The Instigator
Arganger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gun Control

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: 1/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 106711
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Arganger

Con

I am arguing that gun control laws should not be implamented in the united states of america, and that the existance of gun control laws are harmful over all.

You may make your case first.

Try to keep it somewhat short as well.
sengejuri

Pro

By my opponent's own admission in the comments, they are advocating for no gun control/regulation whatsoever. This is lunacy.

No background checks, for example, would mean a known criminal could walk into a store and buy a gun.

No limitations on types of arms available to civilians means someone could buy a heavy machine gun or grenade launcher.

No requirements to go through an open or concealed carry safety class means people could just carry guns around without having to demonstrate competence with them. This would be no different than letting people drive cars without passing a driving test.

The list could go on, but I'll stop here for now and see how Con responds.
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Con

Who desides who the criminal is?

The government.

What is the goal of the second amendment?

To keep the government under control.

Requiring background checks has the problem of offering an easy means for the government to overstep and disarm people when it really counts.

So my problem isn't in keeping criminals from having them, but rather the potential of the government to make people who disagree with them into said criminal.

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Thomas Jefferson

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry

So, why I entirely understand wanting to disarm criminals, the control that it can give the government is a large risk to me. Not to mention gangs all over the country have huge supplies of guns already, so it isn't likely that gun control makes much of a difference at this point.

I think money and time is much better invested in mental health and child resources.
sengejuri

Pro

The goal of the 2A is not to keep the government under control. This is a common misconception. Think about it - it makes no sense. Is the government really intimidated by a citizen with an AR-15? No. Just look at any "rebellion" that has been tried against the US government, from the Branch Dividians at Waco all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. The government easily crushed all of them. Even the Civil War, which was arguably a rebellion by the citizens of 11 whole states, ended in failure. The other huge problem with thinking the 2A is meant to help citizens resist tyranny is - what exactly is the definition of "tyranny" and which citizens get to decide when the government needs to be overthrown? Individual citizens don't have the right to decide to overthrow the government because we live in a representative democracy. That's why it's a mistake to interpret the 2nd Amendment this way.

You have not answered any of my other objections - no regulations means a civilian could buy a heavy machine gun. Do you support this? No open carry classes means civilians could carry weapons without demonstrating competence with them. Do you support this?
Debate Round No. 2
Arganger

Con

I will answer the first two questions first. Yes, and yes.

It is extremely unlikely the second amendment could be anything other than protection from the government, considering the time it was created. America is a country that was formed from a revolution, and its founders were traitors. They knew well that the system has potential to fail, and become as tyrannical as the country they overthrew.

"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."

Notice security of a free state in particular.

If the people are not armed, to at least present an annoyance to the government, then there is nothing backing the people if the government just decided to stop listening to the people. In other words if the government chose to stop holding elections for instance, without an armed populus there is nothing standing in the way.

The idea of opportunity for rebellion regulates itself. If enough people attempt to rebel because of true discontent for the government that it actually poses a threat, chances are they aren't being heard.
sengejuri

Pro

"security of a free state" is a reference to protection from foreign invasion, not domestic revolt. At the time of the Constitution, the Regular Army was very small and weak. It was assumed that a strong militia would always be necessary to supplement national defense against foreign invaders, just as it was in the Revolutionary War. Obviously, this is no longer the case today, as the Regular Army is now extremely powerful, and the need for state militias has all but evaporated.

The thing standing in the way of the government not choosing to stop elections is the elections themselves - namely, to elect people who we trust to not do that. But, we can't even get the majority of citizens to vote at all, so what makes you think a majority of citizens would agree to do something more difficult?

Since you have answered yes to citizens owning heavy machine guns and not having to demonstrate competence before carrying them around, please kindly explain why. This is an insane idea.
Debate Round No. 3
Arganger

Con

Before posting my argument I wish to mention one thing; I'm just arguing for no gun control, but I have mixed feelings about the issue. I just find it more fun to argue against any, it being the most extreme.

Now, for my final arguments.

Even the founding fathers didn't feel that our system of government was beyond the idea of corruption. There was much infighting over how much control the government should have, as to uphold a strong country but also not become tyrannical.

For instance as seen in this quote from John Adams, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."

Also in a quote from Samual Adams, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

As you can see, the founding fathers knew that democracy is fallible.

We cannot rely on the government to regulate itself, and bad people often seek such power. Remember, Hitler was technically elected. If the people were armed well enough, who knows, the holocaust may have been prevented.

Because a tyrannical government turns its opposition into criminals, gun control against criminals would be easily manipulated.

In response to, "But, we can't even get the majority of citizens to vote at all, so what makes you think a majority of citizens would agree to do something more difficult?" it isn't easy, but that is the point. It would take extreme situations for people to be willing to try.

According to http://www.people-press.org... 19% of americans have trust in the government.

Why do they keep getting elected then? For two reasons, to keep people they see as even worse out and because no one else seems to run.

My opponent says,"Since you have answered yes to citizens owning heavy machine guns and not having to demonstrate competence before carrying them around, please kindly explain why. This is an insane idea." Because it gives the government control over who owns guns and what kind. It is easily abused.

I conclude and thank you.
sengejuri

Pro

The John Adams quote refers to the fact that democracy has a tendency to destroy itself. The emphasis on individual liberty slowly degrades loyalties to groups and institutions, which results in hopeless factionalism. Once this happens, majority consensus becomes impossible and democracy collapses. It has nothing to do with government tyranny. The corruption comes from the people themselves, not the government.

If 81% of Americans do not trust the government, then why aren't they overthrowing it? Do we have to wait until we get to 99%? Why would 81% of the population accept living under a government they don't trust to govern? Where are all these armed patriots with their AR-15s?

The government already controls who owns guns. Just ask The Branch Davidians in Waco. The ATF found out that a package of inert grenade casings was being shipped to the compound, so the government rolled in the tanks and that was that. If you're worried about the government having control over who has the guns, that ship has sailed, my friend.

No gun control is more likely to do harm than good. There is a very low chance that the government will become so tyrannical that it requires an armed coup. Even if this happens, an armed coup is extremely unlikely to succeed. Conversely, allowing citizens to walk around with unregulated machine guns has a high potential for unintended deaths. Gun accidents are already a major cause of death in the US, and taking more restraints off gun control only opens the possibility of more accidents.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Arganger 1 month ago
Arganger
sengejuri yes
Posted by sengejuri 1 month ago
sengejuri
what do you mean by "gun control laws" - like, no gun control/regulation whatsoever?
Posted by John_C_1812 1 month ago
John_C_1812
Ironically Governing Fire-Arms is a United States Constitutional Right. The targeting of Gun Control is not it is all about the state of the union presented before basic separation. And how they are maintained as impartial to limit self-incrimination to the public and political figures.
Posted by Arganger 1 month ago
Arganger
J-A-Moore If so you must promise not to forfeit and I will change the two completed debate requirement.
Posted by J-A-Moore 1 month ago
J-A-Moore
I will take this.
Posted by Nd2400 1 month ago
Nd2400
Oh yea. Before i sign out. Just need to say i was joking about actually debating you on this issue. Im also for gun laws...
Posted by Nd2400 1 month ago
Nd2400
I will for sure take you up on this challenge....
No votes have been placed for this debate.