Debate Rounds (4)
Round 2: opening statement
Round 3: rebuttal
Round 4: rebuttal/closing statement
I read your comment on Gun/bullying control and thought this would be a fun debate. No sources necessary but fact checking is ok. Leave any questions in your opening statement and I will answer them in the comment section.
The second amendment was written for protection against two things, a tyrannous government, and anyone who imposes harm on a citizen, or their property. It simply comes down to this, I have the right to protect myself, and the government does not have the right to say by what means you can protect yourself.
In Nazi Germany, 1938, gun-control acts were passed giving the government full control over what guns a citizen could and could not own. The same law also banned all Jews from owning guns. Over the next decade, Nazi Germany rounded up, and slaughtered 6 million defenseless people. Because the government could control what guns you can and can not own, and who can't own firearms, citizens were left unprotected from the mad tyrant's, or Adolf Hitler's wrath.
Recently, Syria has enforced strict gun laws on their own people. As a result of these gun bans, the government has been able to easily capture and kill their own helpless citizens.
If our government was some how to become tyrannous, or we were taken over by another country. We should be able to protect our well being, and our rights as an American citizen.
I would also like to point out the fact that our government could become corrupt, or that there is a possibility we could be taken over by another country. These things are not far out of reach, and guns would be necessary for defending ourselves in these cases.
Lastly, the government has no right to say by what means we may protect ourselves. Every American citizen has the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves,this we can both agree on. However, if I feel that a semi-automatic gun is necessary to protect myself, the government has no business to tell me I must protect myself by some other means.
Pro also stated that the problem is not legislation, but enforcing legislation. I would like to point put that the only reason people are struggling to enforce legislation is because they are blindly protecting a right that also enables those of unsound mind to acquire machines that can easily kill. Pro stses that the problem is enforcing the legislation, not the legislation itself, but seems to have a problem with government passing legislation that regulates guns.
In my last argument, I stated that guns should be more closely regulated. By that I meant two things. One, that the only way to keep guns out of the hands of those of unsound mind is to monitor them more carefully. Two, I was mainly referring to high capacity guns. On the topic, I beleive that high capacity guns are unnesscecary and overly harmful. There is no need to shoot an attacker dozens of times when one shot will effectively disable him. And, these high-capacity guns can fall into the hands of the insane, enabling them to cause many fatalities.
1. My opponent has failed to contest the reason the 2nd amendment was written. If our American government becomes corrupt, or we are invaded by a foreign country, high-capacity guns are necessary to defend ourselves from the enemy. Examples of this can be found in Germany in the 1930's, or, more recently, Syria. These countries both restricted their citizen's freedom to buy any firearm they choose. As a result, both of these tyrannous governments were able to slaughter their own people.
2. My opponent has also failed to realize that it is an American citizen's right to choose how they can protect themselves. By restricting the ability to purchase any gun an American citizen chooses, the government is eliminating the right all American citizens have to decide for themselves what methods of protection suit them individually.
3. Lastly, I would like to clear an issue up. I am for the legislation passed by President Clinton that mandates mental health evaluations before an American citizen can legally purchase a firearm. If this was enforced by every state in the country, we would have less issues with gun violence. Mandating mental health evaluations is not restricting a citizen's rights.
I thank con for cooperating with the rules and for accepting this debate.
kona22 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.