The Instigator
TheConserative
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bullish
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Bullish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,607 times Debate No: 33909
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

TheConserative

Pro

The government should not infringe on the Second Amendment Obama is far from the solution on Gun Control. Why should people tell me what to use to protect my family. if it's an AR-15 or a double barreled shotgun that I use, it should be fine. The NRA is closer to the solution than the Liberals are on Capitol Hill are. The 2nd Amendment says 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. A person with a gun is a lot faster in dealing with an intruder than the police.An average time for police to respond to a 911 call is about 4 minutes and a private citizen response is about 30 seconds. Which one is faster and gets the job done quicker?
Bullish

Con

I would like to accept.

First, allow me to help clarify the terms.

1. "Gun control" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms.
2. The resolution can be rephrased as "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

BoP should be shared.

I will be arguing for "The right of the people to bear arms should be limited."

My main arguments:

I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.

II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.

III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.

IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today.

Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
TheConserative

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate and you made some good points. Good luck. With your point on that the 2nd Amendment not dealing with today's weapons. The U.S Constitution is a "living document" so it goes through the years and will be updating with the times and into the future. How is the the NRA not closer to the solution? They are not trying to rid the regulations of firearms, the only thing is that it should be reasonable, its Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor against illegal guns who wants no one to posses firearms. Now in this day and this society, people should not have to rely on the government for protection. In fact, 98% of the people who purchases firearms are the ones that use it for the right reasons like sporting, hunting, and self-defense. Why should the politicians say I can't use a certain weapon. I'm not saying like a RPG or a Mini-gun. In my days I had use many different weapons and the one I feel comfortable with is a semi-automatic AR-15. If I were to draw the political line of the United States with Conservatives on the right and Liberals on the left and I put guns in the middle, the liberals would want more background checks, ban on "assault weapons", and certain Democratic supporters, only guns for police and too bad for citizens. The Conservatives want less government regulations, not totally free market, but less regulations. What I don't mean is that I can go into a sporting goods store and buying three rifles and 5,000 rounds of ammunition, I mean keeping the background checks and specifying the reasons you need and document it. The only thing is not banning high capacity clips and because they are not part of the solution. The solution is to keep citizens protected and then criminals and robbers would think twice on robbing a person because that person might have a firearm and will still have his life. That will be one less criminal and that person will not harm anyone else. Thank you
Bullish

Con

My opponent makes good points. I will now state my arguments more extensively.

I would like to remind voters to not let Pro manipulate the resolution in his favor. He states that “Gun control is wrong”, so it is safe to assume he means all. Please consider this and do not let Pro change his resolution to “Limited gun control is good”.

I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.

It is clear that if everyone owned weapons without a controlling force, the world would be in anarchy. Take Somalia for an example. In Somalia, there is no stable standing government, and so no laws regarding gun control. As a result, everyone there lives in total anarchy and fear of being killed or otherwise violated by local strongmen. Somalia’s death rate is 14.55/1000 per year, compared to the U.S.’s 6.15/1000. That’s high even when you take out the other health factors.

Imagine living in a society where people can freely possess weaponry. You might not own one, but your psychotic neighbors might. Imagine your psychotic neighbor owning a minigun. Imagine him going to a public facility and mowing everyone down. It’s not pretty. And don’t call me on reducto absurdium, because I’m not exaggerating. Look at the mass shootings that have occurred in America. If those people can get their hands on a minigun, you bet they will. The law, and its enforcement, is the only thing keeping them away. The same argument can be extended to non-ballistic weapons. With enough money, anyone can own a nuke. Crime would be on a whole new level.

II. Self-defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.

There are two levels to this: Personal defense and country defense.

On personal defense, the firearm is not a prime choice. Firearms are hard to control, and have a higher tendency of misfire. Fire arms are meant to be an offensive weapon since their invention weapon. They are meant to kill. If one really wanted to defend themselves, buy a Taser. Tasers cannot kill, they have much higher stopping power, and they cannot be used to kill in a fit of rage.

