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

Banning Guns in America is Unethical and Unconstitutional.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 7/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,134 times Debate No: 59147
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




I will be taking Pro of Gun Rights.

I really wanted an intelligent and deep discussion about gun rights and gun laws in a previous debate, but my opponent didn't participate in it and never replied to my argument.

---I will consider it a freelance debate; no set rules about the rounds---

I will open with an argument of constitutionality.

As most people on DDO may know, the Second Amendment states:

"Amendment II

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."

To make laws against the possession of firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, as it says, "shall not be infringed."

Within reason, however, can only be allowed to prohibit an individual to carry and possess a firearm, as in a case of probation, or a court order prohibits you to carry/possess firearms.

If you have time, please watch this video, as I use it for a supporting argument. (NOTE: It uses profanity quite frequently, so please watch it at your own risk.)

If you haven't, or can't watch the video, I'll paraphrase.

The Second Amendment was created for the reason if we ever needed to use weaponry in the case of another Revolution, (I would assume any form of civil war, or war in general) we would have our guns ripe and ready to defend ourselves.
To take our guns away will make us vulnerable.
(Once again, I highly recommend you to watch the video, as long as time allows you to, and please ignore the profanity in it.)

A woman was dining in a Luby's in Killeen for lunch with her parents, and a gunman opened fire inside the restaurant. Her parents, as well as about five or ten other individuals (if I remember correctly) were killed right in front of her.
This woman was a gun owner. She regrets not being able to protect her family due to the fact that Luby's prohibited weapons of any kind, whether it was concealed or not. She regrets having to obey a law that she says killed her parents.

If we disallowed prohibition of any kind, whether it be laws or gun-free zones, we would have less fatalities.

Shootings will always happen, and I acknowledge that. People will always die due to shooting, and I acknowledge that.

Let me bring up past shootings, though, from my recollection.

The shooting at Columbine -- Gun Free Zone
The Aurora Theater shooting -- Gun Free Zone
The Sandy Hook shooting -- Gun Free Zone
The theater shooting case of when, allegedly, cop shot a man because he was being too loud -- Gun Free Zone

Of course, not all non-Gun Free zones are innocent.
I can't say "You never hear a shooting at a gun show" anymore, because of an accidental shooting when a man was showing off a gun and accidentally, but not seriously, shot a woman's face.
Although, the gun show law was not to have loaded weapons, not necessarily gun free.
(I have to agree with the said man, though, because he said he always keeps his gun on him for safety reasons.)

Now, to bring up the case of England.
While it is true that less shootings and less death by shootings happen in England, for one thing, take a note that if guns are illegal in England, why would it be any different for America if shootings happen anyways in England?

Are shootings any worse than stabbings? Bombings?
Is homicide by a gun any worse than homicide by a stabbing, torture (hazing), bombing, pushing people in front of buses, off of buildings, drowning them?
Murder is murder, whether it be by a gun or a fist.

It wouldn't make a difference in death if we prohibited guns; to keep us armed would give us a chance to save more lives.

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.


Hello, I thank you for starting this debate. I wish you the best of luck.

I'm going to start off here with my opening arguments as to why banning guns in the United States is ethical. Here are my main points that I will be touching on;

1. The 2nd Amendment was created in 1791
2. Guns make killing easy

I'll start off by explaining my first point. Here is, as I'm sure you know, the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety;

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.

I'm just going to point out here that this talks about a well-regulated militia. Back before the United States didn't have an organized military like they do in today's time to defend ourselves we had to use state militia's to properly defend ourselves. However, as you can see today there is no longer a need for that as we have a great military. So let's translate this into today's terms. Let's take militia to mean military. I still don't see how this fits into civilians being able to carry semi-automatic rifles with them. However, back to my main point. Our founding fathers wrote this amendment back in 1791, where they had no fathomable idea of how powerful and accessible today's weapons can be. Our founding father's were used to Muskets, which could only fire one shot before having to take a long reloading time. There was no way for them to have any idea the extent of guns like AR-15's could take. Perhaps they would've worded, or not even made this amendment at all if they knew of the capabilities of these weapons.

Now, I know a lot of people say that people can also kill people with knives or other tools, which is true. BUT, it is much harder to do so. You could easily fire 20 shots and kill a dozen people with an AR-15 in a few minutes. People wouldn't even have time to react to it. There's almost nothing anyone can do. Whereas, someone with a knife will have a hard enough time killing one person in a few minutes. Plus, people will have enough time to run or hide before the bad guy comes after them. I mean, yeah, you can kill one person in the same amount of time with a gun or knife but mass murder? Committing mass murder with a knife is probably incredibly hard. But with a gun it's made much easier.

I saw this digital design a while back that relates to this topic. It read;

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, with guns, that are easy to get in America"

Again, I thank you for making this debating and wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you so much in accepting my debate.

As you have stated, it is true we have a great military today, and that, as far as we can see, there would be no reason for such a militia as was needed then. (Of course, let's play "what ifs" on that... What if, in some, indescribable situation, the entire US Military--Armed Forces, Marines, Navy Corps--went kaput? What then?)

Now, the writers of the Constitution created a document to be well flexible with time. They were geniuses. After all, we're the only country--let me rephrase--nation, who has served under only one document, and this document has served us well.

The Fathers knew that there would be crazies, which is why they created the Second Amendment, so we could protect ourselves from them.

The Fathers' views on this:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

(Quotes taken from

These quotes signify that the Founding Fathers and writers of our great document knew that there would be madmen who, not only would try to take our rights away, but would also harm us.

