Second Amendment Pros And Cons Essay

There were many good points made during the debates that went on during Thursday, Friday and Monday. One of the debates was about the controversial topic: the Second Amendment. One of the groups was trying to argue that the Second Amendment should not be changed because it is part of the Constitution. The other side was trying to argue that the if there was more gun control, the gun violence will go down. Both sides on this issue made good points, but one of the groups won this debate. The side that was pro second amendment made more good points than the side of the group that was opposed to the Second Amendment. One good point that stood out at me was the fact that there were 9,000 gun deaths in the United States in the last year, but there

were 11,000 gun deaths in Mexico (which has the strictest gun laws in the world). Another good point that was made was that it is not the guns that kill people, it is the people that kill people. The group against the second amendment also made a good point suggesting that people’s backgrounds should be checked for mental illness before buying a gun. The other group bounced right back saying that having a mental illness doesn’t make you a cereal killer. The pro second amendment group added that putting restrictions on guns won’t stop people from illegally getting guns. You also can’t stop people from hunting. If guns stopped being sold, many people would lose their jobs too. Guns are good for self defense, not committing crimes. The group opposed to the Second Amendment said that taking away automatic guns would be good because there was a shooting in 1999 that involved an automatic weapon. Another good way to prevent gun violence is making sure that gun dealers are selling guns to good people. After the Sandy Hook shooting, 58% of people agreed with stricter gun laws compared to the 43% of people that agreed with stricter gun laws the year before. As you can see, the Second Amendment is a very controversial topic.
There was another controversial topic that was discussed at on of the debates. It was whether Edward Snowden should be given the Medal of Honor or if Edward Snowden should be arrested. The group that thinks Edward Snowden should be given the Medal of Honor won the debate because they made better points than the side that thinks Edward Snowden should be arrested. The side that thinks Edward Snowden should the Medal of Honor explained that it took bravery for Edward Snowden to do what he did (which was expose the NSA to the United States of America. He stood up for his beliefs. They also said that Edward Snowden’s actions meet the requirements for the Medal of Honor. The other group opposed this issue and pointed out that he was and is a bad role model because he stole something that wasn’t his. They also said that he is not brave because he ran away to Moscow, Russia to hide. They added that he is guilty of treason too. Then, the pro Edward Snowden group said that he exposed the NSA which is a good thing because the NSA is bad and looks into everybody’s stuff. After that, the group opposed to Edward Snowden said that the NSA is good because it is able to get information about criminals and terrorists. They also pointed out that if you are innocent and have nothing to hide, people shouldn’t care about what other people see. Another point made by the other group (the pro Edward Snowden group) was that it was wrong for the NSA to be a secret from the people. Also, Edward Snowden has first amendment rights of freedom of speech. In addition, they said that exposing other people doing wrong things doesn’t mean that you're doing wrong things. As you can see, the Edward Snowden issue is a very controversial topic.
The last controversial topic that was discussed was about torture.

One of the groups argued that torture is sometimes okay while the other group argued that under no circumstances is torture allowed. In my opinion, the group that is against torture won the debate because they had more good points than the other group did. The group that was against torture argued that torture affects innocent people and ruins people’s lives. The group that is says sometimes torture is okay said that torture is helpful when getting information from suspected terrorists. There is also always a reason for doing it. The government gets background information about these suspects before even thinking about using “enhanced interrogation” techniques on them. It helps them find about key information because there is no other way to get information from them. The no torture group fights back saying that you don’t want to stoop down to their level and that you do not necessarily know if they are terrorists. If you keep getting the wrong people, you will just keep going in circles. You could even accidently kill the person while waterboarding them and there is no justification for killing someone you don’t know. The torture that is okay with torture clarified that torture is only okay under certain circumstances because there is no other way to get information from them. If you just kept them in a prison, they would wait their whole life before giving up any information. Then, the no torture group

pointed out that there might not be enough evidence to waterboard someone and that the CIA might just be too desperate. These people might have actually never done anything. As you can see, this is just one of the few controversial topics that were discussed in the three debates happened on Thursday, Friday and Monday.