The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Americans have a right to own firearms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Letsdebate24
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 44283
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

The American people have right to arm themselves
judeifeanyi

Con

I accept the challenge with all gladness but i refuse to agree that americans should own firearm..do we know how dangerous it is?
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

The 2nd Amendment clearly states

"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." (1791)

Notice how it differentiates "the people" from "the militia". It is speaking of American citizens. This amendment was originally created in order to protect the people in the event the government became tyrannical and history has proven that disarming a country does not bode well for its people such as the holocaust in Nazi Germany.

http://www.infowars.com...
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Germany is not the only country to fall victim to gun control

You made the comment "do we know how dangerous it is" but im not entirely sure what you mean. Are you referring to the people being allowed to own them in general?
judeifeanyi

Con

Indeed, the 2nd amendment stated that but then do you know what the first american revolution in 1776 states?there is no right to own firearms that is recognized...now when you say americans, you are talking about the people, both young and old and equally students. So if students are allowed to own firearms because they are equally americans what will be their fate when they grow up? Do you know they might wound themselves? Indeed americans should not be allowed to own fire arms rather the military and other civil defence
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

Negative the American Revolution was our battle with Britain over our independence and even if that were said during the war it was not adopted into the constitution which is the foundation of how the country is run.
I'm not sure what you mean by students
There is no guarantee that people will not harm themselves or others with knives either and yet they are perfectly legal. A weapon is nothing more than a tool, it is the will of its wielder that determines how they are used.
According to the FBI statistical analysis gun related crime has been declining over the last 10 years or so.
http://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.bjs.gov...

It comes down to common sense, for example:
If a car jacker pulls a knife on you would you prefer to have no weapon or would you rather protect yourself with a gun?
judeifeanyi

Con

judeifeanyi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Pro

I await my opponents return
judeifeanyi

Con

Thank you very much for waiting for my return..now to start with, i acknowledg the fact that you asked a question, if a car jacker should pull a knife what will you do? Now ponder on this question, what are the works of the police? When a car jacker pulls a knife, his not trying to kill you rather he is trying to scare you away and if you are wise, you allow him and call the police because that is their work..let me ask you this question, do you know that Americans constitute of children, old men and women and young boys? And students? So what you are saying is that fire arms should be given to children? Yes because the are equally Americans..indeed do you know what happens, they will misuse it to other dangerous things
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either.
"you allow him and call the police because that is their work" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings.
Americans" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm.
If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal.
Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.
judeifeanyi

Con

Indeed a real combat..that one should defend himself or herself is quite a good thing but not at the expense of your life..you said we are the people that should scare thieves, with what if i may ask? Is it with the firearms? Indeed that is certainly impossible because if 7thieves where to attack your house, with your children sleeping, can you kill all? Will you even know when they will come in? Indeed if you even raise your head they will blow it off. Or what you are trying to say is that 1 is stronger than 7? If Americans should carry firearms, then even thieves will be given firearms also and besides, since they have noticed you you have firearm,what makes you think they won't blow your house immediately? Indeed the work of the police is to regulate this crimes and we have patrol team who will take care of this crimes.you equally raised the issue of a big man trying to kidnap a younglady of about 25..ponder on this, do you think the man will come alone? Do you think he won't be armed? Indeed if Americans should be allowed to carry firearms it means the man will equally carry his arm and more arms which he will use in executing his plans..allowing Americans to carry firearms will even make criminals to be strong and patrol in large number. The big man in question, will kill the lady if the lady draws any arms thank God you said big man..that exactly draws me to my stand in this argument, 'the security of Americans should be tight and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms' indeed if the security of Americans are tight, they can defend the the state and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms because they will harm even close relations in event like fight. This also draws me to what you said about the police not showing in event of crime, indeed if police don't show, then it is the work of the government to strenghten their government and not citizens protecting theirselves in abnormal way..moreover, you talked of ladies been raped and murdered that if they were with firearms, they would have protected themselves, now if a gang of armed robbers of about 6 were to attack a young lady of 23years, will she defend her self with that small pistol? Indeed what she should do is just to alert the police and not trying to risk her life..indeed, American should never be allowed to own firearms because they might even harm the military in event of problem..
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Letsdebate24judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were better but he didn't used sources. Pro's presentation was good. Conduct points to Pro as Con forfeited a round.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Letsdebate24judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Good show. I often disagree with pro-gun-righters, because their reasons are terrible and short-sighted. I am glad that there are people who support gun rights for the correct reason - the ability to resist tyranny.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Letsdebate24judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't give anyone convincing arguments, especially since, by the end, I have no clue what we're arguing. For this, I blame Pro. The topic states "Americans have a right to own firearms" not "Americans SHOULD be able to own firearms." As such, when the conversation turns to the latter, it leaves me scratching my head, especially since it makes it all the more difficult to evaluate the debate. It takes Pro quite a while to specifically explain who this right belongs to and why. I end up unsure as to what's being discussed, what restrictions are reasonable and which ones are not, and even what either side is arguing in terms of where rights structures should be when it comes to guns. So that's a long way to say that conduct goes to Con and arguments go to no one. Reliable sources go to Pro, since he actually used some and they had some relevance to the round, even if it was minimal.
Vote Placed by Swagmasterpoopoo 3 years ago
Swagmasterpoopoo
Letsdebate24judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources and better formatting. Con had better arguments
Vote Placed by mir9 3 years ago
mir9
Letsdebate24judeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented, as I see it, better arguments in the case of citizens owning firearms and why they give harm. However, Pro gave facts based on sources mentioned in his/her argument.