Resolved: The 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary.

Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms.

--Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves.

Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government.

===============================================================================

It's for these reasons I negate.

I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military.

A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Okay, my argument is pretty basic. The second amendment was never ratified.

The house and senate passed the second amendment which read "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."

The states did ratify what they thought was the second amendment, but it read "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."

Since the amendment that was passed by congress was never ratified, it isn't actually an amendment, therefore, it is unconstitutional to enforce the second amendment.

There's probably a very good rebuttal to my argument, but as I can't think of one at this moment, I'll post this argument.

Note: I didn't mean to accept this debate.

Note: I didn't feel like getting a source for the two wordings, because I think it counts as "common knowledge" as my English teacher would say.

LOl, if u didn't want to debate this, then don't. But w/e.

However, lets begin then.
=================================================================================
"Okay, my argument is pretty basic. The second amendment was never ratified."

My Response: This actually false. The first 10 Amendments, i.e. the Bill of Rights were all ratified at once. According to http://www.usconstitution.net...

#StateDate*
1New JerseyNov 20, 1789
2MarylandDec 19, 1789
3North CarolinaDec 22, 1789
4South CarolinaJan 19, 1790
5New HampshireJan 25, 1790
6DelawareJan 28, 1790
7New YorkFeb 24, 1790
8PennsylvaniaMar 10, 1790
9Rhode IslandJun 7, 1790
10VermontNov 3, 1791
11VirginiaDec 15, 1791*
12MassachusettsMar 2, 1939
13GeorgiaMar 18, 1939
14ConnecticutApr 19, 1939
Ratified in 811 days

My Opponents argument is false. The Senate and House reformed the grammar used by the Convention. But it was ratified.

"The states did ratify what they thought was the second amendment, but it read "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."

My Response: Slight difference is grammatical usage, but that doesn't make the amendment null and void.

So yeah, you an drop my opponents round 1 argument.

He also didn't refute my case, so, extend my round 1 arguments

"He also didn't refute my case, so, extend my round 1 arguments"

Response: Your case doesn't prove that the 2nd amendment is not unconstitutional, so there is no need to address it.

Now that that's out of the way:

"My Opponents argument is false. The Senate and House reformed the grammar used by the Convention. But it was ratified."

Response: They still ratified a different amendment, the meaning was the same, but it was still a different amendment. The original amendment that was passed is different however slightly it may be, from the one the states ratified, ergo the amendment is missing a step either way.

"Slight difference is grammatical usage, but that doesn't make the amendment null and void."

Response: They still acted on separate amendments, the small differences, however trivial matter.

Flow my points across, as my opponent forfeited this round.

100 characters long this post is.