The Instigator
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Gun rights

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 3 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,167 times Debate No: 65325
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

kasmic

Con

Gun rights:

I do not have a strong opinion as of yet. The purpose of this debate is to give me an opportunity to feel out my thoughts on this subject.

Please read carefully.

Clarification:

1: What this debate is not about

This debate is not about gun control.
This debate is not about the NRA.
This debate is not about gun crime.
This debate is not about gun deaths.
This debate is not about gun safety.

2: What it is about:

The second Amendment:

Below are two of the versions of the second amendment, one passed by congress, the other ratified by Thomas Jefferson. The punctuation is different.

“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.” (1)

“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.” (1)

What I would like to debate is the following question:

Is owning a gun a natural right?

Pro will argue that owning a gun is a right.

I will be taking the position of Con, as I imagine there are more potential opponents that are Pro:

Format:

4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hrs.

1st round Pro may begin arguments
2nd and 3rd rounds for arguments and rebuttals
4th round for final rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.)

This gives pro an extra round.

This debate is impossible to accept: Please comment if interested in accepting, please include a brief summary of your position. I will choose an opponent based on ELO, and summary of position.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

funnycn

Pro

I recognize the rules of this debate and understand what it's about. I've been waiting for a debate a little bit more like this.

==Argument==

i. Is owning a gun a natural right?

Natural being defined as
"Rights that people supposedly have under natural law."

Natural law being
"a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature"
[http://dictionary.reference.com...]
[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

To be granted something by nature, being defined as "the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities."

To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms. Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity.

ii. Granted by law made by humans

The U.S.A Constitution is the "supreme law of the U.S.A"
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Taking the quote as said above by Con...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.

==Conclusion for round 1==

This is not the full arguments I'll be making,as I have MUCH more to say. This, is a "taste" of my arguments. I will elaborate more on i and ii in round 2 and 3.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Con

Thanks Funnycn for accepting this debate and good luck!

Rebuttal of round one

i. Is owning a gun a natural right?

I accept the definitions of natural right and natural law provided by my opponent.

“These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. The Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”(1)

The above quote sums up what I assume people mean when applying the title “Natural” to a “right.”

Pro says “To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms.”

He concludes this by saying

“Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity.”

The title of this section is inclusive of human action. Is owning a gun a natural right? Owning is an example of human activity is it not? The action of a human owning a gun. Therefore, based on the definition and application by pro, the human action of owning a gun would be outside of nature, and therefore not a natural right.

ii. Granted by law made by humans

Certainly I accept the obvious empirical evidence that gun ownership is granted by U.S. law, as it is not against the law to own many types of guns, however not all types.

Pro says “One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.”

This is part of why I wanted to have this debate. The second amendment does not say “guns,” it says “arms.” Now before I get accosted, Yes I agree that guns can be described as arms. However, so could a sword, or club. Did it include Cannons, and explosives? What about grenades? Do we have a right to bombs and drones? What constitutes arms in the phrase “bearing arms?”

Conclusion:

Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right.

The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.”

The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically.

(1) http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org...


funnycn

Pro

==Rebuttal==

"Owning is an example of human activity is it not? The action of a human owning a gun. Therefore, based on the definition and application by pro, the human action of owning a gun would be outside of nature, and therefore not a natural right."

Ownership isn't just a human activity. It's shown in animals as well, such as monkeys taking ownership of items. So one could argue; is ownership limited to humans? The answer would be no. Nature itself owns things, such as the plants and trees. Ownership, is perhaps the greatest illusion.

"he second amendment does not say “guns,” it says “arms.” Now before I get accosted, Yes I agree that guns can be described as arms. However, so could a sword, or club. Did it include Cannons, and explosives? What about grenades? Do we have a right to bombs and drones? What constitutes arms in the phrase “bearing arms?”"

Yes to all of those. You can own a sword, a club, even a cannon! Don't believe me on the cannon? In multiple reenactment places, you can find working cannons. You can order them on the internet!

[http://www.cannonsuperstore.com...]

Explosives? Have you ever played with fireworks? Yes, fireworks are explosives.

Grenades? While, yes it's limited in MANY States you can in fact own a grenade launcher, which of course, fires grenades which you need to possess.
[http://xdind.com...]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]

Even then you can own a dead grenade.

What about drones? Amazon, the company, owns drones.

Last, but certainty not least; you can own a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.

[http://thenextweb.com...]

Now to define "arms"

" A weapon, especially a firearm"
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

The best definition I could find other than a limb.

==Argument==

i. (Extended) Is owning a gun a natural right?

The definitions have been given, and I proposed some of my argument, but now here is the rest of it.

"The Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Looking at the Declaration of Independence here, liberty and the pursuit of happiness show how owning a gun is a natural right. I'll show you with liberty first.

Liberty is "the power to do or choose what you want to"
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Thus, owning a gun is a choice, and it's what you want to do, since you made that choice. Owning any arm is not only granted in the U.S. Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence as well, though subtle and overlooked.

Pursuit of happiness also shows how one has the right to own an arm. I wouldn't like to use images but this image sums up a good amount of what I'll say anyways.


So clearly, you can see here that enthusiasts, defined as "a person who is filled with enthusiasm for some principle, pursuit"
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

are happy about guns. Happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Basically the Declaration of Independence allows you to be a gun (or anything) enthusiast.

==Conclusion==

I have provided more evidence about how guns are granted through natural law and disproved Con's claims about how the constitution doesn't allow you to own (or doesn't state that you CAN own) arms such as swords and cannons, etc.

==Full argument==

Is owning a gun a natural right?

Natural being defined as
"Rights that people supposedly have under natural law."

Natural law being
"a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature"
[http://dictionary.reference.com......]
[http://dictionary.reference.com......]

To be granted something by nature, being defined as "the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities."

To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms. Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity.

"The Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Looking at the Declaration of Independence here, liberty and the pursuit of happiness show how owning a gun is a natural right. I'll show you with liberty first.

Liberty is "the power to do or choose what you want to"
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Thus, owning a gun is a choice, and it's what you want to do, since you made that choice. Owning any arm is not only granted in the U.S. Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence as well, though subtle and overlooked.

Pursuit of happiness also shows how one has the right to own an arm. (Image above)


So clearly, you can see here that enthusiasts, defined as "a person who is filled with enthusiasm for some principle, pursuit"
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

are happy about guns. Happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Basically the Declaration of Independence allows you to be a gun (or anything) enthusiast.

Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Con

Rebuttals:

Pro says “Ownership isn't just a human activity.”

Certainly Gun ownership is specific to human activity. I maintain that Gun rights are obviously and empirically not compatible with my opponent’s definition of a Natural right.

Pro seems to feel that “arms” does imply all of the things I listed, although he does say

“Even then you can own a dead grenade.”

This is obviously not the same as owning a live grenade.

He concludes by saying…

“Last, but certainty not least; you can own a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, etc.”

Pro seems to be skirting my contention. My contention is that if “arms” is to include all weapons, and my opponent feels that the “right to bear arms” is inclusive of all arms. Does my opponent think that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right?

That is a loaded question, because I cannot conceive a person who would think that would be reasonable. However, my follow up question is the important question.

If not, and the phrase “Arms” does not include all types of weapons, where is the line for which “arms” we have a “right” to own, and which do we not have the right to own?

Pro proceeds to define "arms"

" A weapon, especially a firearm"

I accept this definition. I ask the same question, Does our “right” to “bear arms” include all weapons? If not, how do we distinguish which are included and which are not?

i. (Extended) Is owning a gun a natural right?

Pro says “Looking at the Declaration of Independence here, liberty and the pursuit of happiness show how owning a gun is a natural right. I'll show you with liberty first.”

