The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Legislation needs to be passed in the US to prevent terrorists from buying guns

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 92845
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Hello all! It's been awhile, but I'm glad to say I'm back!
In this debate, I will be arguing the following:

Legislation needs to be passed in the United States to prevent people on the FBI terror watch list from purchasing firearms.

I do believe that is specific enough. I will be giving evidence of why legislation needs to be passed to bar suspected terrorists from buying guns.

The Con will argue the opposite:

Legislation does not need to be passed in the United States to prevent peopl on the FBI terror watch list from purchasing firearms.

With this argument, the Con would more than likely argue that legislation would be insufficient or ineffective. I will leave that up to him/her.

Debate Itinerary:
Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions

Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments

This debate should be impossible to accept.
If you are interested in accepting this debate, please make it known in the comments.
If there are any details of the debate that you would like to change before accepting it, please let me know in the comments or in a message so we could work something out.

Thanks, and I look forward to a good, complete debate!


I accept. However, I would not say that all of those on the terror watch list are terrorists. At one point there were 8,000 people on the list. Therefore, while my opponent made broad definitions, I accept. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


CentristX forfeited this round.


Hello, and thanks to my opponent for the chance to debate.

Firstly, there are over a million people in the watch list currently.

Most guns used in crimes are purchased legally. However, then it is either stolen or sold illegally.

The question we should ask, when discussing any kind of gun control, is "How many crimes committed with guns are committed by legal guns obtained with all the paperwork that entails"

That number is roughly 6%. So, 94% of gun crime is committed with guns that were obtained illegally, either from illegal gun dealers or stolen.

However, we do have a breakdown of how these guns are obtained
"We do have a handle on the source of guns recovered from persons arrested and accused of a crime. Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime:

84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend.

6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a "law enforcement officer." Legalized armed robbery, in other words.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service"

This totals up to 94%.

And, also, this would NOT have prevented the Orlando shooter from purchasing the guns he used.

Are we expected to believe that this shooter actually couldn't have gotten guns from other sources? Statistics say, easily, he could have.

Not to mention, this is a violation of the constitutional rights
What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia"

So, are we to deny 1,000,000 people rights to guns, and expect to believe that terrorists could not obtain said guns from other sources?

Not to mention, legislation can't be passed.

The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the document and its amendments.

Same source as before.

So, in conclusion, my opponent supports denying 1,000,000 people constitutional rights, despite statistical evidence saying that such laws would be ineffective, and not only that, such legislation would be unconstitutional.

And with that, I pass the buck to Pro
Debate Round No. 2


CentristX forfeited this round.


Nothing to refute. Extend.
Debate Round No. 3


CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mark_V 4 months ago
Id like to point out that you'd have to be able to profile a terrorist first before you decide who gets guns and who does not. THAT is the real issue here. If the FBI cant intervene with citizens who are presenting themselves as hostile, they cant do anything to stop them if they are cleared to purchase guns. It's what happened in Orlando. The dude had been on the watch list for years, but the FBI couldn't do a thing. I think you should change it from "terrorists" to "suspected terrorists". After all, a person becomes a terrorist after the deed is done.
Posted by Bob13 4 months ago
I would like to accept this.
Posted by mall 4 months ago
How is this controversial ?
Posted by lannan13 4 months ago
This debate is impossible from Pro's perspective to completely prevent them from buying guns. I think the resolution should replace "prevent" with "curtail" as that would make it better to defend from Pro's perspective.
Posted by TheChristian 4 months ago
I'm in.
Posted by Peepette 4 months ago
Anyone on the watch list should not be able to purchase guns. Otherwise how would anyone know they were a terrorist until after the fact.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit.