The Instigator
BillKace
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
BillKace
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,815 times Debate No: 29468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

BillKace

Pro

I do not believe myself to be a crazy conspiracy theorist.
I do not believe myself to be unrealistic.
I do not believe myself to be a gun slinging cowboy either.
But hey, I could be wrong...
With that said, I would like for someone to explain their thoughts to me. Educate me. I believe it is plausible to think the government is using recent tragedy to induce fear, to suit the agenda that the government is trying to take away rights given in the 2nd Amendment that protects "The People" from the government. I believe that this issue is much larger than Hunting and Self defense Rights. The government can only go so far over the top before people would revolt. And this fear is why they are trying to disarm Americans.
This argument is intended to shed lite on possible reasons for the changing of gun laws that might not be directly related to the current mainstream media.

*This will be my 1st Debate. I do not intend to change anyone's views on the subject, but only to peek into the mind of someone with an opposing view. I thank you in advance for the opportunity!
-Bill

Pro- would be for the protection of rights given in the 2nd Amendment for Americans to keep the Government in check

Con- would mean I am a total whack job for this notion, and that more strict gun laws would be justified
Rayze

Con

I accept this debate not because I am for stricter gun laws but because of the necessity to show that strict gun laws do not violate the second amendment. The thought that the government is trying to remove the second amendment is a gross misinterpretation of government reactions on the recent shooting tragedies. Such thinking can be likened to those NRA spoon-fed crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. (http://theweek.com...)

Contentions:
The second Amendment states, "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."

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, however, like with all amendments, the second amendment is not omnipotent like gun advocates such as the NRA believe. The Second Amendment perceived to be the defender of the US constitution is not in fact the defender of the US constitution under the interpretation of the ninth amendment which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The second amendment states a basic right like that of the other first 8 amendments. In addition, nothing in the text under the interpretation of the 9th amendment does the US constitution state, refer to, or imply that the second amendment is the defender of the US constitution.


The gun laws we have at the federal level are mainly common sense type laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration. Here is a basic excerpt of the law courtesy of Wikipedia, "Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

  1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  2. Is a fugitive from justice;
  3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
  9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Has a record of being a felon" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) For the full text of the law visit (http://www.gpo.gov...)

The stricter gun laws proposed under President Obama do not attack the Second Amendment since it only states the intention of regulating the sale of guns and ammunition to prevent homicidal maniacs to legally purchase guns (Holmes) or acquire guns from irresponsible owners (Lanza).

Debate Round No. 1
BillKace

Pro

I would first like to thank you for excepting the argument. Secondly, I would also like to thank you for being extremely diligent on putting your time and efforts into providing viable information towards the subject.
Now, towards the point.

"The thought that the government is trying to remove the second amendment is a gross misinterpretation of government reactions on the recent shooting tragedies. Such thinking can be likened to those NRA spoon-fed crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax."

*First of all, Please note that I am not affiliated with the NRA or any group like that. Thank you for branding me as such. I will try to not pass any judgment on you, as I know nothing about you. I do not believe Sandy Hook was a hoax. Again, thank you for putting that notion out there. Nor will I try to label any of your thoughts as the thoughts linked to any 3rd party group. As far as a "Gross Misinterpretation", please give me YOUR interpretation.

MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form).

Militia has no ties to government. Who would a free state need to be protected from other than government? Arms at this time referred to all general weaponry that was not specified to be anything LESS than what the military was to have. And Shall not be infringed, well that should speak for itself.

1) If you disagree with any of my interpretation, please explain.

"The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, however, like with all amendments, the second amendment is not omnipotent like gun advocates such as the NRA believe"

2) *Again, I am not the NRA, they are not the subject of debate, and their beliefs have nothing to do with this. Obviously you have a problem with them, and should focus your ill feelings towards them in a different debate. Also, please clarify how something could be a "RIGHT" (typically spoken as God given) but not be omnipotent. What exactly were you trying to express? I do not believe YOUR NRA that you like to reference is against taking that Right away from your examples 1 thru 9.

9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3) *The list in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be manipulated to deny or discredit others retained by the people.Care to elaborate?

"The second amendment states a basic right like that of the other first 8 amendments."

4) *However, it is the ONLY one hat happens to state a PURPOSE. Do yo agree?

" In addition, nothing in the text under the interpretation of the 9th amendment does the US constitution state, refer to, or imply that the second amendment is the defender of the US constitution."

