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

Gun Control Is A Bad Thing

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: 10/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,603 times Debate No: 26081
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Okay, so this is going to be a short debate about gun control.

1. No Looking Up Any External Info. Go Straight From Your Knowledge, For Your Entertainment.
2. No Being A Complete Troll.
3. Anything else you would think would be here.

1st Post: Acceptance.
2nd Post: Opening Arguments/ Retaliation
3rd Post: Retaliation/Closing Statements

Good luck.

8,000 Character Limit


Challenge accepted. And to clear things up, Insanedude is for complete obliteration of gun control while I am for some.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I believe I didn't exactly title this and put my standings down appropriately. I'm sorry for that.
To clarify, I AM against Gun Control.
Moving On,

I feel that gun control should not exist for the fact that in place, it would be a direct violation of the second amendment of the bill of rights. Now, to clarify a bit more clearly, however, this does not mean that you should be able to go to a store and buy a gun for absolutely no reason. I feel that you should be able to purchase guns as you please, but with an appropriate license. My grounds for thinking this way, is the following;
1. As said by Ron Paul(and I am paraphrasing here), "If you take the guns away from the people, the government has that much more power over the people." This basically means that if the government were to take guns away from the people, it would be the first step towards an entirely new environment of government. Elaborating more, I'll put it this way;
Guns Go Away>Government Moves Towards Dictatorship>People Can't Rebel For The Fact That They Had No Guns
2. It would, as I said, be a violation of the second amendment. Guns are a thing that we have for the protection of ourselves and others, and though they may not always be used in such manors, it is still useful to have them.
3. Looking through history, you'll notice that if people lost their guns, bad things had started to happen.(Please reference my chart above)

In short, I feel that if the government were to take guns away from the people, it would be a very bad steps towards dictatorship, and also a violation of the second amendment.


Now first off I want to say that I am not completely against the second amendment. I believe that you should be able to own a gun if you want but I also believe that a private citizen should not have access to certain guns. My point is simple. Columbine and other mass shootings done in recent memory. Imagine how much worse these events could have been had the responsible parties had full grade assault rifles. Now, my opponent makes the argument that gun control would be unconstitutional but the second amendment only says that citizens will have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say the government cannot outlaw some guns and have other ones legal. It still gives citizens right to bear arms but not the kind of arms that can shoot out other arms that shoot out other arms that can shoot out bullets at 5 rounds per second. I have a really hard time thinking these are the kind of "arms" the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when writing the second amendment. It was a time where it was necessary to own a gun for self defense and for food. Now I don't really believe that's the case. Now we have grocery stores and the only highway robberies going on now are gas prices and convenience stores. Again as stated before I don't believe in complete gun control for the same reason that my opponent quoted Ron Paul. Further proof is found in Mexico where owning a gun is illegal but now the only ones who own them are law enforcement and the drug cartels go figure.
Debate Round No. 2


First off I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing with me for the fact of government taking guns away being a violation of the second amendment.

Now, however, if the government were to limit the use of arms upon any sort of fire arm, it would still violation. I say this for two different reasons;

1. I'm sure that when framing the constitution, they were quite sure of the extent of what they were doing. A lot of thought was placed into the Bill of Rights, to accommodate for all, regardless of the time period. Now if they were to have put everyone has the right to bear SMALL arms, or possible pistols or something more specific, this would make sense.

2. Now, for this one, I would like to begin with a question for my opponent,
If the government, and I realize how drastic of a hypothetical this is, were to limit the use of fully automatic rifles and such, then launch an attack on the people, for, say, a move towards a dictatorship of a government, how would the people defend themselves?
I believe that in any form of move like this, this would leave the people at a very disadvantage, thus making the move much easier.

I believe a move to remove larger arms from the people would also cause a pretty massive amount of rebellion, and would also leave a lot more people quite unhappy. I understand that this would only be a move to only removes larger arms, but it is also a move towards a limit on the second amendment, which, in short, is only surpassed by the amendment of freedom of speech.


RenegadeRexLee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.