The Instigator
hsif
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Stricter Gun Control? Or Fine the Way it is? Or Less Gun Control?

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...
hsif
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 60614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

hsif

Con

All topics on gun control have been won by the side for gun control, so I will try to reverse that.

I wish for a proper and respectable discussion on gun control in United States and how strict/lenient it should be.

My position on gun control is moderate; current legislation will work, but I do not agree with the Hughes Amendment or the Importation Ban portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Pro

If you want to "penalize" me for misspelling a word, go right ahaed!


You should study the Second Amendment- it states quite plainly

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. "


You obviously can't have Gun Control in a Free State.

Gun Control, basically speaking, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Debate Round No. 1
hsif

Con

If your interpretation of the Constitution is a strict one, then yes, the Second Amendment would indeed nullify any and all gun control legislation.

However, the current government in place seeks a loose construction of the Constitution, which in turn is the reason why most major federal gun legislation has passed. (take example the Gun Control Act of 1968, Crime Control Act of 1990, and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)

Thank you for accepting this debate.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Pro

Your question- stricter gun control/ fine already/ looser gun control ? - can't be answered Pro or Con.
The Amendments aren't actually in the Constitution.
I really don't know what you mean by "interpreting the Constitution" .
Just read the Second Amendment.
There can't be any "passed gun control laws" - such nonsense would, basically speaking, be Unconstitutional, under the Second Amendment.
Period.
Debate Round No. 2
hsif

Con

The Second Amendment is apart of the Bill of Rights, which is apart of the United States Constitution.

Loose interpretation of the Constitution allows for the Amendments to be flexible to interpretation in the context of law. In the case of the Second Amendment, a loose interpretation would say that the right to bear arms is legal only for a well standing militia, of which consists of a select group of people of a locale/district. This would not extend to civilians owning guns.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Pro

You obviously have no idea of what you're writing about.
You're deliberately wasting my time.
Read the Second Amendment & my arguments.
"Interpreting" the Constitution doesn't make sense.
Since civilians all over the world own weapons, keep weapons, bear weapons, use weapons, etc. , your claim that that violates this country's Constitution is utterly ridiculous.
A government- run, government- selected Militia obviously isn't what this country's Founders are referring to in the Second Amendment.
Debate Round No. 3
hsif

Con

"..civilians all over the world own weapons...your claim that that violates this country's Constitution is utterly ridiculous."
I never said a thing about violating the Constitution. What exactly are you referring to?

"...government- selected Militia obviously isn't what this country's Founders are referring to in the 2nd Amendment. "
You know this how? Evidence?

"Interpreting the Constitution doesn't make sense."
definitions.uslegal.com/l/living-constitution/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Pro

"Governments" don't exist.
Free people, Free societies, Free countries, like This one, don't Have such things.
Obama & his Gang are not only BANKRUPT, they have an OFFICIAL Debt of over $17.6 Trillion, & Going Up,
& they're paying Interest on it.
They have an OFFICIAL spending figure of around $4 Trillion.
It would take them about 5 years just to pay off WHAT THEY ALREADY ADMIT THEY OWE,
WITH ZERO $ FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
THEY HAVE VIRTUALLY ZERO $ FOR ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.
THEY'RE DOOMED.
Debate Round No. 4
hsif

Con

Your argument has digressed from the main point. We are discussing gun control issues, not Obama and liberals. Please, should you choose to retort, please use relevant information.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Pro

How can there be any "gun control" if "government" doesn't exist, & Obama & his Gang are Bankrupt & way in the red?
Like I wrote, you're just wasting time.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
As I've already pointed out, nobody can win or lose a debate in the form

Stricter gun control? or Fine the way it is? or Less gun control?

So I obviously couldn't have lost the "debate" .
Stop being You- Know- Whats !!!
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
This country is a free country- we don't have any government.
As I've been pointing out for decades, the so-called "U.S. government" is not only BANKRUPT, it's head- over- heels in debt, & operating way in the red, & it has a huge, & increasing, budget deficit.
Just their OFFICIAL debt is over $17.6 Trillion, & Going Up.
Only a complete fool would want to study the nonexistent "government" .
Posted by hsif 3 years ago
hsif
I have understood your point, after all, every single argument you present is the same one.

I do not wish to further entertain this, as you are either a troll seeking attention, or have a poor grasp of how the United States Government works. Please consider taking a class in Government.

You may either wait out your turn or forfeit.

From now on, I refuse to deal with such dullards that cannot even comprehend the basic key terms of our government system.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
You're deliberately wasting my valuable time.
Go back & read what I wrote to you & what you wrote to me.
Goodbye !
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Hitler said himself that if you want to control the citizens, take away their guns.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
I love how people completely ignore the first half of the second amendment. They always jump straight to the part about arms. There is no well regulated militia, therefore guns are not allowed. The founders didn't want a bunch of crazy guys running around with guns, like we currently have.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
hsifVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro presented practically no arguments
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
hsifVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro displayed not only a lack of conduct, but also a lack of a definitive argument, merely insisting that Con read the Second Amendment. Con was the only side that used sources, had a credible argument and stayed to the topic of the debate. For these reasons, Con is the winner of this debate.