Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Argument: To maintain the handgun ban a change in the constitution is imperative
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 03:45, 21 March 2008; Militaru andreea (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
[Edit]
Parent Debate
[Edit]
Supporting Evidence
- Robert A. Levy , “Individual Ruling: D.C. Gun Ban Goes Down” National Review Online , March 13, 2007 "According to the appellate court, activities protected by the Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." In other words, the Constitution forecloses an outright ban on handguns. Ergo, if we Americans decide that a ban is required for public safety, we must change the Constitution. We cannot simply ignore the constitutional provision and act as though the document did not exist. That's a recipe for lawlessness and mob rule. As a nation, we have chosen to have a written Constitution for good reason, and it has served us well for more than two centuries."



