ATTENTION: 2007 NFL Nationals Topic Wording Changed!

May 18, 2007

in NFL Nationals, Topic Announcements

Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.

ForensicsOnline.net says it was changed this morning. There is nothing on the NFL site except for the new wording.

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

PFDebate LLC May 18, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Tim Averill from the Public Forum topic committee has provided a brief explanation for the change:

http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2007/05/18/public-forum-nfl-resolution-update/

greg stevens May 18, 2007 at 9:45 pm

The change is a good change. With computers and debaters on line, everyone should get word. When I called my team, one of the girls was jumping up and down because the topic is now debatable.

We didn’t find any articles that supported a firearms ban, and the logic of trying to persuade judges on some type of affirmative position was mind boggling.

Handguns yes, and the DC case will be a great place to start.

Mike Larson May 19, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I agree that the change is good, I am a little bummed I just bought a handbook on the topic yesterday and about 1/2 is completely worthless. What discussions are being made to avoid this problem in the future?

greg stevens May 20, 2007 at 6:31 pm

On another web site a person on the selection committee suggested that the topic be released two weeks ahead of time so no one can get a handbook. :)

I think you will see most handbooks make good on the changed topic. Contact them and ask.

There is a lot of stuff out on the web, and the Parker Decision in DC has a lot of legal and main stream media articles that do a good job disecting the topic.

PFDebate LLC May 20, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Why can’t PRO teams just say that this debate about the desirability of banning handguns. It does not matter whether it is done legislatively or by Constitutional amendment. There is no plan. This is basically a pre-policy debate and we would let our CX friends (or Congress) work out the implementation details.

Given the number of gun restrictions currently on the books, I’m not sure the CON can argue that that the Second Amendment is absolute or that there is a bright line standard. They could argue that this is a slippery slope toward firearms prohibition and use that firearms prohibition bad stuff we found last week. :-)

It seems to me that the 4th Amendment implications in terms of getting any real reduction in handgun ownership is a much more compelling argument than the 2nd Amendment stuff.

Mike Larson May 20, 2007 at 8:32 pm

I am not worried too much about the handbooks issue. Actually I think the Con can make a case on the 2nd Amendment issue after the recent ruling by the appealatte court on the Wahington Ban. I think that this wording gets at the heart of the issue of gun control vs. gun rights.

I know my girls will be excited to hear about the change.

Leave a Comment