The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

The British should have the right to bear arms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,103 times Debate No: 14359
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

My fellow British Citizens and I should have the right to bear arms, just like our cousins in the United States of America have. Here’s why:
1 – If the Queen dismissed the democratically-elected Government and announced that she would run the country herself, and demanded that British Citizens in future pay all their taxes directly to her, as she is entitled to do [1], the British people could form a militia in order to overthrow the Monarch and declare the country a republic, using their guns to fight the combined might of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army of which the Queen is the sovereign head and has, therefore, at her full command. [2]
2 – British Citizens would be able to use firearms to defend themselves against would-be attackers and intruders (unless, of course, the attackers and intruders also exercised their right to bear arms and were carrying guns as well).
3 – Guns make men look cool and hard in front of the girls. [3]
In conclusion, if Americans have the right to rise up against an oppressive regime and overthrow it in an armed coup d'état, and to go down the pub tooled-up in case it all kicks off at closing time, or to take pot-shots at people trespassing in their gardens, or to impress girls by shooting road signs, tin cans, etc., then British people should hold those same rights.
Thank you
joshuaXlawyer

Con

1----If the Queen dismissed the democratically-elected Government and announced that she would run the country herself, and demanded that British Citizens in future pay all their taxes directly to her, as she is entitled to do [1], the British people could form a militia in order to overthrow the Monarch and declare the country a republic, using their guns to fight the combined might of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army of which the Queen is the sovereign head and has, therefore, at her full command. [2]-----



(Ha, sorry but why overthrow someone who is the rightful ruler of a government, just because she's a monarch? Or has taxes?Clearly in both worlds you will have to pay taxes so that is irrelevant, Secondly my opponent assumes that the Queen would be corrupt, yes assumes ,a fallacy if you will. He has no factual evidence nor can see the future for all we know the Queen could be benevolent leader, just because a government isn't democratic doesn't make it automatically corrupt. Lastly I wish to bring up a great mind of the enlightenment period Hobbes, pacifically Hobbes social contract which the right to be governed by a government is to protect its citizens, as long as a government is keeping its citizens safe it is providing its obligation as a government. Monarchy or not. )



2----British Citizens would be able to use firearms to defend themselves against would-be attackers and intruders (unless, of course, the attackers and intruders also exercised their right to bear arms and were carrying guns as well).-----



(Ok here my opponent makes a valid point, use firearms for defensive purposes, how ever he attacked himself by saying "unless, of course, the attackers and intruders also exercised their right to bear arms and were carrying guns as well".
Well I say if firearms were not legal less distribution of firearms less likely a intruder has a gun. Also at this point I will like to point out my opponent has only talked about guns so I will go ahead and assume knifes and swords and such are illegal as well.)




3 –-- Guns make men look cool and hard in front of the girls---



(Clearly this statement is a joke, or you haven't got a clue on how stupid this sounds. For one not all girls like guns, likes and dislikes are a preference denpent upon a individual. Also clearly that meaning of a firearm is to hold power which should be taken lightly. A quote from my favorite movie 'With power comes great responsibility")





4----In conclusion, if Americans have the right to rise up against an oppressive regime and overthrow it in an armed coup d'état, and to go down the pub tooled-up in case it all kicks off at closing time, or to take pot-shots at people trespassing in their gardens, or to impress girls by shooting road signs, tin cans, etc., then British people should hold those same rights.----



(Ok for one he has no proof nor can he read the future that his government will become a monarch, nor be a corrupt monarch. Don't forget my Hobbes statement as well, that a governments obligation is to protect its people. Now for the kicker, his government right now is democratic and not corrupt so he has no need for fire arms. Secondly, guns being illegal means its less likely a person at a bar has one to start a fight,and again with the girls is just really silly why not learn kung fu or MMA takes more skill and practice than a gun. Some might say a gun is a cowards way of fighting he assumes all girls and everyone enjoys having a boomstick which clearly isn't the case.)



-----My Case----



1..Making firearms and weapons illegal reduces the distribution of firearms and weapons which makes it harder to possess them and reduces gun and weapon related crime.


2..Instead of guns and weapons we should have mandatory classes paid by the government to learn kung fu , marital arts, etc. This being more healthy,and providing self defense.


Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank joshuaXlawyer for his comprehensive reply and also apologise for the brevity of my response – I only have a very brief window of time in which to post my counter-rebuttal.

