The Instigator
patthebaker
Pro (for)
Tied
22 Points
The Contender
Bravo453
Con (against)
Tied
22 Points

The right to bear arms part 2

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: 5/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 4287
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

patthebaker

Pro

I apologize I was unable to debate during the last session but my internet was down I would like to start this again but with a more climactic outcome. For the sake of viewers please copy and paste your origanal argument as your debate and we may begin.
Bravo453

Con

I would like to begin by defining what the term "bear arms" means followed by what "right" means, assuming we are using it as a noun, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

>>bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms
2: to serve as a soldier

>>right
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2: something to which one has a just claim. 2A: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

The second Amendment states "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."(SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu...)

This can be interrupted many different ways to many different people, but today for the sake of debating, it means to me that the United States Government will allow for individual state governments to house militia's, which in today's terms means the National Guard. Each state has their own Guard, and the members that comprise the organization have the right to "bear arms". I feel that the amendment gives explicit permission to the state's militia to bear arms, as the II Amendment clearly states.

In conjunction with my opponents opening statement, it appears as though he would agree with me from what I have just defined and expressed.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
patthebaker

Pro

The first thing with your argument i will contest is that
"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."
Is what was passed by the senate and house while "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." is what all copies distributed to the states and agreed on. So assuming that all copies would be correct they would say that a militia would be allowed to be formed and that they shall not or anyone's right would be free to keep and bear arms.

Secondly you say That the National Gaurd translates to a modern day Militia.
When in fact the national gaurd is a type of army reserve and is run by the goverment heres proof from Answers.com definition "The military reserve units controlled by each state of the United States, equipped by the federal government and subject to the call of either the federal or the state government."

while a Militia on the other hand is a "A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency"

My sources: http://www.law.ucla.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.answers.com...
http://www.answers.com...

Thank you for your Time.
Bravo453

Con

So, according to the technical terms of things, the National Guard is not, in fact, a militia.

However, they are the closest unit that we have in this country today that resembles a militia. A militia is used primarily in cases of emergency and/or used in the defense of the country. The National Guard is called upon during the aftermath of major natural disasters, and they would be dispatched immediately if this country were to ever come under attack be an enemy.

The National Guard resembles a militia in every way, the only difference is who has power over it. And even then still, state governments have the ability to control their own Guard. There is very little difference between a militia and the National Guard.

My opponents only statement about his stance on the topic is as follows: "So assuming that all copies would be correct they would say that a militia would be allowed to be formed and that they shall not or anyone's right would be free to keep and bear arms."

I believe there are some grammatical errors in his statement, however I will attempt my best to interrupt and refute it.

It appears that "anyone" should be allowed to keep and bear arms. It is a "right" for everyone, according to my opponent. Well, a right, as defined above, is something that someone is justly entitled to. It is not justified for "anyone" to own a gun. People that should not have the right to bear arms are those who are mentally unstable, have committed the act of murder with a gun before, or those who have not received proper training in how to handle a firearm.

If we follow what my opponent advocates, we would have mentally ill people obtaining guns with relative ease, ex-murders with tools to perform the act once more, and people who haven't the slightest clue on how to safely operate a firearm.

This is simply not acceptable in today's society. Although it will never be perfect, and the mentally ill may obtain weapons to perform horrible acts, and the murderer may find ways to further his or her rampage with use of a firearm and those who do not understand safe handling of arms will get their hands on one, there can still be those who can own a firearm for safe practices, such as recreational shooting/hunting or means of disposing of wanted rodents. And these people may use firearms in self-defense, which is justifiable, in dire situations.

In closing, my firm stance on this topic is that not all people are entitled to the right to bear arms, depending on mental stability, criminal past, and knowledge of the basic safe practices of firearms.
Debate Round No. 2
patthebaker

Pro

bravo453 I would like to thank you for this argument But nevertheless i Concede my argument. I Will admit that i was a bit shortminded to say everyone which would be foolish and dangerous I meant to pose the argument to a people as a whole. But a Win is a Win and I give the victor title to you. It has been a great first debate for me.
Bravo453

Con

Well, thank you very much.

A little odd, but I am grateful nonetheless. Sorry about that comment I made, it was rather rude.

That's all folks.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Bravo, you are winning - and you should be, given the default. If you debated a position that you do not hold dear, then my comments are without value. If you debated from a position of conviction then, as a commenter, I can point out the deficiencies of your arguments. I fully agree to your position on the frustration of debating a one-sider. A quitter should never win.
Posted by Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
Regardless...he gave up. You can't vote for a debater who gave up on his or her argument. So...what are you trying to prove right now? lol
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Bravo: There is no debate among those who can read! Can you read: PEOPLE? States, militias and the federal government have NO RIGHTS. Nowhere in the constitution can you find a collective right nor a government right. Only people have rights. The governments have 'CONFERED POWERS'. Powers conferred by the PEOPLE. People have rights, conferred by their creator, some of which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Posted by Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
I am not sure...

One should be obligated to vote for the side that presented a full argument, not the side that conceded.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
How is the side that concieded winning?
Posted by Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
If patthebaker doesn't respond again, I will never accept another debate with him ever again.

This is absolutely pathetic.

And no, this is not some random account I registered to improve my win ratio.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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 Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Indeed 8 years ago
Indeed
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by LedLegend 8 years ago
LedLegend
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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 patthebaker 8 years ago
patthebaker
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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 ohhyeahh 8 years ago
ohhyeahh
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
patthebakerBravo453Tied
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:03