The Instigator
GermanSossidge
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shubhu
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Moral citizens in America should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously.

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: 6/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 34751
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

GermanSossidge

Pro

For this debate, I would like to propose the following format:
Round 1: Variables are established, terms defined, acceptance of topic, position, and format on both sides
Round 2: First argument
Round 3: Second argument
Round 4: Rebuttal
Also, please note that sources must be cited for everything said unless it is debate syntax, personal interpretation, or, at your discretion, considered to be common knowledge for an American citizen of average intelligence and scope. I accept the topic and will take the PRO side, debating for guns. I accept the format and intend on adhering to it throughout the debate.
Moral - "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong" (1).
In the definition of moral, it is important to recall the Transcendentalist movement in Antebellum America, with an accent on Thoreau and his thoughts on civil disobedience; he believed that the "citizen has no duty to resign his conscience to the state, and may even have a duty to oppose immoral legislation" (2). Moral citizens are not necessarily law-abiding, but they do what is right based upon their conscience and sense of right and wrong.
Gun - "A weapon consisting from a metal tube that fires a projectile at high velocity" (1).
For our purposes, we will be debating about guns that fire bullets and can be transported and wielded with no mechanical assistance. No further constraints shall be put on what is considered to be a gun.

Judiciously is an adverb form of judicious - "Having or exhibiting sound judgment" (1). This connects to morality; Americans should be allowed to own guns and use them when they feel it is the right thing to do. When people go to prison for committing a crime, they lose rights (i.e. the right to vote) (3). From this, it can be concluded that when one takes away the rights of someone else, they enter into an implicit contract that by taking away said rights, they lose said rights as well. Thus, if a moral citizen feels as if his/her rights or someone else's rights are being taken away to the point where the person(s) taking away the rights deserve to be shot, the moral citizen will use a gun to shoot the person(s) taking away rights.

Sources -
(1) - Webster's II New College Dictionary
(2) - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) - The Sentencing Project on Felony Disenfranchisement - http://www.sentencingproject.org...
Shubhu

Con

Yes,they should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously.As we all know that America is one of the countries which are under the terrorist attacks so it will be safer for the citizens of this country if they aware about these types of activities and use their own guns according to their needs.
Debate Round No. 1
GermanSossidge

Pro

Before I begin my first argument, I would like to point out a conduct-related issue to the audience: Con did not establish variables, define terms, accept the topic, position, or format, or cite a disagreement.

First Argument:
Much of the substantiation for the justification of gun laws in America lies in the documents and philosophies which shaped the country's history. In the Bill of Rights, James Madison writes of the unalienable right of Americans in the Second Amendment, stating, "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; 2). This is written to prevent a repeat of what happened shortly before the American Revolution. As seditious feelings became prevalent in the minds of American colonists, the Governor of Massachusetts realized that it would be hard to subdue an armed population (3). At that time, gunpowder was unstable, and it was kept at community warehouses (3). Because the right to bear arms stated in the British Bill of Rights was not clearly defined as a right of the Colonists, the Governor of Massachusetts legally ordered redcoats to go and seize the gunpowder from the warehouses, thus rendering the colonists' guns useless, disarming them (3; 4). This is pertinent because it shows how government is justifiably scared that it will be held accountable by an armed population if the said government does not act to protect the rights of the population. Furthermore, this shows that if a government does not like an activity of the people and the activity is not strictly legal or illegal, the government will exert force against the people with respect to that activity if it is not protected as a right.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" (5). America was founded on the principle that it is the government's job to protect people's rights, and that it is the duty of the citizens to lead an armed rebellion against the government if the government does not act to protect and uphold the rights of the citizens. Thus, if an American legislature were to pass legislation which prohibited people from owning guns, this would be hypocritical, because that would go against the principles upon which America was founded, render the citizens unable to do their duty of removing an unjust government if necessary, and the legislator would be acting in direct contradiction to the implicit contract into which they enter when they take office: to uphold and protect the Constitution.
James Madison also made commentary on the issue of guns in the Federalist Papers number 46, in which he writes, "This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia . . . officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties" (6). People can use their guns, whether in self-defense or in a militia, in their best interest, whereas a government cannot. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not the police's job to protect people, but rather to enforce the laws (7).

Sources -
(1) - Freedom of Religion, The First Amendment, And the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History by Barry Adamson
(2) - Bill of Rights Transcript from the National Archives - http://www.archives.gov...
(3) - The American Revolution Against British Gun Control by Professor David B. Kopel - http://www.davekopel.org...
(4) - British Bill of Rights Transcript from the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School - http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
(5) - Declaration of Independence Transcript - http://www.archives.gov...
(6) - The Federalist Papers number 46 Transcript from the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School - http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
(7) - New York Times Article on Supreme Court Ruling on Police - http://www.nytimes.com...
Shubhu

Con

Shubhu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GermanSossidge

Pro

Much substantiation for the justification of gun rights in America lies in the modern evidence, both historically and internationally, that shows a need for their existence. The most modern example lies in Mexico, where guns and even some knives are illegal (1). Despite this, guns remain prevalent and laws seem to be unenforced, as there is a constant barrage of news about gun-related violence in Mexico. The black market, Russian crime organizations, Columbia, China, the Mexican Army, and Guatemala are all veritable sources from which Mexicans can obtain AK-47s, and M-16s, among others (2). This demonstrates that illegalizing guns will not stop people from possessing them. This connects logically to new American gun restrictions that lower the legal size of the magazines. These restrictions are pointless because people who will commit gun crimes will not go out and relinquish control of their old, more powerful magazines in favor of smaller ones. They will continue to harbor the now illegal weapons and commit a crime with them.
When guns are legal, retailers and manufacturers can create jobs and contribute to the nation's economy. There are about 220,000 American jobs supported by the firearms industry, and it generates about $33 billion for the American economy (3). By illegalizing guns, the firearms companies and retailers would be punished for something they did not do. Thus, the economy would be hurt and everyone would suffer. In addition to violating Americans' rights, gun regulations would be superfluous and could contribute to other problems.

Sources
1 - U.S. Consulate in Tijuana Gun Warning - http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov...
2 - The Ninety Percent Myth by Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com...
3 - Gun Industry Employment from The Blaze - http://www.theblaze.com...
Shubhu

Con

Shubhu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GermanSossidge

Pro

It is in this round of the debate in which I am supposed to offer a rebuttal to my opponent's argument, but my opponent has failed to cite a difference from myself, the proposition, and has forfeited all other rounds. In fact, my opponent has actually agreed with me, and in Round 1, wrote in reference to Americans, "yes, they should be allowed to own guns and use them judiciously." Thus, I have no pertinent information to which I can offer a rebuttal. Please take my conduct and my opponent's conduct into consideration while voting. Thank you.
Shubhu

Con

Shubhu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GermanSossidge 3 years ago
GermanSossidge
The entire point for choosing the word "moral" over "law-abiding" was to show that what is moral is not always legal, as I felt that distinction was necessary.
In America, people are innocent until proven guilty. It will be assumed that someone is going to treat a gun well and use it morally unless there is reason to believe otherwise (past gun-related felonies, mental problems, etc.)
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Unless you are a mind reader or can see the future, there is no way to determine who has sound judgement within a set of circumstances. Emotions, family ties and subjective opinion sway what each and every individual will do in any given situation, how could we honestly say that we could guarentee a set of people would always make the morally right choice.

By the same logic surely you could say "everyone in America should have a nuke, as long as they will use it morally and in sound judgement."
Posted by GermanSossidge 3 years ago
GermanSossidge
Well, morality is defined by one's sense of right and wrong, and someone would be considered moral if, at the debater's discretion, it would be commonly accepted that they have an accurate sense of right and wrong.
Posted by Harbinger 3 years ago
Harbinger
How can we determine who is moral and who isn't?
No votes have been placed for this debate.