The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Americas second amendment

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 186 times Debate No: 93990
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I think we should not ban assault rifles (or any firearms) because we need them to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, and foreign invaders.


Just to be clear, I am not "con" to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, I fully support it, along with the 25 others (excluding the 18th since it was revoked by the 21st). However, I will gladly debate your premise that the reason for the Second Amendment is to defend against a tyrannical government or foreign invader. I hear this argument frequently from gun-rights advocates. The reason I oppose it is because above all political ideology, I am a realist.

First of all, let's get some basic necessities out of the way. The fact that in your hypothetical you are in armed conflict with the government means that you can't use any argument about hiding from them (not that a gun would help you hide anyway). The scenario only occurs if you are in direct conflict with the government and that conflict has escalated to shots fired.

Let's explore the possibilities of how this might play out. Perhaps you'll get lucky and it will "only" be a SWAT team coming for you. You are now in an armed conflict with a team of heavily armed and armored officers specifically trained for this type of situation:

I could post dozens (perhaps hundreds) more articles here, but the point is simple: AR-15 or no AR-15, you're going to lose.

That's assuming you only have to deal with the police. Perhaps the government taps the military and they send in an Army Ranger unit:

Now you're up against elite infantry specifically trained in defeating enemy combatants in small groups. Game over.

Perhaps the government decides that even though they know they can defeat you with small arms you're not worth risking the soldiers over, regardless of how long the odds are, so they simply send in a Predator drone:

The drone can hit your home with a laser-guided missile and you're dead before you even know what's happening.

Or, perhaps the government decides to play it safe even above that level and instead sends a Tomahawk cruise missile:

Now you're dead and the enemy is still over 1,000 miles away. You better have one heck of a modification to that assault rifle if you're going to defend against that.

As I said previously, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. We use guns for hunting, for sporting, and most importantly for defending ourselves against criminal threats (your AR-15 against a burglar or rapist in the night is going to make the odds look very different than the same gun against a SWAT team).

The bottom line is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be a supporter of the right to bear arms. "Because it'll protect me against a cruise missile" isn't one of them.

As to the foreign invader threat you cited, if the hypothetical foreign invader is strong enough that our country has been defeated militarily, that enemy is therefore stronger militarily than the government capabilities outlined above.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I appreciate your support for the second and all the amendments. First in my scenario, it would not be just one person against a swat team or the police I am talking about a second revolutionary war in witch hundreds of thousands (probably maybe even millions) of patriotic Americans come together in one whole organized military force (well, as organized as you can get at such a moments notice) to fight off our own tyrannical government. much like when our forefathers rebelled against the British in the 17-hundreds. And it is my opinion that in order to even stand a chance against our tyrannical government we would/will need "assault rifles" and incorrectly called "machine guns." I am not talking about just one person with an assault rifle, I am talking about hundreds of thousands of people fighting together. Think about it in the 17-hundreds when the Americans rebelled against the British, they were not one man and a rifle causing a "stand off" in a house. No, they all came together in large armies, militias, and battalions of many many men. Here let me even quote JFK:

"In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the THOUSANDS of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men " citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment"s notice. Today we need a NATION of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.
By calling attention to "a well regulated militia," the "security" of the nation, and the right of each citizen "to keep and bear arms," our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country in the case of a tyrannical government or a foreign threat. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

Also, some argue that we should only ban assault weapons and we can keep our hunting rifles and such but in the case of a tyrannical government we would lose. The United States military is the most technologically advanced military in the world( as you pretty much explained above) and if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such. Also in the case of foreign invaders we would also stand no chance. And that is why the second amendment still applies today. That, is why we need our assault rifles and our (incorrectly called) "machine guns". We need them to defend against a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. And that is the only way we would even REMOTELY stand a chance.


The problem with your argument is that it's based on 18th century logic. Your entire point seems to be drawing a parallel from the American Revolution to now. During the American Revolution, the government and the "rebels" were relatively equally armed. It was muskets and cannons against muskets and cannons. It was reasonable for a sufficient number of rebels to stand a chance against the government. You can make a case that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment for the reason of overthrowing a tyrannical government for the simple fact that they couldn't envision Predator drones.

Your entire argument is also predicated on organizing as you put it "hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of civilians with assault rifles. Problem: there's no way you can keep that kind of operation under cover. No matter how you coordinate it, the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. will have you under surveillance long before you make any traction.

I could go on for a long time citing stories of the government spying on us. Bottom line, long before you got a significant number of "soldiers" together the military capabilities I mentioned in Round 1 would brought to bear against you.

Your conclusion states that "if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such." This is the basic point of your argument, and in order to make it you need to show convincing evidence that the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault rifle" would make a significant difference in going up against "the most technologically advanced military in the world" (using all your terms). You have cited no evidence, statistics, studies, articles, anything to support this thesis. We could substitute "foreign invader" for "tyrannical government" and the arguments would remain the same.

Probably not germane to the debate, but the reason I despise this argument is it's a red herring. If you REALLY want to do something about the tyrannical central government, spend less time worrying about your AR-15 and more time supporting politicians who will defend the Constitution against the excesses of the current trajectory of the executive branch.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SM29 2 months ago
Since the instigator named the debate "America's Second Amendment" and then gave the debate topic as needing firearms to protect against the government, I made my statement to make it clear I was presenting the "con" side to his "protection from government" premise rather than his broad "2nd Amendment" title. That's not a "bias", it's simply clarification of what we're debating.
Posted by spencbeth2 2 months ago
"Just to be clear, I am not "con" to the Second Amendment."

This shows a bit of bias, I would steer away from this in future debates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.