The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
laney4381
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Americans have a right to own guns

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 1 vote the winner is...
Letsdebate24
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 43786
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

First round will be for acceptance
laney4381

Con

I'm going to make one thing clear, I don't think Americans should be completely and totally stripped from their firearms. I think gun control is necessary, but I'm going to debate as if I don't think Americans should have rights to guns.
I realize that guns are used as self defense, but against what? Other guns? If someone with a gun was trying to shoot you, any gun owner's first thought would be to shoot them in self defense. But that "self defense" wouldn't be needed if the attacker didn't have a gun himself.
If you think about all the problems with guns in America. If Americans weren't allowed guns, there's a good chance the Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have happened.
To be honest, guns aren't necessary. Your life wouldn't be terribly affected if you didn't have guns in your home. Guns aren't good for anything other than hunting and self defense. But, like I said, self defense using guns wouldn't be necessary if no one had guns in the first place.
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

Guns are used in self defense whenever ones life is put in danger by another no matter what weapon they might be wielding whether it be another gun, a knife, or just a group unarmed threatening you.
You seem to be suggesting that a gun is only needed if the attacker has a gun himself but what about a young woman that's in a dark parking lot by herself? A man attacks her trying to drag her away to rape her but he has no gun just his physical dominance. Are you suggesting that she wouldn't need a gun to defend herself?
Suppose a complete gun ban were to be placed in effect and all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns that would put an end to all gun violence? Notice how I said "law abiding" meaning the people that are not criminals. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with a gun that does not originally belong to the user (meaning they did not purchase the weapon) so why would a criminal turn their guns in? They wouldn't! So the only people that would have the guns would be the criminals. It is simply not possible to stop people from attaining guns through illegal means. We cannot even prevent people from crossing our borders bringing drugs with them so how would we stop them from bringing guns instead if the underground market shifted that direction?
You claim that guns aren't necessary but our founding fathers thought them to be a necessary right of every American.

The 2nd amendment 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)

The purpose of this amendment was to give power to the people to ensure their own freedom. The people were to have a militia (not to be confused with the military) that had equal power to the government.

Thomas Jefferson said
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is liberty."

The 2nd amendment was to protect the people from their own government in the event it became tyrannical.
laney4381

Con

laney4381 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

Im disappointed, it appears this debate will not reach its completion.
laney4381

Con

laney4381 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
laney4381

Con

laney4381 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

Would anyone care to take this debate up?
laney4381

Con

laney4381 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
Perhaps you would like to debate this topic with me? I would be more than happy to start another one.
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
Again it does not say "only" in a well regulated militia it differentiates between "militia" and "the people"
They wouldn't have separated the two if they had meant for them to mean the same thing. That's redundant
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
it is clearly stated though, what situation the people have the right to bear arms in... IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. how is that hard to comprehend?
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
You said that you know how it appears and yet you quoted it wrong.
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
Its not implied its clearly stated "the right of the people" if they had meant it to be just for the militia it would say "right of the militia to keep and bear arms"
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
I know how it appears. It never states that people have the right outside of a well regulated militia. where does it state that the people have the right ti bear arms outside of a well regulated militia?

and don't say it's implied. I could very well make the same argument for the opposite, yet you would create a shxt storm over that
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
This is exactly how it appears on the constitution:

"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."

Kingcripple if you could please identify where you see ONLY in the amendment.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Pro made a big mistake. It's the same that all pro gun nuts make. That the 2nd amendments ensure the rights for individuals to have guns. It does not say that. ONLY IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
I am inclined to agree with con here, however, round one was for acceptance. she went ahead with her arguement. I suppose this could be construed as an acceptance though
Posted by justthefacts510 2 years ago
justthefacts510
Gun restriction will do jack. right lets say you take all the guns away close down the shops make it illegal to buy over the internet then what happends? you just dissarmed the whole populace and the criminals who got there guns ILLEGALY in the f****** first place are going to be running around. if it was our constitutional right in the first place why must it be changed the real question is would a better backround check should be inplace should a mental screening be done. the fact that school shootings and murders accor with the use of guns dosnt mean anything than the fact that someone wants to cause damage in the quckest way possible think if guns were not invented there would still be murder robbery and rape to go around now yes one man can put down alot more people with a gun but thats easy if you were completely crazy or you want to send a message. gun control is a stupid concept which aids the criminals besides america was founded by guns. guns are one of the highest selling item in certain parts of america its a culture and traditon we should focus on the deeper matter like who is legible to own one not the guns itself
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InfiniteBears 2 years ago
InfiniteBears
Letsdebate24laney4381Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: ff