The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
RedEye
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

The right to bear arms.

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: 6/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 4403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (14)

 

gahbage

Pro

"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."

This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment. Obviously there are disputes among what the meaning of it is, otherwise this debate wouldn't be here. My stance is that the definition of the Second Amendment is this:

"The people in a militia [the National Guard, for example] have the right to own and/or carry weapons."

It should not apply to common citizens who are not part of a "well-regulated militia".

Anyone oppose my point of view? (Please don't bring up an argument about the arms of a bear XD)
RedEye

Con

Resolved: The right to bear arms.

My opponent should be technically "Con" but w/e.

I'll present my own case then attack my opponents.

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

2nd Amendment: "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."

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.

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.

II. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

It's simple, the clause is right in front of you. The Framers of the constitution knew that people need to be able to protect themselves. The government cannot be everywhere at every time. If an armed killer breaks into your house and wants to rape you, they will tie you up, rape you, then kill you. The police won't know until the killer is in Brazil. The people have a right to keep a gun, if they want, to protect themselves. I will cite the Castle Law in Texas: This law says that if a person is on your property and you feel they will hurt/kill you, you have the right to use force, even deadly force against them.

III. If you ban arms, then you need to ban everything else.

Automobiles have the highest rate of death among young people. Anti-2nd Amendment people claim that guns are dangerous and could kill people. Ok, thats a non-unique argument. Knives kill people, cars kill people, AMUSEMENT PARKS KILL PEOPLE. If you universalize the action of banning a weapon, then lets ban everything else. But the government can't because we have rights to.

===============================================================================
I'll now attack his case:

The only thing he presents in his first round is this:

"My stance is that the definition of the Second Amendment is this:

'The people in a militia [the National Guard, for example] have the right to own and/or carry weapons.'

It should not apply to common citizens who are not part of a 'well-regulated militia'."

My Response:

You are essentially changing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment; it clearly doesn't just involve the military. And my opponent doesn't understand the meaning of a militia. MILITIA IS DIFFERENT THEN MILITARY.

If my oppoent can completley change the wording, then I have the right to make th argument that it should be worded: The people of the US have the right to bear arms for protection of self and the protection of the rights given here by the consitution.

Also, extend my 3 contentions as case attacks as well.

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

This is a clear neg-aff ballot(?) I still don't know what I really should be considered. W/e its a clear RedEye win.

Thank you ladies and gentleman.

I am ready for opponent's responses.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I guess I should be Con but w/e, it's technically not a resolution anyway.

I'll go at my opponent's points before backing up mine.

I. From dictionary.com:

"
mi�li�tia Audio Help /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
"

I will break down each definition.

1: This concerns a part of the military that does not serve full-time unless in emergencies.
2: The subjects are referred to as "citizen SOLDIERS as distinguished from professional soldiers". This means that they are still soldiers, but not professionals. Much like definition 1.
3: People that are able to serve in the military.
4: From dictionary.com:

"
par�a�mil�i�tar�y Audio Help /ˌp�rəˈmɪlɪˌtɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-mil-i-ter-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -tar�ies.
–adjective 1. noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force: a paramilitary police unit.
–noun
"
This refers to citizens that are backups for the military. They protect citizen rights, but are still part of the military.

So as I have shown, a militia is either a subdivision of the military, or is affiliated with the military. A random mass of people protecting their rights merely have arms and a common cause. This does not make them "well-regulated", nor does it make them a "militia". So they do not have the right to bear arms, because they are not a well-regulated militia. The colonists also got their weapons from Britain, and their use was, by law, only for hunting, NOT self-defense. This makes this point null, since the definition of militia does not fit your contention, and guns from the revolution were not allowed to be used in self-defense.

II. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an extension or definition of the first subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". It is explaining what a "well-regulated militia" has/is.

Also, that law in Texas is ridiculous. In court, you cannot tell a man's intentions. He could just say, "I thought he was gonna kill me" and he can get away with justified manslaughter rather than second-degree murder or [voluntary] manslaughter.

III. Automobile deaths would be much less common if there was not drunk driving, road rage, etc. Many accidents are at the fault of the driver. Likewise, guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people. However, it can only take the slightest aggravation for the trigger to go off. Guns are much more dangerous than cars, regardless of which one actually kills more people. A gun is also available to more people than a car is. You see little children playing with guns on the news, but you don't see them hijacking cars. A gun is too dangerous to be available to pretty much any individual.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to defend my case:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already provided a definition of militia above, so you can check that. I will also re-analyze the Second Amendment:

"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."

A well-regulated militia: An organized or well-directed body of citizens who are involved, a part of, or affiliated with the military.

being necessary to the security of a free State: My opponent defined the security of a State, but not how it is "being necessary" to it. If you'll look at the amendment, this phrase is an absolute phrase, which means it modifies or describes the subject (in this case, a well-regulated militia). So this clause is saying that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms: This is another absolute phrase which describes a well-regulated militia. Here, it states that a well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear their arms.

shall not be infringed: Obviously, will not be violated.

Please note that "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are absolute phrases that merely further define, describe and extend on the subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". So the amendment can, effectively, be restated as such:

"The right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have shown that the Second Amendment does not give Average Not-Part-Of-A-Well-Regulated-Militia Joe the right to keep or bear an arm (gun). Vote Pro!
RedEye

Con

I will attack my opponents case then move on to crystallize my own.

Ok, he begins with a bunch of definitions; however one of the biggest ideas is a militia the military and what he brings up also is a sub-section of the military.

Militia was the group of men called upon to help defend against British Attacks. These were ordinary citizens. Take Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. He calls upon the people to GRAB THEIR WEAPONS and help defend. The people is the militia.

Then he brings up that the guns were from Britain and were only supposed to be used for hunting. Lol, he is essentially saying that the colonists had no right to fight Britain.

Extension: HE FAILED TO ADDRESS MY MAIN POINT IN CONTENTION 1. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS CAN WE EVER DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A TYRANT. JUST LIKE THE COLONISTS VS BRITAIN. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION KNEW THIS. READ CONTENTION 1, AND IT'S A SURE REDEYE WIN.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an extension or definition of the first subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". It is explaining what a "well-regulated militia" has/is."

No its not. It is clearly saying that the people have the right to bear arms. Either for protection or hunting.

"Automobile deaths would be much less common if there was not drunk driving, road rage, etc. Many accidents are at the fault of the driver. Likewise, guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people. However, it can only take the slightest aggravation for the trigger to go off. Guns are much more dangerous than cars, regardless of which one actually kills more people. A gun is also available to more people than a car is. You see little children playing with guns on the news, but you don't see them hijacking cars. A gun is too dangerous to be available to pretty much any individual."

My Response: The point of the contention is, if the government truly wanted to protect against death, ban automobiles not guns. And your point about guns being more available. First, I want to see where you got this. However more importantly, there are so many protections against getting a gun. U need to take a physical, and psychological test beforehand. Cars are 50x more available then guns.
===============================================================================

Voting Issues:

1) To truly uphold the security of a free state, we as the people and true leaders of America, have the right to fight for our own freedom if it ever gets infringed on.
2) We all have right to self-defense, guns aid in protection of ourselves. It should be allowed if someone wishes to have one.
3) The clause clearly states militia and people, both referring outside of the formed military. The Framers knew this, and it's our job to keep our protected right.

This is a clear RedEye ballet
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

I'll address his rebuttals and then support my points.

"Militia was the group of men called upon to help defend against British Attacks. These were ordinary citizens. Take Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. He calls upon the people to GRAB THEIR WEAPONS and help defend. The people is the militia."

But they were colonies - they didn't have their own military. We have the National Guard, the military, etc. today. So in this day, the people are not the militia. The militia has been defined last round.

"Then he brings up that the guns were from Britain and were only supposed to be used for hunting. Lol, he is essentially saying that the colonists had no right to fight Britain."

Technically, yes. The colonists illegally fought Britain. I'm not saying they shouldn't have, I'm just saying it was against the law at that time.

"ONLY IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS CAN WE EVER DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A TYRANT."

This is not true. We can still defend ourselves from a tyrant through the National Guard. Keep in mind that States can also call the NG. Also, who says we are able to have a U.S. tyrant in this age? Our system of government prevents one branch from having too much power.

"No its not. It is clearly saying that the people have the right to bear arms. Either for protection or hunting."

OK, let's break this down even more. Here is the amendment:

"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."

Note the fact that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a clause and an absolute phrase. It also has the same sentence structure as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Both can be taken out of a sentence and the sentence would still make sense. So we'll remove that part. DISCLAIMER: I'm not changing the wording of the Second Amendment. I'm just showing what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is.

"A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now look at the sentence. Common grammar tells us that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" acts as an absolute phrase. This means it describes and EXTENDS the subject (in this case "A well-regulated militia"), so it is giving a well-regulated militia the right to keep and own a gun.

"My Response: The point of the contention is, if the government truly wanted to protect against death, ban automobiles not guns."