On national defense. Only the official army should have the possession of high powered weaponry. Civilians simply do not need them, to hunt, do target practice, or otherwise recreational activities. If the citizens ever do need to rise up against their government (which is highly unlikely in a democracy), they can always import weapons. Look at countries like Mali. They are democratic, but they don’t have much enforceable laws on firearms. As a result, they have extremely high crime and death rates.

III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.

Here is what the NRA wants: No background checks. Armed guards everywhere. Background checks could obviously stop the mentally unstable and people with former criminal backgrounds from getting a gun that might be used in unlawful shootings. Armed guards are already deployed, and the government has absolutely no problem with itself owning guns.

The NRA is quite simply a gun lobbyist spend millions on Congress in return for relaxed gun laws. This is purely in its self-interest.

IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today.

The Second Amendment was written more than 200 years ago. 200 years ago, all they had were single-shot extremely inaccurate and hard to reload muskets. The revolver wasn’t invented until the19th century. The only tool of oppression of the government was the musket – they didn’t have anything better. What would the Founding Fathers have thought if they had machine guns back then? In fact John Adams said the Amendments are to be amended in the future. And Amendments have been amended. A militia and guns were necessary to revolt back then, but not now. Now, the government has weapons such as artillery, tanks, tactical missiles, drones, chemical weapons, etc… The people cannot expect to win with just their AR-15s. It’s a different time.

Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.

Thanks.

Your go.

[]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
[]. http://home.nra.org...
[].https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
TheConserative

Pro

My challenger has made some goods and frankly I made a mistake in the title. I don't want ALL gun control gone, just some regulations. Also, 71% of NRA actually is in favor of background checks because it works. What's wrong with armed guards? Recently there was a school shooting in Atlanta Georgia, but it was stopped by and armed guard at the school. I don't remember hear about that.

Frankly, there are over 2'000 federal gun laws right now. If does didn't stop Newtown, Auora, and Virginia Tech, what will. If a bomb goes off in a public building, you blame the bomber right? Well why blame the gun for a shooting, it doesn't make sense.

Yes the Constitution was created over 200 years ago, but not only the 2nd Amendment should be updated. People talk differently now than they did before so they should change the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was meant so that if the government or a foreign country should gain too much power, we can fight back. The British Soldiers in the Revolution were trained trained and had state of the art technology and we still beat them. If a foreign nation were to step foot on out nation's soil, then the people should use their rights and fight back. It's the you never know factor. So my mistake for the title of this debate and I really want LESS gun control, not none.
your move
Bullish

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. My opponent has willingly admitted that the debate resolution was not phrased in a way that he wishes. Please give Pro the conduct point for admitting. However, a debate is a debate, and I will have to continue arguing under the agreed resolution.

This will be a rebuttal.

“Also, 71% of NRA actually is in favor of background checks because it works.”
Yes, 90% of the population supports background checks, but apparently not the NRA spokesman (See video: NRA Wayne LaPierre does not support private sales background checks, 2:20). Wayne LaPierre says “I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it (background checks) does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors”.



“What's wrong with armed guards?”
Nothing is wrong with armed guards. But your argument is does not favor you, since school armed guards are hired by the state, and the state is not limiting itself from owning guns.

“If does didn't stop Newtown, Auora, and Virginia Tech, what will.”
These shootings were not prevented precisely because of gun laws that are not strict enough, enforced enough, or good enough. Stating that the current gun laws did not prevent shootings is not grounds enough to say that NO gun laws work.

“If a bomb goes off in a public building, you blame the bomber right?”
This is a false analogy. Bombs are different from guns. Bombs are banned, but they can be homemade, whereas guns are more difficult to be homemade.

“We need guns to fight back.” (Prphs)
I have stated in my previous argument that when we do need to fight back, we can import guns from foreign countries, since the law does not matter anymore. I also stated that guns are no longer the primary forms of weaponry that this world uses. “The government has weapons such as artillery, tanks, tactical missiles, drones, chemical weapons, etc…” I am for a well-organized militia, like the government army already is.