Maybe they didn't have AK47s. Maybe they didn't have automatic weapons. I wouldn't call them unknowledged on what people are capable of. A massive army using bayonets all at once is just as bad as a machine gun.

They didn't need to word it a certain way. A gun is a gun, and is a heavenly protector in the hands of the good, but a lethal weapon in the hands of badmen.

On your argument of reliability of weapons during homicide; while it is true that it would be harder to murder some mass with a knife, getting rid of guns wouldn't bring the murder rate down. It would only increase the murder rate, as people would have to defend with knives. You did say it was harder to kill a person with a knife, after all.

And you're right. Guns DON'T kill people, people do. Guns are merely an accessory.

If guns kill people, then please bring me a gun that has homicidal tendencies. Guns aren't the problem, people are.

If a man has in his mindset the idea, "I want to murder people with a gun," then that is just his bad use of a good weapon.
ARs or normal handguns aren't different. A bullet is a bullet. The attainability of such weapon is merely an accident or a free happening.

Adam Lanza, the boy who killed twenty children and six staff members at a school in Colorado, got his gun from his mother. Is that the fault of a mother, who most likely educated her boy the ways to use the gun, and where to find it in the case of emergency (I am speculating this, so I'm not alleging any details)? Had she known her son was "sickly," do you think she would have let the gun easy to obtain?

Law-abiding citizens should not have to suffer for the actions of rebellious madmen who wish to terrorize eachother.


softmer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


XionChan forfeited this round.


softmer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


XionChan forfeited this round.


softmer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by barnesec 3 years ago
Seems like if you're worried about the government taking your rights you would also be opposed to a large standing military.
Posted by Firelife 3 years ago
Can I put the point that the shootings were caused by guns.
Posted by Kimber_TLE 3 years ago
In his reply, @softmer says "Let's take militia to mean military."

Sorry, words have meaning under CURRENT federal laws and the Constitution.

The United States Code, [Title 10 - ARMED FORCES] defines the military and everything related to it.

Within [Title 10 - ARMED FORCES] we find [Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA] which specifically defines two categories of militia (the organized and the unorganized militia) and who is included in the militias (all able bodied men between specific ages, etc), and specifically differentiates the militias (2) from the National Guard and the Naval Militia.

Subtitle B defines the Army, Subtitle C defines the Navy and the Marines, Subtitle D defines the Air Force, and Subtitle E defines the reserve components.

You can not take the Second Amendment and the laws of the United States and just start making stuff up to fit your agenda. There are facts, and there's fantasy. And the fact is: the militia is NOT the same thing as the military!
Posted by Kimber_TLE 3 years ago
In rnd 1, @softmer said "Our founding father's were used to Muskets, which could only fire one shot before having to take a long reloading time. There was no way for them to have any idea the extent of guns like AR-15's could take."

I beg to differ...

An unknown German gunsmith before 1600 crafted a oval-bore .67-caliber rifle designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder & ball in a rapid "Roman candle" fashion. One mid-barrel wheel lock mechanism ignited a fuse to discharge the upper 10 charges, another rearward wheel lock fired the remaining 6 lower charges.

The Cookson Repeater (a.k.a. Lorenzoni System) was patented in 1680. It was a 12 shot, lever-action breech-loading, flintlock rifle. The system also came as Flintlock Repeating Pistol, and offered a 7-shot or 9-shot version.

The Puckle gun, (1718) was a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with multishot revolving cylinder, designed for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The cylinder could hold 11 pre-loaded rounds, and was advertised to "fire 63 shots in 7 minutes."

Thomas Jeffersonowned two Girardoni air rifles. These held twenty-two .46 caliber balls in a single chamber. Pres. Jefferson gave his 2 Girardoni rifles to Meriwether Lewis & William Clark for protection during their expedition. Up to 70 shots could be fired before the reservoir required switching (the gun came with two). This weapon was so important to Lewis that he mentions demonstrating the weapon on the 1st page of the 1st journal Lewis kept!

The British used a rapid-fire, breech-loaded flintlock known as the Ferguson Rifle during the American revolution. The rifle was patented in 1721 and was far superior to anything the Americans had. The most amazing thing about this rifle is the fact that the King didn't issue more of them to his troops!

The founding fathers were very well aware of the of technologies that existed. Sorry, but your "musket" argument doesn't hold.
Posted by XionChan 3 years ago
As said, different people interpret the Constitution differently. Don't vote on the basis of constitutionality if you don't want to.

And yes, banning all forms of guns would be unconstitutional. As said before, please, if you don't want to vote of constitutionality, don't. Different people read it differently. (Example with First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Tenth, etc., etc.)
Posted by TheDebateWinner 3 years ago
are you arguing that banning ALL guns is unconstitutional, or that banning, say "assault weapons" would be unconstitutional? And to win this debate, could your opponent refute your point that it is unethical but not the point that it is unconstitutional?
Posted by SpiffyTexan 3 years ago
I personally have to agree that you should change the wording to Practical, or Ethical. But I do support your position.
Posted by Mojique 3 years ago
Actually scratch that, as long as BOP is 100% on pro (you have to prove it is unethical and unconstitutional) I'd accept
Posted by Mojique 3 years ago
I second Romanii's opinion, i was just about to post that myself. I would take the challenge assuming you took off the unconstitutional part, but right now, all pro needs is a single quote to win, and it just wouldn't be fun.
Posted by TruthHurts 3 years ago
The wording of the actual resolution is the problem here. I would take this, if we were speaking of banning assault rifles, increasing background checks, and the like. I'm just not sure a tenable case can be made that banning every single gun in the United States, including for police (like in the UK), is constitutional.
No votes have been placed for this debate.