The Instigator
USN276
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
nato1111
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should "assault weapons" be legal?

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...
nato1111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,311 times Debate No: 49910
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

USN276

Pro

I am dying to hear someone's opinion on this topic. I am quite new here so I'm not very accustom to how this all works, but I'd like to allow the opponent to present the argument first. I dare anyone to give an argument on how an "assault weapons" ban could possibly benefit us
nato1111

Con

The 2nd Amendment Arms You Against Tyrannical Government.
250 years ago the British forces fought with muskets, pistols and swords. The people (patriots) fought against the government with like weapons. The 2nd amendment allows the people to arm themselves in like fashion. If you throw a rock, I am throwing a rock. If you shoot an arrow, I am going to shoot an arrow. If you point an AK47 at me, I will do the same in return. Remember our history.
Now this is my first real debate don't be too harsh.
Debate Round No. 1
USN276

Pro

Ok, let's get the debate going. Please make your argument.
nato1111

Con

Tin Foil Hat Wearing Morons desire assault weapons to defend against potentially tyrannical governments.
However I think they forget Americans live in a liberal democracy, therefore if they deem the Government becoming too authoritarian then all they have to do is go to the ballet box.

What's more is that if the government were oppressing the the populace to such an extent that civil unrest were to breakout then a military coup would more than likely precede any actions undertaken by an armed militia (even negate the requirement).

As a Non-US citizen I can't fathom why US citizens feel they need assault rifles. I mean, come on, a largely domesticated and untrained populace couldn't defend against a technologically advanced war machine, even if it tried. The US has been at domestic peace for far too long to suggest a militia, of the correct experience and hardship, exists to be effective against Government forces (i.E. The US population has been devoid of tactical armed civil conflict therefore unable to produce veterans capable of combating organised governmental tyranny).

Pro assault rifle people tend to cite the fact that more homicides are committed using hand guns than assault rifles but neglect to aknowledge that more mass murders are committed using assault rifles than hand guns.

I would suggest handgun homicides are typically between rival factions; due to roberries; or, at least, committed by someone known to the victim, whereas; assault rifle murders' are typically committed by a psychopath indiscriminately targeting strangers. I think the reason assault rifles should be banned is one of damage limitation, plain and simple.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
Something got messes up on the debate which some reason prevented me from commenting so we had another debate set.
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 3 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
'Liberal Democracy' Lol
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
This whole debate is a failure. A new debate was posted by nato1111 with the same topic because this one was messed up. I implore anyone who saw to see that debate. Thank you.
Posted by nato1111 3 years ago
nato1111
ill just start a new debate just accept the debate when i send it to you
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 3 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
"the problem is that you would have to change the constitution of america which will never happen sorry to say"

Unfortunately, all Obama needs is an excuse, real or manufactured, to declare martial law. The Constitution goes bye bye, and we get a dictator for life, or until some patriot puts a bullet through his head. There is no limitation for how long he can maintain martial law. Even then, someone else would likely step in as dictator.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
This is very aggravating that this isn't working. I genuinely cannot figure out how to reply to your last comment.
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
I really can't figure out how to reply to your last comment. It won't show it.
Posted by nato1111 3 years ago
nato1111
yea i see that now hahah
Posted by USN276 3 years ago
USN276
I'm going to be very frank here. I messed up the set up and made too few rounds.
Posted by nato1111 3 years ago
nato1111
Very well shall see will accept your debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
USN276nato1111Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con: Very interesting insight ...Pro: what was that?
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
USN276nato1111Tied
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: Hardly a debate if only one side proposes an argument. I agree with everything Con said and have asked the same question.