The Instigator
LarryLemon1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
aberum1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ammunition Regulation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,462 times Debate No: 31351
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

LarryLemon1

Pro

If you are accepting the con you are negating the following policy that will be adopted by the government of the United States of America. There have been some very horrible events that have occured as a result of the lack of gun control in the US and now gun control is a major topic here. It is very hard to regulate guns and firearms because of our second ammendmant right to bear arms. I seek not to get rid of or limit guns just the amount of ammunition and the cost of ammunition in the US.

First the policy I am about to describe and outline will take affect on January 1,2014 and any violations of this policy before it was enacted have amnesty.

Section 1: The amount of ammunition that a individual is allowed to own will be limited to 400 bullets,cartidges, rounds, etc. This is not per weapon but total.

Section 2: The types of ammunition that an individual is allowed to own do not include flechettes or any ammunition that is capable of piercing modern body armor.
The individual is not allowed to make ammunition in their own home.

Section 3 : Federal taxes on firearm ammunition will increase by 3% in every state. The government will provide a cheaper option for ammunition but there will be thourough background checks by the new state agency in each state called the State Ammuniton Agency (SAA) and it will be funded by the state. All federal income from this policy will be divided as follows, 40% will be profit and the rest goes to manufacturing and a welfare for those major ammunition sale stores.

Section 4: I will now define the terms in the sections above: Federal Taxes- taxes from the federal government, Major Ammunition Stores- Those large companies that are big coporations/brand names. (Any other terms that need be defined can be asked about in the comments section)

Section 5: The punishments for disobeying this policy are the following
1. If the individual is found making ammunition in his or her home then they will be fined $800 and will be fined the same amount for two more offences until jail time is awarded by the state.
2. If the individual is found with a larger amount of ammunition than is allowed by the policy then the same punishments mentioned above will be awarded.
3. If the individual is found with those ammunition types prohibited by the policy then there will a investigation to see where they bought the ammunition from and then the person or persons will lose ammunition purchasing privleges for four months and on next offense jail time will be awarded by the state.
4. If a ammuniton sales business is found selling more than the amount that is legal according to this policy to an individual then they will lose their selling licence for a year.
aberum1

Con

The issue of the modern firearm is all but too familiar. Lately, the question of regulations have been majoring debated in today's society. In this debate, I shall prove that regulating the amount of ammunition one can buy is unlawful and unconstitutional. For this debate, I will give three main points to prove my argument. 1. Constitutional rights. 2. Usage of weapon. 3. Economic default.
Let's begin with my first reason of constitutional rights. A little over 200 hears ago, our founding fathers created a country in which must be lawful within the people's consent. Along with this, the Bill of Rights was born. In this, tells all of the individual rights an American citizen is bound to, one of which is the right to bare arms. Limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy is also limiting the types of weapons you buy. You may ask,Why? This is because many weapons require large amounts of bullets, that without it, cannot be used properly. This would violate our second amendment , The Right to Bear arms, by not allowing our choose of which arms we decide to choose from. This leads to my second reason, usage of weapons.
Connecting to my first contention, many weapons require much ammunition to be able to use that weapon to its full potential. If you decide to limit the amount of bullets to 400, then your depriving the citizen's choice of what weapons one can hold. If a person decides to buy a certain type of weapon, they do not expect it to lay in their closet for the rest of their life. Citizens have the right(as stated in my first contention) to decide which arms they bare. Though there are many speculations of how the gun will be used, this is a simple problem that can be solved in stricter background check, not regulations of ammo. A weapon is made for its full purpose, not to be held and not used forever.
I now begin with my last and final contention, economic default. As shown in my opponents case, the U.S. government will be forced to provide cheaper, more affordable type of ammunition. This is a waste of money. The U.S. government is already spending billions toward the military, its people, and programs. If we decide to spend even more toward this system, the economy will continue to fall. Regulating the amount of ammunition WILL create more conflict in the future. The United States of America is the land of opportunity, and further regulations will damage this chance.
It is because of these three reasons that I urge you not to encourage regulation on ammunition, I now pass the turn to the pro.
Debate Round No. 1
LarryLemon1

Pro

I am going to assume that my opponent meant years when he wrote "hears" but regardless of this fact yes the second amendment was made when there wasn't much organized government or military in America. There were not fully automatic assault rifles or body piercing rounds but single shot muskets that were necessary for home defense because of the lack of organized government. Now we debate a very different topic, Ammunition Regulation. I doubt that a civilian needs a firearm that requires more than 400 rounds to fire. Those weapons are reserved for use by the military and maybe the police. You can hold whatever weapon you want but now there is a limit to the amount of ammunition and type of ammunition that you can use. This limit is not meant to infringe on your second amendment rights but simply to protect your right to live and to protect our policemen. My opponents second point was usage of the weapon. You have 400 rounds to use. It is your responsibility to make money to buy more rounds not the governments. It will be good that there is a limit on the amount of ammunition less people will die as a result.
My opponents third point was economic default. If anything this will help the government gain a source of income at the same time providing a welfare if necessary for major brand stores and carriers. The US got out of a recession recently not back into one so as I said the economy will go on its present course if not better.
aberum1

Con

aberum1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LarryLemon1

Pro

LarryLemon1 forfeited this round.
aberum1

Con

aberum1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LarryLemon1

Pro

LarryLemon1 forfeited this round.
aberum1

Con

aberum1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LarryLemon1

Pro

LarryLemon1 forfeited this round.
aberum1

Con

aberum1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.