My opponent has conceded that the 2nd Amendment should be changed.

For my opponent: I do agree that gun control laws need a redo.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
TheConserative

Pro

Thank you, you have made some good points to my arguments. We are all different people and just because I believe in a certain topic doesn't others should follow them and honestly LaPierre is one of that 28% radicals. Guns have been around for centuries now and they are going to advance just like the rest of the world. You can't hurt the everyday citizen because of one person actions. You have to set an example to the criminals that do the same thing in the future so maybe they will think twice about what they do.\

My solution to this "crisis" is not to take away, but to inform. The media makes guns and gun owners the devil and in my daily life I get people coming to my house saying hurtful things to me just because I have a tool to defend my family. We should teach the people and our posterity how to safely handle a firearm. So all the groups, committees, and people that say that guns kill people need to look at the POV of gun owners and the other way from victims of gun violence.

So my point to all this is to find solutions that not hurt one side. Our government was built on agreements and compromises. We should be doing that instead of wasting all of our at blaming. That is what Obama is doing and I will save that for another debate

Thank you
Bullish

Con

Closing statement.

(I'm on my mobile, please forgive for minor spelling errors.)

Gun laws exist for a very good reason. It is to prevent people who may use guns in a way that is harmful to themselves and society. I have given examples and reasoning in my previous arguments, and Pro has not refuted them.

My opponent makes good points about guns. Indeed, people break the law everyday, and criminals will get their hands on anything illegal if they wish enough. Certain gun laws today (such as the "gun free zone" where they don't check you for guns) do in fact harm law abiding citizens from practicing their liberty. Such laws should be amended. However, a majority of the gun laws are likely useful in preventing shootings and such.

In an ideal world, those who wish to use guns for legitimate defensive or recreational purposes would not feels the restrictions of gun laws. However, this is not an ideal world, and things must be sacrifices to prevent gun crimes. Also, modern technology has provided with many non-lethal but effective defensive weapons, such as stunguns and tranquilizers.

I myself am not quite sure what President Obama is trying to do, so that will not be something I would debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
In my argument II, I forgot to mention something I use often: tranquilizers.

There are some very fast acting tranq guns today, and they can have large round capacities.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Holy sh*t. I made this account what seems like forever ago. Still can't believe I called Bullish a noob sniper. My sincerest apologies.
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
Alas, I'm also getting used to a new PC. embarrassed grin here ;/)
Posted by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
"As far as I understand, "noob" is a non-offensive term."

I've been on here something like 5 or 6 months, and had several debates, and I consider myself a bit of a noob still, in the context of DDO. i
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
As far as I understand, "noob" is a non-offensive term.
Posted by TheConserative 3 years ago
TheConserative
If you are going to call people noobs go back to Call of Duty. I don't want childish crap here
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Bullish is a noob sniper. He didn't accept this challenge from me, but he accepts it from a noob and wins by 13 points."

FT, you know you're a noob too, right...?
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I would like to respond to Fictional_Truths1.

1. I am a noob. Seriously, I may seem incredibly smart to you (flattered by the way), but this is like my second debate.

2. YOU, are a noob. You have 0 debates at this point. Y ME NO SNIPE U?

3. What exactly obligates me to respond to all debate challenges?

4. I gave you a very nice and polite reason in my rejection response. Please read it.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Bullish is a noob sniper. He didn't accept this challenge from me, but he accepts it from a noob and wins by 13 points.
Posted by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
Damn! I really wanted to vote for this one!!! Oh well. :(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by proglib 3 years ago
proglib
TheConserativeBullishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Impossible debate for Pro to win in my opinion. And he ended up agreeing with Con about the need for some gun control. He made some good points and I disagree with Con on some points, but in general he dominated. I didn't check the sources, so I didn't score them.
Vote Placed by Diirez 3 years ago
Diirez
TheConserativeBullishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really failed to provide any sort of evidence or rebuttal. Con really stepped up and completely dominated this debate. Good job.