it. Forum rules obviously still apply; arguments that are silly or mocking and that do not stand up to examination will fail.
So, let's get started!
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Why do backslashes always show up in my signature in front of my apostrophes; after entering the 'edit' mode and re-submitting, they vanish... strange.
"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar