The Instigator
Biowza
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
39 Points

No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

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: 7/3/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,046 times Debate No: 4585
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (24)

 

Biowza

Pro

While I realise this is a controversial topic, I'll do my best to get through it as convincingly as possible. First off we'll go through some definitions;

US Citizen- "A person born in the United States, or naturalized, holding a US passport."

Please note this does not mean people who aren't US citizens DO have the right to bear arms, it is wrong in all cases.

Now onto my argument.

1) The USA constitution does not grant this right.

A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all.

"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."

While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right.

2) It is cruel to the bear

In many cases, the operation is done in a cruel way. Many times, the bear is killed for the sole purpose of having its arms harvested by a scrawny nerd. While arm commandeering may be appropriate if the bear has died of natural causes, it is otherwise a cruel and unnecessary practice.

3) Such a right would raise maulings by an alarming rate

Current estimates show there to have been three fatal bear attacks in North America in the year 2007. There are approximately 1,000,000 bears in North America. Now if every US citizen were to have the right to have their arms changed to that of a bear, we would expect a 300 fold increase in the amount of bear related deaths. This is just unacceptable.

Please note- A successful CON argument must prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear.
CiRrO

Con

Right, ok, first a rebuttal then my own case.

"1) The USA constitution does not grant this right.

A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all.

"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."

While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right."

My Response: ok, lets first off and define the difference between a right and privilege.

[Definition - Right]
1. A legal or moral entitlement

[Definition - Privilege]
1. a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all

Now, looking at this definitions, my opponent claim that its a privilege is off base. He says that its a noun, and thus a privilege, not a right. I have the right to property, i.e. a noun, I have the right to life, i.e. a noun. Therefore, a right can be a noun or a verb. Drop my opponents contention 1.

"2) It is cruel to the bear

In many cases, the operation is done in a cruel way. Many times, the bear is killed for the sole purpose of having its arms harvested by a scrawny nerd. While arm commandeering may be appropriate if the bear has died of natural causes, it is otherwise a cruel and unnecessary practice.

3) Such a right would raise maulings by an alarming rate

Current estimates show there to have been three fatal bear attacks in North America in the year 2007. There are approximately 1,000,000 bears in North America. Now if every US citizen were to have the right to have their arms changed to that of a bear, we would expect a 300 fold increase in the amount of bear related deaths. This is just unacceptable."

My Response: Link his contentions 2 and 3 for my attack. He contradicts himself by using these 2 points. How? Because he "claims" that its a privilege, and as what he calls a noun. Chopping off a bears arm is a VERB, not a noun, and therefore according to my opponent should be a right, since its a verb. So, you can either accept his contention 1, and thus dropping contentions 2 and 3, or accept 2 and 3 and drop 1.

"Please note- A successful CON argument must prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear."

My Response: LOL, this is a funny burden. However, i argue that yes everyone should have the right to do that. It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them.
===============================================================================
My Case:

Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary.

Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms.

--Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves.

Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government.

===============================================================================

It's for these reasons I negate.

I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military.

A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
Biowza

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking up this debate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"My Response: ok, lets first off and define the difference between a right and privilege.

[Definition - Right]
1. A legal or moral entitlement

[Definition - Privilege]
1. a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all

Now, looking at this definitions, my opponent claim that its a privilege is off base. He says that its a noun, and thus a privilege, not a right. I have the right to property, i.e. a noun, I have the right to life, i.e. a noun. Therefore, a right can be a noun or a verb. Drop my opponents contention 1."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree with your definitions, in no way did I suggest that all nouns are privileges nor did I say that all verbs are rights. My argument is based on the grammatical fact that the constitution was referring to the verb of 'bear' (ie, possession) rather than the noun of 'bear' (the godless, marauding killing machine). And thus, the constitution refers to the right to possess firearms, and not the right to have the arms of a bear. I never alluded, nor have I argued that a noun is instantly a privilege, it was just a matter of grammar.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Link his contentions 2 and 3 for my attack. He contradicts himself by using these 2 points. How? Because he "claims" that its a privilege, and as what he calls a noun. Chopping off a bears arm is a VERB, not a noun, and therefore according to my opponent should be a right, since its a verb. So, you can either accept his contention 1, and thus dropping contentions 2 and 3, or accept 2 and 3 and drop 1."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, I have never suggested even slightly that every noun in the english language is a privilege. Nor have I suggested that every verb is a right. I demand quotes of mine suggesting I meant anything other than what I had initially stated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"My Response: LOL, this is a funny burden. However, i argue that yes everyone should have the right to do that. It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This I totally disagree with. As I have demonstrated;

1) It is cruel to the bear to have his or her arms butchered off for the purpose of attaching them to a human.
2) The constitution does not grant this right, the 'bear arms' statement refers to the right to posses firearms.
3) It is dangerous, as with arms with the size, strength, and ferocity of a bear, maulings would rise an approximated 10,000%.