5) *To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority. If the 9th Amendment is not the defender of the Constitution, then what is? Unarmed citizens, or maybe the Government? In charge of defending it from....Government?

"The gun laws we have at the federal level are mainly common sense type laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration. Here is a basic excerpt of the law courtesy of Wikipedia, "Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:" (1-9)

6) *I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well....not right? (My attempt at a little humor)

"The stricter gun laws proposed under President Obama do not attack the Second Amendment since it only states the intention of regulating the sale of guns and ammunition to prevent homicidal maniacs to legally purchase guns (Holmes) or acquire guns from irresponsible owners (Lanza). "

7) *Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. A Homicidal Maniac has more "weapons" at their disposal that could inflict more damage than guns. To some, a gun just so happens to be a matter of personal preference. Guns do not create homicidal maniacs. That is a ridiculous notion. And the laws proposed will do absolutely nothing to prevent irresponsibility. They would already face charges for it, so what does the proposal add?

Something else to consider, If the governments primary objective (getting back to the debate) is to save lives, children's lives, then why would we ban assault weapons, and not Handguns? Handguns are semiautomatic, concealable, faster to reload, easier to change positions, and shoot a larger diameter on average than "Assault Weapons". Assault Weapons are glorified rifles that you cannot conceal, cannot shoot any faster than a handgun, takes longer to aim, and restricts field of vision while aiming. Could it be because they are a larger threat to government forces at a further range? The Government has already made Machine Guns Illegal for citizens to own. This already compromises a balance in powers of the people versus government forces, if The People were to ever revolt.
Rayze

Con

Let me clarify myself on several points before moving on to rebuttals.

Clarifications
1. I have not explicitly nor implicitly branded you, my opponent, as an NRA affiliate or a conspiracy theorist. However, I have shot down the plausibility of a possible Government take over on the Second Amendment.

2. The NRA is currently the most active gun organisation arguing against gun control and they are used as examples in the context. Once again they are not meant to "label" my opponent but are examples of gun advocates.

Rebuttals:
1.My opponent's interpretation of the 2nd amendment following the criterion of the 9th amendment which dictates how the constitution is to be interpreted is flawed. My opponent states, "MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form)."
Flawed portions of the argument have been bolded.
To keep and bear arms does not mean to own the same weaponry as the US military including ammunition.
An American citizen does not have the right to own nuclear warheads, machine guns, tanks, battle ships, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Fighter-aircraft, B-2 bombers, ICBMs, modern artillery pieces, and other weapons that could potentially cause mass murder with a single use. (excludes side arms, shotguns, bolt action rifles, and antiquated weapons (due to ammunition being rare)

2. The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments.
Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion.
Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns

3. "To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority. If the 9th Amendment is not the defender of the Constitution, then what is? Unarmed citizens, or maybe the Government? In charge of defending it from....Government?"
The definition of imply is to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated. Again, like I stated in the previous round, the 9th amendment merely states how the constitution is to be read in order for the reader to understand the constitution. Also, the 9th amendment is by no means the defender of the constitution as that responsibility falls with the POTUS, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the people of the US.
Also my opponent's statement, "To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority." Is the fallacy an appeal to authority– where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it, or in this case where an assertion is deemed false because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. My opponent also argues that scholarly interpretations should not be used in debates. However, such thinking undermines the first amendment, but I digress.

4. Contradictions
My opponent contradicts himself by agreeing to the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by saying, "I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well....not right?", and then says, "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". Would my opponent clarify his statements as current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
5.Red Herring
My opponent's last rebuttal, "Something else to consider, If the governments primary objective (getting back to the debate) is to save lives, children's lives, then why would we ban assault weapons, and not Handguns? Handguns are semiautomatic, concealable, faster to reload, easier to change positions, and shoot a larger diameter on average than "Assault Weapons". Assault Weapons are glorified rifles that you cannot conceal, cannot shoot any faster than a handgun, takes longer to aim, and restricts field of vision while aiming. Could it be because they are a larger threat to government forces at a further range? The Government has already made Machine Guns Illegal for citizens to own. This already compromises a balance in powers of the people versus government forces, if The People were to ever revolt." is a poor argument undermining Pro. First attempting to ban Handguns is a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment, especially in homes where shotguns would be too bulky to use. Second Assault weapons have a much higher magazine capacity than handguns. Third the so-called balance between the people versus the government is still the same as the National Guard, a state (not federal) run militia/reserve force following the second amendment as a regulated militia, is given the same equipment except nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons of mass destruction.

Debate Round No. 2
BillKace

Pro

Clarifications Rebuttal
"I have not explicitly nor implicitly branded you, my opponent, as an NRA affiliate or a conspiracy theorist"
-Just by bringing it to the surface in this debate, you have done just that. Anyone with a predisposed problem with the NRA could make a judgment on this debate while seeing me as such. Clever, however distasteful it is.

"However, I have shot down the plausibility of a possible Government take over on the Second Amendment."
-Actually, I do not feel that you have. While missing the point of the opening of the debate, you tried to make your case that: "I accept this debate not because I am for stricter gun laws but because of the necessity to show that strict gun laws do not violate the second amendment". This is well and good, but all you have seemed to accomplish, is stating the actual amendments. If these were clear cut, we would not be having any debates on these issues. I attempted to give my translations. You disagreed on these, but offered nothing in return. I told you how I felt, and all you do is quote with nothing interpreted. Again, see the purpose of this debate. You an say all day long you have "shot down the plausibility" much like I could say the ocean does not exist.

"The NRA is currently the most active gun organisation arguing against gun control and they are used as examples in the context. Once again they are not meant to "label" my opponent but are examples of gun advocates."
-Again, what is the purpose for your examples of gun advocates? I thought you were going to show me that strict gun laws do not violate the 2nd Amendment? What was your reasoning an how does the NRA example show me anything? Once again clever, but a little classless.

Rebuttals Defended:
"1.My opponent's interpretation of the 2nd amendment following the criterion of the 9th amendment which dictates how the constitution is to be interpreted is flawed. My opponent states, "MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form)."
Flawed portions of the argument have been bolded.
To keep and bear arms does not mean to own the same weaponry as the US military including ammunition.
An American citizen does not have the right to own nuclear warheads, machine guns, tanks, battle ships, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Fighter-aircraft, B-2 bombers, ICBMs, modern artillery pieces, and other weapons that could potentially cause mass murder with a single use. (excludes side arms, shotguns, bolt action rifles, and antiquated weapons (due to ammunition being rare)"
*please note the bolded statement was "to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition"

-The 2nd does not specify any boundaries that separate or distinguish what can and cannot be possessed by by the people. If they did not have the same weapons and ammunition as the British, we would not be America right now. Do you really think that People who just fought a war against their government would write the 2nd Amendment, and mean anything other than equality in arms between people ad government? If so, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEANT.
Other than a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear) why not? You simply say "An American citizen does not have the right", Then prove it without copy and paste of a document that is constantly a subject of debate, or back it up with HOW YOU interpret it. Please.

"2. The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments.
Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion.
Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns"

-Wow, an opinion? Please inform me of where to find the translation of "Arms" in the late 1700's that reflects the terminology "civilian grade guns". I cant wait for that link.

"Again, like I stated in the previous round, the 9th amendment merely states how the constitution is to be read in order for the reader to understand the constitution. Also, the 9th amendment is by no means the defender of the constitution as that responsibility falls with the POTUS, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the people of the US."

-Yes, you did state...How do you back up these statements? With copy/paste? And ok, the people of the US defend the constitution....from who, and thru what means? Please inform me of what the 9th does then, in your words.

""To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority." Is the fallacy an appeal to authority" where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it, or in this case where an assertion is deemed false because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. My opponent also argues that scholarly interpretations should not be used in debates. However, such thinking undermines the first amendment, but I digress."

-Yes, you do digress. You and I, are not authority, and should heed scholarly interpretations, but should also that as many scholars will interpret differently, so they are not the authority either. Once again, see the top of the page. I believe I did not ask to peer into the mind (Opinions, no matter how scholarly they are) of anyone, but yours. So yes, you have digressed, a lot.

"4. Contradictions
My opponent contradicts himself by agreeing to the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by saying, "I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well....not right?", and then says, "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". Would my opponent clarify his statements as current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. "

-I agreed with your 1-9. How is this a contradiction to your strengthening the BHVP Act? 1-9 was current. "current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. " is in fact adding to the current laws? Again, how is this a Contradiction? are they "Proposing" to make no changes? This notion of yours is completely ridiculous.

"First attempting to ban Handguns is a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment, especially in homes where shotguns would be too bulky to use. Third the so-called balance between the people versus the government is still the same as the National Guard, a state (not federal) run militia/reserve force following the second amendment as a regulated militia, is given the same equipment except nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons of mass destruction."