This argument is rather specious. As an extreme example…. I am sure there are those out there who would say that the liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape in the same way that my opponent has applied it to gun ownership. As such, Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness.

Conclusion:

As pro has not overcome my previous conclusion I will conclude as I did last round.

Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership of guns is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right.

The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.”

The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically.



funnycn

Pro

==Rebuttal==

"This is obviously not the same as owning a live grenade."

I'd like to claim my opponent didn't specify if it could be live or dead. He simply said "grenade". This could be live or dead. Thus, I am still right.

"Does my opponent think that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right?"

It is his right. However when rights are given, it won't be long until they are taken away.

"liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape"

Not quite. Rape takes away the liberty and pursuit of happiness of another person, thus violating their given rights, which in turn is illegal.

"As such, Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. "

Are you claiming we should not give people liberty to do what they want and be happy?

==Argument==

ii. Granted by law made by humans

Extended argument

Despite the fact laws have been made to try to remove guns, we still have our right to own them. Even self defense laws have been made that support the second amendment. A good example would be the "Stand your ground" laws.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Even organizations have been made to protect the law that was granted to us by humans.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

The NRA often hires lawyers to help others that are caught in court involving a gun crime where he used self defense.

==Full argument==

The U.S.A Constitution is the "supreme law of the U.S.A"

[http://en.wikipedia.org......]

Taking the quote as said above by Con...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.

Despite the fact laws have been made to try to remove guns, we still have our right to own them. Even self defense laws have been made that support the second amendment. A good example would be the "Stand your ground" laws.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Even organizations have been made to protect the law that was granted to us by humans.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

The NRA often hires lawyers to help others that are caught in court involving a gun crime where he used self defense.

==Conclusion==
I have shown evidence that it is our right to own arms via constitution, organizatoin, and through laws made by people. It is indeed our right to own arms as given to us by nature and the Constitution itself. To close, enjoy this picture

Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Con

Final Rebuttal

Pro says “I'd like to claim my opponent didn't specify if it could be live or dead. He simply said "grenade". This could be live or dead. Thus, I am still right.”

It wasn’t a question of if you were right or wrong to say live or dead. Rather, to ask if it is a right to "bear" a live grenade.

I asked if my opponent thinks that owning his own personal Atomic bomb is his right?"

he says

“It is his right. However when rights are given, it won't be long until they are taken away.”

This is not in keeping with standards already established in this debate as natural rights. In the second round I presented the following…

“These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away.”

Pro never refuted this. Thus if ownership is a natural right…. The government cannot give or take that right away.


I said in the last round liberty and pursuit of happiness could be applied to the action of rape…

To which pro responds

“Not quite. Rape takes away the liberty and pursuit of happiness of another person, thus violating their given rights, which in turn is illegal.”

Sure, so does owning an Atomic Bomb…

Pro attempts a staw man asking “Are you claiming we should not give people liberty to do what they want and be happy?”

I will keep this simply, no I did not say or imply anything close to that. What I said was Just because one person finds something enjoyable and has, on balance, “liberty” that does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness.

People should be free to pursue what makes them happy… provided the rights of others are not affected. My neighbor owning an atomic weapon would certainly affect the dynamic of our neighborhood no?

Conclusion:

Unfortunately I do not feel this debate covered what I initially intended… that stated.

Accepting Pro’s definitions of natural, natural law, and natural right excludes ownership of a gun. This is the case because Pro said that natural is outside of human activity. Ownership of guns is human activity. Thus Gun ownership is not a “natural” right.

The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.”

Being that the last round does not allow for new arguments and As pro has not substantiated adequately what “arms” are protected and which are not… (or connected the phrase arms to guns specifically) we can only assume that he means all arms. This is supported by his statement accepting all the things I listed as “arms.”

Pro’s stance that the owning of “arms” including Atomic bombs are protected natural rights is ludicrous, and not practically defendable.

The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically.

