The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
B23_Black_Dragon
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

It is necessary and favorable to have an armed populace.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 5040
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Harlan

Pro

The right of the public to keep and bear arms is a necessity to the well being and balance of society. It is an essential part of the relationship between the governors and the governed; a key element in the foundation of society.

This is a topic of much heated debate, which usually follows a dialogue something like this:

Person A: "guns create violence and crime amongst people."

Person B: "Yeah, but you can use guns to protect against those people."

Person A: "You won't need guns to protect yourself if no one has guns"

Person B: "Those criminals wouldn't follow the law anyway"

Person A: "We could make it harder for the criminals get the guns:

Person B: "nu-uh!"

Person A: "yeah-huh!... Hey what are you doing with that gun?!"

Person B: "Just got revoked"

Person A: "Rosebud."

I do not fully agree with either of these common arguments, but instead believe in the necessity of an armed populace on the basis of preventing tyrannical rule. If I could have it my way, guns wouldn't even exist. But unfortunately they do, and whether or not we like it, the government and its law enforcers will always own firearms. That is why, to make it balanced, the governed must also own guns. Otherwise, we are completely at the mercy of our government. In other words, we need guns to protect ourselves from the government.

An excellent example is the American Revolution. The colonists would never have broken away from their tyrannical rulers if they did not possess guns. Recall that the "government" was that of Great Britain, and the colonists did not possess a large trained, organized army; they merely fought with a bunch of regular citizens who owned guns: a militia.

In a democracy in which the people don't have weapons, the people have no REAL power; they only have the shadow of power. This is against the concept of democracy. For the government to be the sole party to own weapons is strongly bureaucratic, and not a proper society.

Even in a seemingly ideal democracy, the populace must be armed, for democracy is a fragile system in the long run, and in time can transform into a tyrannical centralized government. It is therefore good to be prepared, and to keep the government in check with the silent ability to revolt. Do not think for a second that our leaders don't know it, either. They are very aware of the power of the mob, and factor it into their actions. If we did not have guns, they would feel like they could act freely.

In 1943, during the holocaust, in the Warsaw ghetto, there was an armed resistance by the Jews. This passage is from a biography from Adolf Hitler:

"Of the 380,000 Jews crowded into the Warsaw ghetto, all but 70,000 had been deported to the killing centers in an operation devoid of resistance. By this time, however, those left behind had come to the realization that deportation meant death. With this in mind, Jewish political parties within the ghetto finally resolved their differences and banded together to resist further shipments with force.... At three in the morning of April 9, 1943, more than 2000 Waffen SS infantryman — accompanied by tanks, flame throwers and dynamite squads — invaded the ghetto, expecting an easy conquest, only to be met by determined fire from 1500 fighters armed with weapons smuggled into the ghetto over a long period: several light machine guns, hand grenades, a hundred or so rifles and carbines, several hundred pistols and revolvers, and Molotov cocktails. Himmler had expected the action to take three days but by nightfall his forces had to withdraw. The one-sided battle continued day after day to the bewilderment of the SS commander, General J�rgen Stroop, who could not understand why ‘this trash and subhumanity' refused to abandon a hopeless cause. He reported that, although his men had initially captured ‘considerable numbers of Jews, who are cowards by nature,' it was becoming more and more difficult. ‘Over and over again new battle groups consisting of twenty or thirty Jewish men, accompanied by a corresponding number of women, kindled new resistance.' The women, he noted, had the disconcerting habit of suddenly hurling grenades they had hidden in their bloomers...."

Imagine if more of the Jews had guns. It just might have prevented the holocaust. But this was not the case. The Jews did not have guns (Exempt the above exception), but the SS did. Something like the holocaust is one of humanities screw-ups that we should take all possible precautions to prevent happening again. That is why we should ensure that the populace is armed.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-Thomas Jefferson

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing"

-Adolf Hitler
B23_Black_Dragon

Con

""The proliferation of light weapons in Africa poses a major threat to development," noted Ms. Virginia Gamba, the former director of the Arms Management Programme of the South African Institute for Security Studies (ISS). Their low cost, ease of use and availability "may escalate conflicts, undermine peace agreements, intensify [the] violence and impact of crime, impede economic and social development and hinder the development of social stability, democracy and good governance." In July 2001 the US government estimated that small arms are fueling conflicts in 22 African countries that have taken 7-8 million lives. In Africa guns are not just the weapons of choice but also weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.un.org...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Necessary ... and Favorable...
Has the prevalence of guns and ammunition been either necessary or favorable in Africa? In Somalia? If you ask me ... it seems that the armed populace has resulted in nothing except death, chaos, and tragedy.

Was the Holocaust a tragedy? Of course. But just imagine if today, Every resident in every country in the Middle East had a gun. Forget the Yom Kippur War, Israel would not have survived the 6 Day War. They would have been outnumbered ... as Georgia with Russia, and they would have been destroyed. And then there would have been another Holocaust.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
B23_Black_Dragon

Con

B23_Black_Dragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
B23_Black_Dragon

Con

B23_Black_Dragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
B23_Black_Dragon

Con

B23_Black_Dragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
B23_Black_Dragon

Con

B23_Black_Dragon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
It's a shame that the debate never really took off. I think it would've been interesting.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Sorry that I abandoned this debate. A week or two back I suddenly became apathetic about debate.org, I was in the middle of a few debates, but I just got bored of it. Sorry.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't think Harlan said anything about monarchy either... did he?

A monarchy might be less oppressive by the way :D
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Whoa, who said anything about the US...Im talking about the foundation of society in general.

And you don't need EVERY citizen to have a gun.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I understand your point Harlan, but do you honestly expect the US government to become a monarchy anytime soon? And moreover, I highly doubt a motivated monarchist would really be deterred by a few of citizens having guns.

Then there's the whole practicality issue. How would we go about handing every citizen a gun? Besides not having the money or resources, the Democrats would go absolutely crazy-- they would never allow such a thing to happen!
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
..........I'm not getting it.

I shall wait for your later rounds.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Also, the government will do as much as it can to prevent a war with it's citizens.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Whoa! Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that they can't do "anything".

You seem to make the assertion that revolution is impossible. History has disproven this time and time again. I could name several revolutions.

And not only full on revolutions, but small riots and such.

"their arms can't do anything"

They can shoot. They can kill. Thats certainly something. We have the ability to resist against law enforcements.

In the end, if ALL cards are put on the table, powerfull governments will prevail (though not exactly "win"), but isn't it better to have some weapons than to be completely helpless?

Look at my round one and you will see a quote from hitler. Evil rulers are very aware of the danger present from having an armed populace.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Re: Harlan

So what's the point of an armed populace if you concede that their arms can't do anything?
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Think about it, if you take guns away (ban guns) wouldn't the bad guys still have guns? Therefor you would make the problem worse, right?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
HarlanB23_Black_DragonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Panzersharkcat 7 years ago
Panzersharkcat
HarlanB23_Black_DragonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
HarlanB23_Black_DragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
HarlanB23_Black_DragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50