The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The 2nd Amendment

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,099 times Debate No: 4468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

CiRrO

Pro

Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary.

Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms.

--Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves.

Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government.

===============================================================================

It's for these reasons I negate.

I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military.

A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

Ok, well my opponent forfeited.

So I guess I'll just copy and paste my above arguments. I don't want to be unfair, by adding more.

Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary.

Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms.

--Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military.

The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves.

Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government.

===============================================================================

It's for these reasons I negate.

I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military.

A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed.
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

Right well, this is a pointless debate, I guess if he doesn't show up the last round, i win. =) Yay. Hmm, victory however is less sweet with a non-opponent. However it still victory. Good im done with character length.
MoonDragon613

Con

MoonDragon613 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tavadon 8 years ago
Tavadon
The militia you speak of is the national guard of today.Not individual gun owners.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Lol, my mistake, I meant to put affirm, not negate. Mea Culpa. Anyway, the idea id just are you for or against the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
This topic does not at the very least fail on the grounds of being false by definition as your unconstitutional topic was clearly but suffers from a great number of construction errors which make me reticent to accept the debate. First off, you claim to negate but are pro and more importantly I don't know what position the Con should take on the topic. The claim is simple "The 2nd Amendment" rather than anything specifically instructive. "The 2nd Amendment is required for the defense of liberty", "The 2nd Amendment is useful for the freedoms of everyone", "The 2nd Amendment is unneeded." -- What position would one be opposing of they were to actually negate this topic?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
CiRrOMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ZeXiOn 8 years ago
ZeXiOn
CiRrOMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
CiRrOMoonDragon613Tied
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 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
CiRrOMoonDragon613Tied
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