Should US citizens have the right to bear arms? The answer, yes. Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." So giving up our guns would be feeding the government, they would only grow. A government that is to powerful will lead to chaos and dictation. Who will you feed, the government or the people? Feeding the government gives them a change to throw away all the good that the founding Fathers made for our country. You would be throwing your freedom out the window. Do not let the government violate our rights! US citizens have every right to bear arms, it is our protection from a power thirsty government. Will you give your freedom up for the government? Giving up your guns allows that. Don't let them take your protection! Bear arms.
Pro asks: “Should US citizens have the right to bear arms?”
Cross apply my 2nd argument that some arms, like bombs, are reasonably restricted. I accept the notion that guns could curtail a corrupt government in the 1700’s. Heck perhaps even in the 1800’s. Today there are drones, bombs, missiles, jets, helicopters, satellites, etc. It seems to me outdated to think that a private citizens firearm could be used to curtail an aggressive government. If the U.S. Government went this direction, I don’t think it plausible to say you rifle with stop the government.
Citizen: “a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection” (1)
Arms: “Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.” (2)
I will demonstrate both that there are U.S. citizens that should not have this right, and that certain arms are reasonably restricted.
1. Not all Citizens should have this right:
In the U.S. babies are citizens, prisoners are citizens, the mentally handicapped are citizens. Surely pro is not suggesting that just because someone is a U.S. citizen that they have a right to bear arms. It seems common sense to restrict or remove this right from certain citizens. As this is the case, we cannot conclude that US citizens should have this right simply because they are citizens.
2. Not all “arms” should be included:
This is part of why I wanted to accept this debate. The second amendment does not say “guns,” it says “arms.” Now before I get accosted, Yes I agree that guns can be described as arms. However, so could a sword, or club. Did it include Cannons, and explosives? What about grenades? Do we have a right to bombs and drones? What constitutes arms in the ambiguous phrase “bearing arms?”
The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.”
It is reasonable for the government to restrict the ownership of bombs, other weapons inclusive of some guns. Thus we cannot conclude that US citizens should have a right to bear “arms.”
Pro seems to be arguing that US citizens ought to have this right to defend against a tyrannical government.
The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt government is outdated. It is no longer a valid reason to support the of owning guns.
Should US citizens have the right to bear arms? No, not all citizens should have this right and not all arms should be avliable to citizens.
People in prison no longer have rights, because they violated the law. People that have mental heath issues still deserve their right to bear arms. But they do not have access to these things at a hospital, nursing home, assisted living, or etc. They still deserve their freedom.
Do you enjoy shooting or hunting? Would you like that to be taken away? Do you enjoy fencing? Well you can't do any activity that involve weaponry.
I have one more question. Do weapons kill people? Or do the people using the weapons kill them?
Pro essentially concedes this debate as he agrees that criminals should perhaps not have this right despite being citizens. It is disturbing to suggest however that they have no rights, and is thoroughly unamerican in thought. There are some rights we deem unalienable in this nation. Unalienable means that they can not be given up or taken, even from criminals. This demonstrates that the right to bear arms should not be deemed unalienable as both pro and I think it reasonable to not allow this right to violent criminals. Thus pro concedes his main point.
The defensive of the mentally handicapped to bear arms is ludicrous and an untenable position. Also of note, pro does not address the idea of natural born infants the right to bear arms, likely because this to would be untenable.
Pro seems to think I am opposed to citizens having arms. This is a straw man. I have argued that their are some citizens, i.e. The young, mentally handicapped and felons, that should not have the right to gun ownership despite being citizens. I have not argued that all citizens should be deprived the ability to own some types of arms. I have argued that some arms like bombs are reasonably restricted by law.
I grow weary of the notion that pro gun campaigns argue that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." This is especially crazy because I have never heard one argue that inanimate objects kill. chalk that phrase up as the largest straw man in modern politics.