In explaining the finer points of the second amendment, my opponent does nothing but prove my point. This passage does not refer to the right to have your biological arms changed to that of a bear, but rather, it refers to the right of US citizens to posses firearms. As such, the right to change your arms to that of a bear is unconstitutional and is not a right.

Thus, you must vote PRO.
CiRrO

Con

"While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right."

My Response: My opponent asked for an example about the noun/verb controversy. "upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right." All I did was universalize an unwarranted phrase from my opponent.

My opponent makes the 2nd amendment into a very odd right of the right to bear arms. However, my opponent makes one crucial mistake. In the clause it says to KEEP and bear arms. Keep and bear is a compound predicate. It would be an incorrect grammatical construction if it was a verb and noun together. Therefore, drop my opponents whole argument about the right to bear arms. Since its to KEEP and bear arms.

Quotes:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 - Elbridge Gerry

It's because with I agree with all of these quotes, I urge a negation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

*Extend all my contentions; they weren't even once refuted*
Debate Round No. 2
Biowza

Pro

To be honest, I am confused. My opponent is arguing for my points, and seems to be agreeing with my contention completely. Not one attempt has been made to refute any of my points I initially set out. Please note that as I set out in the first round, the burden carried by CON is:

"[to] prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear."

The closest my opponent has come to attempting to prove this burden is when he said 'It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them.' Nothing else he has said has been at all linked to this burden.

I will now show how my opponent is simply proving my points for me.

My first point was that the US constitution does not grant the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. My opponent has not attempted to show that it does grant this right, but rather, made quite an effort to show me that the constitution refers to firearms and not bear arms which is my point exactly. My only explanation for this is that my opponent has seemed to have forgotten that he has selected CON. No amount of grammatical trickery will dig my opponent out of this deep hole he has dug for himself in agreeing with my point.

My second point was that the taking of the arms of a bear is cruel. My opponent has not addressed this point once. It seems as if he had intended to in the first round, when he quoted what I had said however he did not add any comment onto the end of the quote. Not only this, but he has also not come close to addressing my third point which was that if the right to have your arms changed to that of a bear were to come to fruition, fatal maulings would increase 10,000%. Both these points have been totally ignored.

The burden was set out clearly in the opening round and my opponent has not made any progress whatsoever to prove that US citizens have the right to have their arms surgically changed to that of a bear. In fact, with some quick calculations I've discovered that 741 of the 1329 words typed by my opponent (55.8%) has been used to show me that the constitution is referring to firearms and not bear arms WHICH IS MY POINT EXACTLY.

I have made my case convincingly enough so that even my opponent agrees with my contention. A PRO vote is the only reasonable vote.

Thank you for your time.
CiRrO

Con

There is obviously a disconnect. I really believed that my opponent was joking about the bear arms idea.

However, those arguments should not be looked at for these reasons:

1) The clause specifically has a compound verb, i.e. to KEEP and bear arms. If you use my opponents logic then the only way it would be possible is if keep was removed. However, you can't remove a word from a clause.
2) Refer to Pro Round one: "A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all." He even said in his first round that that's not true at all. I.e. the argument of bear arms. Therefore, my opponent has contradicted himself.

Therefore, drop my opponents whole case.

Extension: He has not once refuted my case what so ever. Therefore, extend all my contentions.

Thus, I urge a negation.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
It was completely unexpected. Hilarious in fact.

Biozwa should have made it clear in the first round that the resolution was indeed reffering to bear arms. The debate would have been much more clear and easier to vote on.
Posted by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
That was probably the most unexpected debate I have ever found
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Yes, I did, however your topic has a topical error, not to mention a constitutional error.
Posted by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
Did people not read the topic of the debate? This has nothing to do with the right to possess firearms.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
ATTENTION EVERYONE INTERESTED IN ONLINE DEBATE TOURNAMENTS:

There is a group on facebook (Online Debate Tournaments) that is holding debate tournaments and a new one is about to start with 2 different types of debate! (Policy and LD)... Anyone interested, please join the facebook group and sign up by July 24th, 2008 (10:00 P.M. Central) on the discussion board "Tournament 2 Sign Up" (more details are in the discussion board)... The site that we are debating on is www.debate.org so be sure to have an account. It's absolutely FREE to enter so sign up today!

Sincerely, Luke Cumbee
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
BiowzaCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by FoolsBeBroken 8 years ago
FoolsBeBroken
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 Morty 8 years ago
Morty
BiowzaCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Bypasser 8 years ago
Bypasser
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
BiowzaCiRrOTied
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