Gun Control Is A Bad Thing
Debate Rounds (3)
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
8,000 Character Limit
To clarify, I AM against Gun Control.
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, 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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.