The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Do you have a gun up your bum, or is that just Ted Nugent?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 37805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




America shreeks in fear as a binary dichotomy splits its people; defense, its division. Is there an absolute solution and/or correct manner to present to the States on whether we represent gun control or not? I honestly haven't a clue on that. I do know I've had discussions on both sides and today I take defense for the absents of all man with the power organizations like the NRA advocates for. My name is Jerry McGhoulberry and I'll be debating a little fat kid. He will defend and perhaps define the rights to bear arms.

There will be no rulings against grammar as preordained by my opponent. I suggest that the topic include variations of opinions and facts as most debates possess. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!


NRA believes that more guns more protection. I am not defending that. I am defending freedom vs security. We should not have to give up guns for security because we should fight for are freedoms and, if taking casualties over some crazy person is the consequence so be it. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin. I truly believe in that statement. This is also completely relevant. Guns are a freedom. We have the freedom to have guns. If we restrict them for safety we are giving up are freedom. The past generation has fought for there freedom its time for us to fight for are freedom.
Debate Round No. 1


I had some problems with my opponents take on the freedom versus security argument. The argument is one to be definitely taken into consideration but my opponent's was lacking. He stated that freedom should not be geopordized by the like of obscurities in our country. I agree to that if that were only the extent. The homicide statistics section on stated the following information: "Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6
On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7
Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership."

As you can see, the United States' rate of gun death far succeeds that of any other country with such places as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Austraillia, each having less than 200 death by fire arms a year. It seems that this luxurious freedom America craves for is costing it its blood.

My opponent quotes our nation's father as if their words towards freedom equals that of today's. They spoke of freedom for the sake of separation from part of the Old World. And so I ask all who read onto this; who are you, we even, to cut cut the throats of those who seek freedom at the cost of the freedom to wield at luxury the thing that rips freedom away?


I never said that there are lack of obscurities. I clearly said taking casualties is necessary in order to maintain a freedom. I acknowledge the fact that are homicide rates are highest in modern countries but, I am saying we have three choices when it comes to guns.
1.We can take them away and give up a another freedom.
2. Start acknowledging peoples mental illness and watch over them and, restrict them.
3. We can just embarrassed the impact of freedom.

What my opponent said was that we are shedding blood for this freedom. If I am not mistaken I think all of are freedoms have had blood shed for them. For example the revolutionary war was fought so we could be are own country with are own rules. We wanted Freedom so we fought and died for that. The argument that we shouldn't have to die for a freedom. That like saying we should have to kill a cow for cow meat. Freedoms must be fought for!

The argument that guns do not kill people. People kill people! Goes right along with my opponents last statement. Should we restrict knifes or swords just because there deadly and were all scared. NO! If someone wants someone dead there going to do it one way or another.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm afraid you've plaid right into the territories of this debate I'm most familiar with. If you are to quote from history, allow I to do the same: "Looks like you've triggered my trap card!" - Seto Kaiba.

My opponent willfully acknowledges the State's current form in all its bloodshed, but rather addressing this new problem I have presented, he separates unto even newer solutions, might I add, a little fantastical at that.
1. He states that a solution that the far left seems to glimmer at. Like I said, I don't condone this notion by any means. Like the right, I share a fear of government or cooperate America one day sweeping its grasp on its citizens with the absents of a proper defense. Some argue that this is the only logical reason for the 2nd Amendment to still exist this far. I agree.
2. He suggests that we don't have proper watch for our mentally ill. (Another freedom taken away from our poor mental ones.) It was not 11,000+ individuals who died from the fire of mentally ill though. It was acted upon by those with the freedom to carry arms to their liesure that led to such harm. This alludes to my previous argument that security is a provision with absents due to Ol' Glory's love for freedom at any cost. At even the cost of its own. Patriotism, I think they call it these days?
3. No idea what you meant. I'm sorry.

My opponent suggests that this is analagous for past United States wars. This is clearly fantastical to the extent that those were nation vs. nation, and as this is within our own barracks; a taxation of blood not so familiar with that scale of things. (If you analogize the Civil War, I will laugh.) In the manner of the 1700s-1800s 13 Colonies Revolution, they WERE truly fighting for freedom (independence more or less). Spilling blood necessarily as we spill it under our own roofs with a political war. Even as I write this, I can't begin to express the troumendous differences between the two. I think my opponent would be wise to withdraw that argument.

