Today is Wednesday, October 01, 2014rss RSS feed

From Intelligence Squared US Debates, November 14th 2013 Article Source

Intelligence Squared US Debates

Intelligence Squared US Debates

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --( “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.” –2nd Amendment

Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing.

Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so has its guns.

Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789?

For those who may prefer to follow the debate just through a sound file – you can download the (compressed – 6MB) file from here, or listen in the player below. It is also available on the Talkin’ to America page here on JPFO.

Debate: The 2nd Amendment Has Outlived Its Usefulness from Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates on

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. Visit – Copyright JPFO 2011

  • 11 User comments to “A Debate On The Modern Validity Of The 2A ~ Video”

    1. Notice how Douchewitz wins the debate not based on facts but by riling up the crowds emotion by voicing his “frustration” over the gun control issue. Since the winner was decided by the audience his bread and circus tactic worked like a charm. This debate is really a clear example of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was enshrined as the Law of the Land… To protect the rights of minority against the tyranny of a majority.

    2. This was a really interesting debate. What got my attention was how Dershowitz destroyed the defenders of 2A with the militia issue. It just goes to show that one can’t argue gun rights without arguing for the people organizing for their own defense (militias) & disarming the govt. See “The Relationship Between Liberty, Power, and Guns”

    3. Dershowitz made a comment about if the people of a State or city do not want firearms then they should not be forced to have them. I felt the rebuttal should have been, “Mr Dershowitz, If a city or State does not want Jews should they be forced to have them?” Self-defense, including the use of firearms to do it, is a human right as much has freedom of religion is a human right. Point missed by the other side.

    4. Eugene Volokh argued that gun rights are human right by virtue of self defense is a human right. but then turns around and says the 2ndA allows for regulations. And I got the distinct impression he meant with very little restraint. He sounded like a person with “resonability disease”. Under Dershowitz and Volokh our 2ndA would allow with strict registration and control; one handgun, one 7 round mag with ammo and no rifles. Any hunting would be restricted to leasing a rifle if and when approved and only enough ammo given to hunt once. It sounded as if David Kopel was the only one that thought the 2ndA didn’t need any changes. Only our understanding of the original intent, from historical writing. I side with Kopel on that account.

    5. @Bill
      You miss the point. Dershowitz is arguing from a perspective of collectivism, the typical liberal usually does. The right to bear arms is an individual right. His argument is also false. No individual is forced to own a firearm. Only those within a city or town who chose to will own them. As an attorney, he is trained to turn an argument on it’s head and Dershowitz is a master of it. Whose rights are infringed upon by my choice to own a gun? Not one persons. If I am prohibited from ownership of firearms, it is a clear infringement of my individual right to bear arms and defend myself and loved ones.

    6. @James;

      Don be fooled by Volokh’s argument, he is very pro gun but he is also very smart, so arguing that gun banners should want to keep the second amendment to make gun control easier was done purposely knowing the crowd of NY’ers and as the goal was to bring more people to his side, he was using a argument for more gun control as a reason to keep the 2A.

    7. Bodo Thibodeaux on November 30, 2013 at 11:01 AM said:

      It’s funny that leftists recycle the same old arguments that Stalin, Mao and Hitler used about private guns, but they still think it “destroyed” the argument for private guns. But then, these leftists have evolved at a super rate beyond all humans who have come before, especially those Neanderthals from the 20th century. ROFLMAO!
      When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million. The one thing they each had in common was to argue against private gun ownership, disarm the populations, then butcher those who they didn’t like.

    8. Dershowitz wants the police to be armed and the populace disarmed. He sees no need for self defense now that we have a professional police force to protect us. What he does not realize is that they not only cannot protect us, they have no duty to do so.

      If he thinks firearms are bad now, it will get worse if only the authorities have them. Whoever holds a monopoly on firearms will also hold a monopoly on firearms violence. Dershowitz believes the government should hold that monopoly. History is rife with examples of what happens when that occurs.

    9. The second amendment is more necessary today than ever before. The individual is responsible for his own safety as the Police are responsible for the community as a whole. I live three minutes from both local and state police. Average response time to my neighborhood is 25 minutes. They would not be helpful in a 911 emergency. With world unrest escalating the Armed citizen is very necessary.

    10. slickzip on December 1, 2013 at 1:15 PM said:

      They can have my guns after I run out of ammo and they kill me ,,,,,,,,,

    11. What else would you expect from liberals such as those so called educators from Harvard and Stanford… and, they are known as “scholars” as well? Liberalism is Godless, a nihilistic black hole, “the ultimate paradise of the fool.”

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Leo Smith: You dress a Liberal Up and give him a gun. And that picture is what you get.
      • icetrout: Zigroids from the 8th dimension…
      • brian winters: It is good that this happened. In New Jersey a gun owner is required to take his unloaded cases...
      • Alan Swartzbaugh: Excellent article, Mr Sowell
      • TSgt B: Unions ought to be BANNED. They cause more trouble now than they are worth, and do NOTHING to help the...
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • AmmoLand Poll

    Copyright 2014 Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