The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,376 times Debate No: 11444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I'll let whoever accepts go first


I would like to thank my opponent for the creation of this topic, I'm going to first begin with a definition.

Handgun -a firearm that is held and fired with one hand[1]

Opening Arguments:
Many individuals feel the need to purchase a handgun for various purposes such as protecting their families and property, and in the hands of responsible pose no serious threat to the general public, however when handguns fall into the hands of ex-convicts and those who are mentally ill it does. The fact that hand guns could fall into the hands of those who are likely to commit a crime again such as ex-convicts[2] or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon should justify giving local governments the ability to regulate handgun ownership.

Thank You.

Debate Round No. 1


First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :)

I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim.

I'd now like to go on to my own arguments.

-First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.


Registered_Trademark forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


username03 forfeited this round.


I am terribly sorry for my forfeit in the previous round i was forwarded an unexpectedly large workload and I was not able to post my argument on time, however...

I would like to begin by further explaining the argument in the previous round before addressing any of the arguments present by my opponent.

Firstly let me begin by saying the purpose for my opening argument was to highlight the importance of the creation of gun regulation laws and why any level of government would be justified in the creation of laws to limit gun ownership to competent citizens. My opponent clearly misconstrued my argument when he suggested that I was implying that should the federal government assume the responsibility of regulating gun ownership.

However that is not to say that there are no benefits to giving the responsibilities of gun control to state an local governments. My opponent correctly stated in R2 that if the federal government were to be forwarded the right to restrict gun owner ship the law would be uniform and simpler, however uniform and simplistic does not necessarily mean better. Consider the following if the federal government were to be given that power states with low levels of gun violence would be forced to change their laws despite the fact that the laws may not need to be changed, if the states and local governments were to be given the power to restrict gun ownership systems of gun control that would would continue stay in place while those that are not could be changed for the better.

I would like to end by addressing the constitutional merits of allowing states and local governments to restrict gun ownership to eligible citizens. My opponent stated in R2 that allowing states and local governments to restrict gun ownership would violate the second amendment, however he falsely states what the second amendment is. The second amendment reads as follows:

"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."

As you can see my opponent conveniently only quoted half of the second amendment. Seeing as how it is not definitively clear whether or not the second amendment applies to only organized militias or all individuals it is unfair to simply state that restricting gun ownership is unconstitutional.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 3


username03 forfeited this round.


Again I would like to apologize my forfeit earlier in this debate, that being said I heavily urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Registered_Trademark 7 years ago
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
good topic, too busy to debate it though...
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
3 day voting period?
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
A Legaly eligible Citizen?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by username03 7 years ago
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