Firstly, it is true that Britain run by the Queen may not be a worse than the country being run by a coalition of over-privileged, Old Etonian Tories and their fawning, forelock-tugging, unprincipled, back-stabbing Liberal Democrat turncoat cronies as it currently is, but the point is that for better or for worse (for worse) they were democratically elected by the people and if the Queen seized the reins of power for herself, an armed populace would have a better chance of overthrowing her in a desperate struggle for freedom from tyrannical oppression (although it may well be a benign oppression with very little in the way of tyranny).

Secondly, criminals can and do acquire guns illegally – their whole lifestyle is based on breaking the law so owning an unlicensed firearm to them is the least of their worries. If the general public had access to guns at least they would be able to protect themselves until the police arrived.

Finally, yes, my remark about guns being cool was intended as a joke, but wait! The NRA in the US says: "Guns don't kill, people do." [1] Therefore, it doesn't matter if some bloke takes a gun into the pub to impress the girls or not, it only matters if he gets drunk, gets jealous because some other punter is chatting up his bird and shoots him. Dead. And as far as my opponent's suggestion of martial arts as an alternative – well that can be equally fatal too – see the YouTube clip.

In conclusion, if my opponent's arguments were really watertight then the United States would altered her constitution and withdrawn the right of American Citizens to bear arms.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.saidwhat.co.uk...
joshuaXlawyer

Con

1-----Firstly, it is true that Britain run by the Queen may not be a worse than the country being run by a coalition of over-privileged, Old Etonian Tories and their fawning, forelock-tugging, unprincipled, back-stabbing Liberal Democrat turncoat cronies as it currently is, but the point is that for better or for worse (for worse) they were democratically elected by the people and if the Queen seized the reins of power for herself, an armed populace would have a better chance of overthrowing her in a desperate struggle for freedom from tyrannical oppression (although it may well be a benign oppression with very little in the way of tyranny).----

(In the statement my opponent has stated still has not address the point in my argument of why the democratically elected should attempt to take control of a country which is the rightful ruler of the land and as well as she may improve society, as well we are talking about basic handguns, im sure even if guns became legal im sure the government won't sell fully automatic assault rifles and grenades my opponent clearly don't know what it takes to start a civil war.)

2-----Secondly, criminals can and do acquire guns illegally – their whole lifestyle is based on breaking the law so owning an unlicensed firearm to them is the least of their worries. If the general public had access to guns at least they would be able to protect themselves until the police arrived------

(I agree with this statement However getting guns legally and illegally are totally different when you get guns illegall you can get all types of guns p90's, AK-47's, and so on legal weapons is limited to hand guns no high that a certain calibur, or a simi auto rifle or shotgun. Even if guns were legal they would still have restrictions on the types of guns you own were i live you cannot own a 9mm or higher and shotguns and rifles all semi auto. Still a disadvantage secoundly making them illegal makes it just alittle bit harder to have a 2nd degree murder case an honest man who gets anger at his neighbor and kills him out it with his hand gun legally purchased which if they were illegal he would have had to purchased it illegally. How do you buy a illegal weapon? One you steal it or two you purchase it in the black market which requires connections.)

3----Finally, yes, my remark about guns being cool was intended as a joke, but wait! The NRA in the US says: "Guns don't kill, people do." [1] Therefore, it doesn't matter if some bloke takes a gun into the pub to impress the girls or not, it only matters if he gets drunk, gets jealous because some other punter is chatting up his bird and shoots him. Dead. And as far as my opponent's suggestion of martial arts as an alternative – well that can be equally fatal too – see the YouTube clip.----
( Ok i really hope that mortal combat refrence was a joke seeing how its a video game and to mention none of the characters use a form of kung fu or and martial art, and yes people kill people but the gun sure helps alot.)

My case still stands barely attack and i have attack all his points.
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sangers 6 years ago
Sangers
lawl guns :D
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Bluffing how am i bluffing?
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Objection!!
I knew it! YOUR PLAY STYLE IS JUST BLUFFING.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
OBJECTION!!!!! PEOPLE ARE BIAS WHEN IT COMES TO SUBJECT LIKE THISz..
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Objection!!
Phoenix, HOW CAN YOU LOSE TO HIM!
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Well guys if you have read tell me do i sound like i believe what im arguing ......... cus i dont
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Yeah Guns ! ! !
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Yes, this whole debate was a ploy to illustrate the inadequacy of some right-wing Americans' arguments in defence of "gun rights".
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Hey, I didn't know you supported gun rights. Or, are you just playing devil's advocate? =]
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
show him what you're made of Phoenix.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Rasliel 6 years ago
Rasliel
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by writinggirl123 6 years ago
writinggirl123
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
brian_egglestonjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60