"The argument that guns do not kill people. People kill people! Goes right along with my opponents last statement. Should we restrict knifes or swords just because there deadly and were all scared. NO! If someone wants someone dead there going to do it one way or another."
A lot of rambunctious truths were uttered here. Death will come to those who want it written on their victims. Surely my opponent will agree that we should not aid criminals by giving them the freedom to easily kill someone with a fire arm. Guns are obviously a much larger problem than the SWORD fatalities here in the States. Yes, if it were to come to that other weaponry be used in such a way that literally thousands die from it a year, should there not be a better safer restriction on them? But obviousely guns is the issue un-abroad.

It is in our interest to better regulate dangers that surge through America's veins. I've given up the freedom to drive before the age of 16 for my country to prevent the many fatalities that would come of me driving any sooner. I shall also want to regulate the freedom of potentially endangering others with a fire arm. I have no need for such things. If I seek protection, I shall require a taser, a taser gun, mase, er cetera. I have no intentions of impaling another, causing internal bleeding then death to my attackers. America has distorted the meaning of defense to an excuse of over excessive violence. It will be dark times when the day arrives, and the day will surely arise, when mother and father and brother and sister arm themselves to the teeth, as will their neighbor, and bullets scattered the soon to be scorched, twisted skies of an old dream a few hundreds of millions have carried. Imagine any scenario that provokes violence in our normal day to day operations. Now imagine some M-16's thrown in.


So you think anything dangerous should be outlawed or restricted? So in this case we would have to outlaw hundreds of things. For instance 25,000 people died in a automobile accident so therefore no more cars lets get rid of all the cars because there dangerous.

Something I would like to stress I think it is up to the states on gun restriction. I am not a huge fan on state rights when in comes to social issues but, this one I do believe would work better than just getting rid of all guns.

A lot of good people have guns and just because some crazy people do bad things with them doesn't mean we should take there's away because some psycho kills people. We should just embrace these problems and deal with it.

Another thing gun control will not work because if you look at the countries that do use them there surrounded by countries that do use them also. So therefore it will work for them just not the USA. Also England and Australia they are islands easier to track guns and contraband.
Debate Round No. 3


I think you misinterpret my meaning. You need to understand the sensitivity and complexity of this issue because to an extent, you will find that you agree with me once I illaborate my meaning. You see, I am not implying hat anything dangerous should be outlawed. However, there will come a time when an item becomes too dangerous, that we must regulate it. You referenced automobiles. To an extent, cars are indeed regulated and you I'm sure agree with those regulations. I've mentioned the age requirement, which we both agree guns also should always have an age requirement. You need a license to drive a car in the United States. Another regulation, similar to that of fire arms. Not to mention, and LARGE majority of automobile fatalities are due to ACCIDENTS and not intentional murder. I hope you clearly view your own argument debunked.

I find myself torn between echoing your belief or disregarding it. I am not entirely sure if I prefer state law over a national level, but agree that perhaps each state would vary its policies on gun regulation depending on how the state handles both directions. Cultures and characters of communities change over stretches of miles. I'm sure on that different places will do better with or without gun control. This is a direction America must face if it wants to listen to the constitutional writings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You say that guns are somewhat in the right hands outside of proper law enforcement, and that we shouldn't burden ourselves by losing them just because of a small few who misuse guns. What you don't realize is that you're spitting on your own argument. You're spitting on freedom. If we are to allow no proper gun regulation, for as people will misuse them with 100% certainly, those who walk side by side with freedom will be stripped of it by a gunman. Freedom will be cut away one way or another. You say you want freedoms to carry arms. Because you have these freedoms, thousands of others will die because of it unnecessarily. Freedom at the cost of freedom. Scene that before somewhere.

The right have become so stubborn, they will not even allow the banning of weapons such as M60s. What use does a man have for such a destructive weapon of war? The 2nd Amendment was writtent with the context of what fire arms they had at the time. Muskets fired a round per minute. Not these killing machines that fire 100's per minute. And also the fact it was written over 200 years ago. The meaning of the 2nd is lost but we still hold on to it, finding obscure relevance in it.


Pmajor92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Sleezehead forfeited this round.


Pmajor92 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sleezehead 3 years ago
It won't allow you to curse, butt sounded stupid, and bum is classic and stylish!
Posted by StarTrek 3 years ago
Is the CON British?

Who says "bum"?

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I can see why both sides agreed that spelling and grammar shouldn't count. Both were bad, but Con was worse. Note: "binary dichotomy," "embarrassed the impact," "like of obscurities," "glimmer at," plaid <> played, etc. The debaters can say they don't want S&G to count, but voters have the final say on that. I think Pro had better ideas, but he didn't follow through with point-by-point refutations of Con. Pro forfeited a round too early, leaving the last Con arguments unanswered. Forfeits cancel in evaluating Conduct. Con loses conduct for gratuitous insults of Pro like "little fat kid." You can't say stuff like that in a debate.