Thanks for reading

Vote Con!

funnycn

Pro

==Final Rebuttal==

"This is not in keeping with standards already established in this debate as natural rights"


Rights cannot exist without someone wanting to take them away. Even if they are natural rights.

"“These are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away.”"

My apologies, I did not see that claim. Allow me to "refute" it then.

As mentioned before, rights cannot exist without someone wanting to take them away. The native americans for example. They just about used natural law as their law. However, the government came and took them away, forcing them to move around the continent. Even if you have natural rights, there will be someone to take them. The claim "government can't take natural rights" is infact false. Another example would include gays in the middle east. Anyone gay in the middle east is killed, thus taking away the natural right of "life". You can infact, take away natural rights.

"Sure, so does owning an Atomic Bomb…"

However you only said owning an atomic bomb, NOT using it. Thus, one can own an atomic bomb without taking the rights of others.

"People should be free to pursue what makes them happy"

Despite your previous claims.

"does not give that person the right to do anything that brings them some type of happiness. "


It seems somewhat contradictory.

==Conclusion==

To conclude, natural rights are granted by one naturally, however they can be taken away. The right to bear ANY arms are granted by the U.S Constitution and therefore, you are allowed to own many different types of arms. However the government has limited arm usage and what arms you can use. I have defined all types of arms, I have shown you can infact own a grenade, a cannon, a sword, and a handgun. I have defined arm as well. The "atomic bomb" argument has been established as well as the "natural rights taken" argument.

Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Reading over the debate now.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

"Unfortunately I do not feel this debate covered what I initially intended"

I think the above quote from Con encapsulates this debate nicely. It went off the rails early, and never really found them again. Con tries to refocus the debate a few times, but he continues to engage in the off track debate throughout anyway. So it's not just a Pro or Con problem, though I'd say Pro does more to throw this debate off than Con.

The first round defined what this debate was about. Sure, there's some second amendment thrown in there, but that's not the question up for debate. The question is plainly stated:

"Is owning a gun a natural right?"

That's the basis for my evaluating the debate. So I immediately throw out most of this debate.

Why?

1) Because all of this discussion of what the second amendment allows for is tangential to the debate. Where in that question does the issue of what the second amendment does and does not allow for get any mention? The second amendment could theoretically allow for private nuclear weapon ownership, but that wouldn't make the answer to that question a "yes." All it does is state that, yes, in this law created by mankind, there is a right to own guns. That doesn't make it a natural right. Pro fails to ever link the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence for that matter, to natural rights.

I will, for the sake of argument, go through this point and how it fell out, though.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

Pro, I'm basically shocked that you didn't decide to throw any of the key USSC decisions that state that gun ownership is a basic part of the second amendment. I don't think this point from Con goes anywhere on its face, but this should have been a one or two sentence dismissal at most. Instead, it turns into you defending the right to ownership of any number of arms, giving your opponent the opportunity to keep upping the ante and at least make me think he has a point. Even if you did have a direct link to the resolution here, it's not your burden to show that all of these weapons are covered under the second amendment. All you have to do is prove that the second amendment covers guns. That's not hard.

Con, generally I felt this point fell flat. I can agree with you entirely that there's uncertainty and still be siding with Pro on the basis that that uncertainty leans his way in just about every instance. Instead of bringing up uncertainty, bring up the actual certainties here: cities and states have outright banned guns, and the USSC hasn't forced them to stop. That's all the disagreement you need. You don't need uncertainty in the second amendment, just show that there's uncertainty on a national level for what is and is not a fundamental right.

2) Because the discussion of liberty and the pursuit of happiness are tangential to the debate. Pro eventually does try to expand this to the Declaration, but ends up being repetitive here (multiple, multiple times... seriously, you repeat yourself a lot in your arguments) for no reason, mainly because "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are, again, not established as natural rights. Pro tells me that liberty is a fundamental right, but not a natural one. The same is true for pursuing happiness. Admittedly, Con doesn't do a great job handling these arguments, but it's not his burden of proof here. It's Pro's.

