Gun Laws in America
Debate Rounds (3)
As my opponent has admitted to being pro gun I will infer that he feels that arming anyone will have a positive effect on crime rates. However, according to a study conducted by the National Research Council in 2004, "there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms. " 
I would greatly appreciate my opponent stating why he feels that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms of any type.
People are so concerned with guns and crime rates when talking about the second amendment but what does the second amendment actually say?
"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."
27 words. The second amendment is not directly talking about self defense from fellow citizens. It is talking about the right to defend your freedom should a tyrannic government rise up and try to take away your most basic rights. With this being said, I feel that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms in order to defend freedom in the unfortunate case that our own government one day becomes corrupted.
You might be asking yourself "Why do they need access to all firearms? Wouldn't a hand gun be a suitable defense?" Admittedly, it gets more difficult here because you do have to keep these weapons out of the hands of unstable people. The government has access to one of the deadliest militaries in the world. I would know because I am a part of it. If the government turns on its people, they would use militant force, no questions asked. What is a pistol going to do against an assault weapon? It truly is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Civilians should have access to weapons that would actually do some good should this situation ever occur. Call me crazy but that is what our founding fathers intended with the second amendment.
"The beauty about the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons.
My opponent states that "I am in favor of anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol." Anyone means any person. My opponent did not place any restrictions such as age or a felon who was convicted of a violent crime using an illegal firearm.
Placing restrictions on gun ownership does not violate our 2nd amendment rights. In District of Columbia V. Heller, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home. "The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear firearms is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain "presumptively lawful," according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally ill, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," (5) prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons," and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents." 
The above decision in itself can restrict U.S. citizens to certain types of guns. In addition, did the framers of the constitution consider that there would be guns capable of firing 3 rounds per second or 180 rounds per minute in the year 2013 compared to the guns available in 1787 which "were single shot black powder muskets, single shot black powder pistols, both of which used flintlocks and a primed pan and were muzzle loaders." 
I believe a complete misunderstanding exists between those who feel that the 2nd amendment affords the ability to bear any and all types of arms without restriction. As my opponent is attempting to argue that any mentally capable person should be be able to possess a gun of any type for any reason is a prime example. Simply placing restrictions on gun ownership via gun laws is in now way an attempt by government to violate our 2nd amendment rights much in the same as freedom of speech afforded to us by the 1st amendment. We have freedom of speech but it does not allow us to say anything and everything we want at any given time.
"Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons."
My opponents is right in that killing will always happen as unfortunately it is a part of life. However, I fail to see how bringing up 2 communists in Stalin and Castro as well as a Fascist in Hitler has anything to do with the capitalistic democracy we live in. Requiring background checks on those purchasing firearms as well as having a national database of weapons in circulation may very well not prevent a mentally unstable person from purchasing a weapon on the "black market" but could very well allow law enforcement to trace that weapon back to the person who sold it to him or her.
It is my position that restriction does not equate to infringement and alowing any mentally stable person to have access to any gun of any type would not only be reckless but dangerous to society.
Gibby forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con; Pro failed to meet burden of proof. Conduct to Pro; Con forfeited the last round. Sources to Pro; Con used none.
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.