The Instigator
angelcoba
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Archangel35
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Gun Rigths

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 4 votes the winner is...
Archangel35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,544 times Debate No: 30158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (4)

 

angelcoba

Pro

Americans should not be restricted or be limited to any gun of their choice by government.
Archangel35

Con

Americans SHOULD have bans and restrictions on Guns.
Debate Round No. 1
angelcoba

Pro

Americans should not be restricted or be limited to any gun of their choice by government.
- The ownership of a gun is not the problem to why inhabitants kill one another. Any thing is considered a weapon such as a knife, hard objects, weights, etc.. If guns were not made what would the people put the blame on? Anything that can be consider a weapon or in this case the object that does the most killing.
- What the Second 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." In this amendment it implies the acceptance of weapons of any sort to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed. By allowing local and state restrictions violates the last words of the constitution, "shall not be infringed." This is not the American way of following law nor it's not the way our founding fathers would handle the situation if they were to be here, today.
Archangel35

Con

First I will state my case, then I will move on the his.

Okay, today I am here to prove to you all that there SHOULD be bans and restrictions on guns. I am sure that all of you read and watch the news and this should be nothing new.

- First of all, there have been several shooting lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns.

- Let's take Sandy Hooks Elementary School into account. On that morning, after the children reached school, some random man walks into his former school and goes on one of the second deadliest school shooting in US history. He shot and killed 20 innocent children and 6 adults. Why? there was no reason whatsoever and we will never get it. Think about it, they were 5 and 6 years old. What did they do to the shooter or anybody else? NOTHING, nada, zilch.

- Okay, next example. I'm sure you guys know of the Chris Dorner manhunt. What did he do? he shot a woman and her fiance. then his former leader. This is quite serious. With a fomer navy and police member on a killing spree, we are not safe. This is exactly why there should definitely be bans on guns through out the US.

- Go think back a little to the movie shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Several shots were fired. A 6 six year old through a 50-some year old died. SO many people died that day. Remember, that guy was a little mentally ill. He just went in, out, in and shot. I'm not even sure he KNEW what he was doing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to your case:

- Okay, the government does say that we are allowed to have guns and they aren't allowed to infringe upon these rights. But there have been a recent turn of events involving guns. A couple of which are stated above. Why do citizens need guns? If only the military and government officials have them. Then the citizens are safe from each other. Resulting in no need of guns (except for the government officials and army etc).

- What about the mentally ill persons? What happens if they happen to get their hands on severe weapons? What will the citizens do then?


Pro: I would like to see how you justify this as "right" because in no way, shape, or form is this right. The ball is now in your court. Enjoy!
Debate Round No. 2
angelcoba

Pro

I would like to thank you for accepting my debate, and I'd also like to thank those that view this debate.

- The shootings that occurred in the past are due to one's right of a firearm. Reasons to why those people had access to a firearm is because they can. As I stated earlier in round one the second amendment says, " Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a FREE people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government." Note- In the second amendment the capitalize word "FREE" clearly explains why they/anyone can have access to a firearm despite what happens. Man should not be denied or be examined to claim a weapon. Weapons of any kind.
- Indeed the man killed those innocent kids/adults may they rest in peace. But little does everyone know the gun that the man carried on the day of the shooting was a secure and legally-owned, belonging to his mother. Now I will present to you a link with a chart of those with crimes of a legal and, illegal firearms. http://extranosalley.com... And a quick valid statistic of ... six percent of guns taken from arrestees that could properly be considered possible "crime guns" that could also have been legally purchased. If it's not clear 6% is a very low number.

- For the Chris Dorner manhunt summary you have given us, it's the past and was no longer a top story after several months of the incident. Once a new story comes out, everyone feels the need to bring justice. Moving forward from that statement if there were to be bans on guns through out the United States, increase in home invasions, increase in muggings, increase in car jacks, increase in more violent crimes period will occur. Think about it. Also if guns were to be banned the government would just be taking our rights away, our human rights. With that being said Americans would be weak and weak as a nation. "James Madison" father of the Constitution said in Federalists No.46, that the fact that Americans are armed, is an advantage that America has over every other nation. Our founding fathers were very careful to peace together sentences in such manner that won't create conflicts for our time of living and for the future generations to come.

- The reason citizens are allowed to have ownership of a weapon is because it's stated in the constitution. And very much has great support from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. The mentally ill are indeed granted to have ownership of a firearm. In 2008 the supreme court ruled an individual rights of a firearm is very well protected by the court. The word individual is one word meaning ALL, from the mentally ill and to the people that aren't mentally ill.

Thank you
Archangel35

Con

I know this is my last round of this whole debate, so I will try to prove my point to the best I can. Oh, and one more thing. As silly as this sounds, when Pro created this debate, he spelled 'Rights' wrong in the title. Just felt the need to point that out.

- As Pro states, the shootings that occurred recently ARE due to one's right of a firearm. Most of those people who went on a shooting rampage were, to some extent, mentally ill. And for that reason the United States Government should put bans on SOME guns.

- While I understand the in the second Amendment guarantees citizens access to weapons, times have changed since then. It was originally adopted in 1791, right after the Revolutionary War we had fought with Britain. Now, the government is strong enough to protect us by itself along with the police force and more (Navy, FBI, CIA etc.).