-Wow!
1)How is banning handguns "a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment"?? It is now your turn to clarify something. Please, why don't you give me you list of acceptable "Arms and Ammo.", and include HOW you came up with it.
2)The National Guard on more than one occasion has been taken under command of the fed govt. and sent to Afganistan AND Iraq. What State was currently in command??

Please answer the questions. Please, beyond copy paste.
Take this 3rd round to defend what you have stated, as I have done myself.
And Thank You!
Rayze

Con

Well my opponent has failed to sufficiently refute my contentions and rebuttals, I will state counter rebuttals for my opponent's rebuttals that are relevant to the resolution.

Counter rebuttals

1. Pro sees fit to "refute" clarifications which are unnecessary since the clarifications are placed to fix any misunderstanding with pro.

2. Pro believes in the propagation of military grade weapons in the US. However, citing national security, the United States does not allow the sale of military hardware to civilians, especially rich tycoons who could afford nuclear aircraft carriers. If the US allowed the sale of military grade weapons then the recent massacres would have taken a turn for the worse as the murderers have access to weapons of mass destruction (bombs, and explosives) and assault weapons that can kill many people without reloading often.

3. Pro simply states "Wow, an opinion? Please inform me of where to find the translation of "Arms" in the late 1700's that reflects the terminology "civilian grade guns". I cant wait for that link." in his rebuttal to, "The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments. Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion. Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns" which are general interpretations of the US constitution. Civilian grade weapons are weapons available to the public and include AR-15s, Shotguns, and sidearms. Military grade weapons are weapons used by the military (does not denote that it is more powerful) such as machineguns and sniper rifles.

4. Contradictions
My opponent states "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". When I ask he clarify his statement he simply states "-I agreed with your 1-9. How is this a contradiction to your strengthening the BHVP Act? 1-9 was current. "current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. " is in fact adding to the current laws? Again, how is this a Contradiction? are they "Proposing" to make no changes? This notion of yours is completely ridiculous." I am referring to the full text of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act yet my opponent seems to believe I am honing in on Section 922g of the act.

5. My opponent shifts from the resolution demanding that I answer, "1)How is banning handguns "a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment"?? It is now your turn to clarify something. Please, why don't you give me you list of acceptable "Arms and Ammo.", and include HOW you came up with it.
2)The National Guard on more than one occasion has been taken under command of the fed govt. and sent to Afganistan AND Iraq. What State was currently in command??"

Answers
1a. Banning handguns is a legitimate infringment on self defense and the second amendment due to tactical reasons. First the size of the handgun allows for easy transportation while a shotgun is bulkier. Second the size of the handgun allows the user more maneuverability in an apartment or places where a shotgun is unwieldy.
1b. Any sidearm, shotgun, or civilian grade rifle sold legally in all 50 states. Ammunition count 6-10 allows the gun especially sidearms to remain maneuverable and not bulky. How I determine this is through the interpretations of the 2nd and 9th amendments while weighing in risks of potential massacres.

2. The National guard under the United States Code Title 10 Section 311 Militia composition and classes is an organized militia under the command of the individual states. http://www.law.cornell.edu...;
So your refutation is null.

Closing;
Because pro does not sufficiently refute any of my arguements I strongly urge a con vote
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by magpie 4 years ago
magpie
Con used twisted logic via a circuitous route through the Ninth amendment to attempt circumnavigation of the Second Amendment.
Consider, a relatively illiterate individual with a one thousand word vocabulary would be hard pressed to compete with another, whose vocabulary exceeded 20,000 words. Surely, filtering this argument through the Ninth will result in this limitation of the First Amendment .
Hopolophobes may - if they prefer - hate guns, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your fearful rationalizations are logical They are not!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
BillKaceRayzeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very confusing debate, Pro's opening statement was ripe with opportunities; such as, a presumption of a government agenda to "take" away the right to bear arms. Given the current climate of this issue Pro may claim a victory supported by personal bias. Con was able to present a more logical set of arguments, though the strength of both parties rebuttals certainly hindered the debate. Conduct, S&G, and sources were even. Con simply points out the contradictions in Pro's arguments, without any substantive contradiction from Pro.
Vote Placed by magpie 4 years ago
magpie
BillKaceRayzeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con started with a desired end and then twisted himself into a pretzel.