Again, that being said, I'll go through the point a little.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

Generally speaking, it's supremely weak. The idea that anyone should be allowed to do anything on the basis that it pursues their happiness, so long as that happiness doesn't result directly in harms to the liberties of others, is patently absurd. We don't allow people to grow dangerous microorganisms in their basements, even if they're utterly careful, because of the possible usage for bioterrorism. And that's assuming that they are careful " those organisms get out and you have a lot of deaths on your hands. There's a demonstrable harm there, even if it's not direct. One could easily argue the same thing for guns " there's a huge possible harm if used in a way that seeks to wreak havoc, and there's a demonstrable harm in their accidental usage. This is a weak point because you're weighing a right to happiness versus a right to basic security. Rather than argue happiness, just argue self-defense. There's some decent evidence to support that, and it's not just in self-defense laws (which you essentially appeal to as an authority). Talk about the natural right to ensure one's own bodily integrity. That could have become massively important here, but instead it's just swept under the rug in favor of an argument that, really, has nothing to do with the debate in the first place.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

So, strangely enough, that leaves me with only one argument that's pertinent to the debate, and it's the very first one, which falls out of the debate and then comes back towards the end. That's this basic idea of ownership. Pro basically says we have a natural law that allows us to own things, but never substantiates why that natural law exists. All I get is an assertion that ownership is a natural law because... animals do it. Well, animals doing it doesn't make it a natural law. Moreover, even if you had proved that ownership of some things is a natural law (which would have required a rather large, libertarian-based discussion of self-ownership), you would then have to prove that ownership of guns specifically is included in that natural law. I never see either argument here. Con gives me an argument that doesn't go as far as it should, but gets where it needs to go, stating that ownership is a human concept (I didn't ever see a good rebuttal of that, the fact that some animals use tools doesn't mean they have a concept of ownership, and I think the argument that "Nature itself owns things, such as plants and trees" is utterly baffling). But really, Pro does more harm to his own argument than Con ever does, stating that "Ownership, is perhaps the greatest illusion." If it's an illusion... how can it be a natural right? Con gets close to some other good arguments in this regard, though never states them outright (like how guns aren't natural objects in and of themselves), but the point is already so muddled and uncertain by Pro's own argumentation that I can't accept it. As such, the only argumentation of his to actually touch on the resolution falls away.

Hence, Pro fails in his burden, and I vote Con.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I plan to vote on this debate later, someone please remind me and I'll do so tomorrow.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Gabe, a 6 point vote? Are you serious? Why are sources used as justification for the conduct vote?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Gabe, a 6 point vote? Are you serious? Why are sources used as justification for the conduct vote?
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I would like to debate this topic with you.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
Though I don't know how much time I can commit to it, I would like to debate this issue. I've made a lot of observations about gun rights, the 2nd Amendment and many of the other points already listed in the comments. I would begin with the fact that gun rights and gun ownership is something that predates the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment by many years.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
kasmicfunnycnTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro due to the emmence use of sources by Pro out numbering by far the amount of sources by Con. In this debate I would feel that the BOP belongs to Pro which I'll get more into later on. Now the major argument in the debate that I feel occurred is that is it a natural right to own a gun or is it a natural right to be able to own a gun. Now Con goes on to speak on how it's immoral to own the atom bomb, but he nails it on the head by showing that it's not a natural right to possess an object that you can simply hold in your hand. You can have every right to be able to own it, but you do not have to own it. This major argument was won by Con also he took a unique approach to it to where even Pro would fall into this category of debating it as he did in his 3rd Round thus giving Con the debate. Good Read all around from two great new debaters that I have been fallowing.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
kasmicfunnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seemed really strange, and the original focus was avoided, and seemed to be a war over petty technicalities in a lot of parts. Anyhow, Con's argument seems sound, he was able to prove that gun ownership was not a natural right, and also that it was not possible to conclude which arms were specified in the Constitution.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kasmicfunnycnTied
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: Given in comments.