- As for the movie theater shooting, that was a legally owned gun. But as you said yourself, Angelcoba, the guns legally belonged to his mother. Not him, but his mother. In other words, he 'stole' the gun from his mom and went to the school. Do you not have any regard or respect for the 20 young children who died?

- I did not at all say that the government should completely prohibit guns for citizens. I said that the government should restrict certain guns. Who needs a AK-47 laying around in their house? Just last year, a three year old child accidentally shot and killed his young brother, who by the way, wasn't even one! Such a tragic story.

- If the government lets mentally ill persons possess guns, then we are not living in a very safe environment. They cannot think straight for themselves sometimes. And if someone angers, them? God only knows what happens next.

- School is a happy place where kids can learn. No one should be afraid to go to school because they are afraid someone will come in with a gun.


Bearing this in mind, Judge/Viewer, I urge you to vote Con!

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by robertqiu 4 years ago
robertqiu
archangel35 you should do this vote encouraging thing do during our debates. There will be much more voters!
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

So the second amendment cannot be enforced as written. Too much death and chaos would result. We have to restrict people's rights to bear arms. We have to draw the line somewhere.

And, given the unending series of public massacres, it makes sense to restrict rapid-fire high-capacity weapons.

But Con didn't make this argument.

Pro said that the founders, if they were alive now, would be for living with the second amendment as written. I think that claim is absurd, but Con didn't dispute it.

So, while I agree with Con, and believe that we must regulate firearms, as well as other weapons, I don't think Con managed to articulate a refutation of Pro's arguments.

Victory: Pro.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Obiter Dicta:

- Con shouldn't be making fun of Pro's spelling unless her own S&G is reasonably good.

- Induced is right about the nukes. But Con didn't make that argument. Induced could have won this debate, but the fact that he has to make up his own argument rather than relying on Con's arguments suggests that his vote may be about his personal opinion rather than about how the debaters actually performed.

RFD:

Pro said guns aren't the problem because other weapons would have been used in the absence of guns. Con should have pointed out that that the perps would have done even more damage if they'd had access to flame-throwers and mustard gas, or, as Induced pointed out, nukes. If guns, or at least high-capacity rapid-fire guns, were harder to get, the perps couldn't have killed as many people. Imagine James Eagan Holmes trying to kill twelve people in that Aurora theater by choking them with a hamster. Imagine Adam Lanza trying to exfoliate twenty-six people to death with a loofa. It wouldn't work. Weapons of greater lethality make for more deaths. If we're against mass slaughters like this, then we ought to be against weapons that facilitate such slaughters.

But Con never made this argument.

Pro said the Constitution forbids infringing our right to own any kind of weapon at all. He's right about that. Con should have pointed out that this would legalize Nerve gas, anthrax, roofies, subliminal messages, portable black holes, pan-galactic gargle blasters, anything. We can't live that way. Weapons of mass destruction are illegal for a reason, because we couldn't have safe orderly lives if they were legal. We would live in fear, warranted fear. If we didn't infringe the right to bear arms, little children would take bombs and guns to school. Victims of banking fraud would blow up the banks, bringing the economy to a halt.

===continued===
Posted by Archangel35 4 years ago
Archangel35
There is still 24 days left. Hopefully, a lot more people will vote.
Posted by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
Please vote people , please
Posted by Archangel35 4 years ago
Archangel35
Let me make myself clear once again. The United States citizens are not safe when some mentally ill people have guns in their hands. I know not all people will go out and shoot. By saying this, I am not agreeing with you. I am saying that there should be bans on some specific guns. I know that the Gov. needs guns for the safety of the citizens. No one NEEDS an AK-47; they may want one, but they certainly don't need one.
Posted by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
Tell me why you voted for con
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Your resolution argues for no limits. A successful argument for any limit defeats your resolution.
Posted by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
Not all people that have guns are mentally ill, her/his (cons) arguments were just on the mentally ill while mine was focused on both.
Posted by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
I proved a valid statistic when con just stated stuff also she failed to prove why their should be a complete banning of guns in general she kept repeating the mentally ill what about those that are not?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
angelcobaArchangel35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
WesternGuy2
angelcobaArchangel35Tied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to vote for the Pro in this debate The resolution was Americans should not be restricted or be limited to any gun of their choice by government. So Con never said why the limitations should not be there Thus pro was the better side
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
angelcobaArchangel35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Archangel35's case that at least the mentally ill should be prevented from owning firearms is a strong one. angelcoba did not challenge that the people are better of removing guns from the mentally ill, he simply states that the constitution says otherwise. What is missing, since pro/instigator had the burden of proof, is why the will of the people centuries ago (constitution) should outweigh the will of the people now, to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns and for the greater good of our society. When debating what we OUGHT to do, it is important to demonstrate the source of this OUGHT. Barely any relevant sources were presented in this debate.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
induced
angelcobaArchangel35Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros points werent as rational. it seems by his logic, nukes should be legal. it's a lot harder to prove that there shouldnt be ANY restrictions on guns, than to prove that there should be at least some minimal regulation