Should we ban semi-automatic weopons?
Debate Rounds (3)
1) 2nd Amendment
Now when the second emmendment was created they used it in a sense of a militia meaning if our government tried to harm us as american citizens it is our right to protect and defend ourselves and because we already have a militia via (national guard, airforce, army, etc.) we do not need guns used in times of war these guns, be ak-47 or ar-15 should not be allowed to be owned, this does not in any way shape or form go against the secod amendment to take these guns away it jus states that we dont need to hold these weapons that are used during war as a so called protection mechanism we can justa s easily hunt and protect our selves without assault rifles
incidents like the sandy hook shooting, or gabby giffards or even the aurora shooting, have put our country in so much threat at the thought that their children or friends or family could get shot at time that it could happen anywhere or any time these reports from police have all stated that there were assault weapons used and in these instances yes you could say well they could have done it with a hand gun but i am a gun enthusiest and im quite sure there are very few handguns that hold 26 bullets there is like i said no need for assault rifles they have put the american citizens through so much hurt mentally and physically in many countries such as sweden and amsterdam they have reported to have less violence then one of our states new york after banning their assault weapons
now it is understandable that our citizens would like to be safe but in the same factor how is it going to be any safer if we are allowing these people or criminals whatever you would like to call them to have the same guns that we have it would not leave you at any less of a chance to defend yourselves or your family for that matter a hand gun can do just that. we can all agree that safety is important to us and our family so that is why we need to pass this we dont need assault rifles for "recreation" they are used by the army for our protection
So for these three reasons of the 2nd amendment, the danger caused to our citizens, and the importance of safety i urge you to vote in affirmation of this resoloution
So lets now look at some facts, in a firefight the percent of deaths when police officers are armed, the death percent is 12.3. But when LAW-ABIDING citizens are armed the death percentage is 2.3. There will always be killers in the world, if you can kill someone with a gun you must realize everything is a murder weapon...people reading this debate i entreat you i beg you to vote against the banning of semi-automatic weapons but to keep america safe. People of america in the past many famous leaders have ban guns and it has been chaos. The professionals agree with my opponent, ask idi amin, stalin, pol pot, hitler, mao tse tung, qaddafi, Kim jong ll, castro! They were all famous for murder, tyranny, evil, plain killing. If you take semi-automatic weapons away, taking away all guns will come next. And after that blood tyranny and the end of america or a very damaged piece left. I Tell you brothers of our home america, our nation will be diminished or severely damaged by a civil outreach of blood. There will be 3 sides, the unarmed, The law abiding weapon carriers, and a tyrannic government. So once again i entreat you...vote for our nation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con never actually addressed pro's argument in round 1. In fact he didn't directly deal with any of pro's arguments in the following round. Pro's case had more to do with the question of if semi-automatic weapons are covered under the second amendment. He argued that the second amendment had to do specifically with the fear of government uprising. Since this is not a time of war, such guns aren't needed. Both had spelling and grammar issues, so that point is tied. Conduct to pro due to con calling him "primitive" for not understanding "big words". No sources were used so sources are tied.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.