The Instigator
RTN1994
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jonathan_T
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Guns SHOULD NOT be banned!

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,276 times Debate No: 24054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RTN1994

Pro

My position is that guns should not be banned because it is our constitutional right to own them! The 2nd Amendment.
Also, our country was founded with the ability to own and use a weapon.

Reasons why it shouldn't changed-

-Once you take away a right that is in the constitution, there is no limit on the endless amount of things the Government can then take away, including but not limited to free speech, freedom of religion, and voting rights, ect....

-Crime will not go down by banning weapons since the majority of criminals have unregistered weapons, most whom received from terrorist organizations or smuggles from Mexico.

-You are hurting the "honest" American since they are the only ones in which banning weapons can be forced upon.

There are numerous amounts of other reasons I would like to get into but these are just a few.

DO NOT GET OFF TOPIC!
Jonathan_T

Con

I would like to begin with stating that I appreciate you for beginning this debate.

My refutes:
1) I would like to begin with introducing the 18th amendment which clearly prevents the distribution of alcohol which was then repealed with the 21st amendment (I believe it was the 21st) and with this, I would like to refute your opening statement of "because it is our constitutional right to own them! The 2nd Amendment." well just because it was established doesn't necessarily mean it was right and therefore would be completely capable of being repealed itself.
2) To refute that removing a right that is in the constitution would mean that there is no limit on the endless amount of things the government can take away, well I'm to assume you are familiar with acts and legislations similar to such as the "patriot act" which allows the government to bypass other legislation if in the nature of crisis to national security as well as the numerous pardons demonstrated from presidents when the amendments were violated, which concludes that is a right were to be taken away, then wouldn't there already be no limit on the endless amount of things the government can take away?
3) Well easy way to refute your 2nd reason is that if you ban all weapons (guns) and you see someone with a gun (registered or not), you can arrest them and prevent them from causing any damage but if you only ban unregistered weapons then well you must get a warrant to arrest them.
4) I don't really understand this argument other than the obvious that you are portraying that it will only affect legal citizens who agree to follow the law which is true because how could any limitation affect dishonest Americans.
Debate Round No. 1
RTN1994

Pro

The repeal of prohibition was due to the fact that they knew they couldn't enforce it and that
their own "enforcers" so-to-speak weren't following it as well.
Sure, they could "try" to repeal the 2nd amendment which is in the Bill of rights, using another amendment like
was done for prohibition however, the
uprising factor of american citizens would be so great that it would be a greater risk and when congress votes on legislation
they must look at all the aspects and outcomes.

"As the prohibition years continued, more of the country's populace came to see prohibition as illustrative of class distinctions, a law unfairly biased in its administration favoring social elites. Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes: "They bought out the inventories of warehouses, saloons, club store rooms, they emptied out liquor retailers and wholesalers. American lawmakers themselves followed these practices at the highest levels of government. President Woodrow Wilson moved his own supply of alcoholic beverages to his Washington residence after his term of office ended. His successor, Warren G. Harding relocated his own large supply into the White House after inauguration." - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Well easy way to refute your 2nd reason is that if you ban all weapons (guns) and you see someone with a gun (registered or not), you can arrest them and prevent them from causing any damage but if you only ban unregistered weapons then well you must get a warrant to arrest them."-you stated
-Ummm the majority of crimes involving weapons happen before the police get there. I am studying criminal justice currently and go to my
local police citizen's academy.
-Banning weapons period only hurts the person who is registered, because the gov will check all registered owners and
demand it given to them. (this is actually already being divised by PDs)
-Thugs and Cartels, own wearhouses and depots of guns.
NOT DISAGREEING WITH ABILITY TO REPEAL AMEND
Jonathan_T

Con

Jonathan_T forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RTN1994

Pro

RTN1994 forfeited this round.
Jonathan_T

Con

Jonathan_T forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RTN1994

Pro

RTN1994 forfeited this round.
Jonathan_T

Con

Jonathan_T forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RTN1994

Pro

RTN1994 forfeited this round.
Jonathan_T

Con

Jonathan_T forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Look at my debate on it
No votes have been placed for this debate.