But you're wrong. If the government wanted to prevent automobile deaths, they would ban such things as alcohol, which cause people to recklessly use their cars. Not only are cars necessary for timely transport, the cars themselves are not the cause of death. Likewise, if the government wanted to prevent gun violence, they would make guns available only to a well-regulated militia, so the cause of death, crazy people with a gun, would be prevented (crazy people wouldn't get the guns, only a well-regulated militia).

"First, I want to see where you got this. However more importantly, there are so many protections against getting a gun. U need to take a physical, and psychological test beforehand. Cars are 50x more available then guns."

Alright, so to get a gun, you need to take physical and psychological tests. To get a car, you need to take written and driving tests. To get a gun, you need ID and a permit/license. You also need ID and a permit and license to get a car. Getting a car also takes much longer than a gun. You need to sign loan forms and insurance papers. A gun is easier to get than a car. It may not be available to as many people, but that doesn't matter. It's easier to get. Not only that, but a wider range of people can use a gun. Can a four year old drive? No. Can a four year old pull a trigger? Yes. (Don't tell me no, because it's happened). A gun is easier to get, and is able to be used by pretty much everyone.

Finally, I will look at his voting issues:

1) "To truly uphold the security of a free state, we as the people and true leaders of America, have the right to fight for our own freedom if it ever gets infringed on."

This is pretty much a restatement of the Second Amendment. He's saying that if our right to freedom gets infringed, we can defend it. We already know this. However, note that he doesn't say anything about guns. We can defend it other ways. Arson, riots, etc. Besides, the State can call the NG to defend itself. So this point does not help him, and should not be a reason to vote for him.

2) "We all have right to self-defense, guns aid in protection of ourselves. It should be allowed if someone wishes to have one."

True, we do have the right to defend ourselves. And guns do help with that. However, they are not necessary. As I have said before, we can use other self-defense methods, such as arson, riots, etc. Furthermore, consider this: everyone has a gun. Your house gets broken into and the burglar pulls out a gun. You pull out yours. What good does that do? You both have a gun, so neither of you has more of an advantage over the other. The only thing that has occured is that you are both equally matched, because either one of you can end the other's life with the pull of a trigger.

3) "The clause clearly states militia and people, both referring outside of the formed military. The Framers knew this, and it's our job to keep our protected right."

I already used common grammar to show that this is not how the framers meant it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here are the reasons that you should vote for me.

1) I have rebutted all of my opponent's points and rebuttals.

2) As I have shown above, you have no reason to vote for my opponent.

3) Common grammar and the other reasons I have stated prove my point.

Please remember to vote on the debate, not the issue. Vote Pro!
RedEye

Con

Ok, this is the deciding factor: Do the US citizens have a right to own guns to protect the free state,

My opponent responds that the National Guard can be used, because the states have control over them too. This is partially true, but partially false. The US president has the control of ALL armed forces in the US. The National Guard, is in this too.

He then says, well it's a new day and age, we wont have a tyrant because of the checks and balances.

My Response: This has 2 flaws in it. 1) I doubt the system of checks and balances would beat the power of an army, navy, air force, etc. Which, according to you, are the only people allowed to own weapons. 2) History has shown us a fact. Take Hitler for instance. He obtained power LEGALLY. He coned the system. In Germany, the citizens could not have arms.

For the protection of a free state, the US people have a right to own arms for that protection.

"Government for, by and of the people."

My opponent uses grammar, etc to prove his point. This means nothing, Spirit should dominate over the letter of the law. According to Montisque, the spirit of the law is justice. We as people of the US have a right to defend our freedom. Don't let my opponent deny this to any of us.

This is the reason to negate.

Thank you ladies and gentleman.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheRaven 9 years ago
TheRaven
RedEye def. wins this one. Seriously, if a tyrant ever came to power, how to suggest we fight them off?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
"Please don't bring up an argument about the arms of a bear"

Well what the hell else was this supposed to be about.

Vote: For chopping off bear arms.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
"Spirit should dominate over the letter of the law."

FTW
Posted by tangerineman91 9 years ago
tangerineman91
Read some of Thomas Payne's pamphlets (or the Declaration of Independence) and you'll recognize that grammar two hundred years ago is radically different than grammar today. Furthermore, you forget when the Constitution was written. It was passed in 1783, with the Bill of Rights after that, years after the American Revolution was over. I posted a mini history lesson on a similar debate concerning the military/militia/individual relationship at the time of the Constitution. If you ever want to speak intelligently on the context for the founders, you really need to actually know what you're talking about. Find a book on the subject and read it.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
gahbageRedEyeTied
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
gahbageRedEyeTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by JakeRoss 9 years ago
JakeRoss
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 necromancer 9 years ago
necromancer
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 ally93 9 years ago
ally93
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 Quango 9 years ago
Quango
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageRedEyeTied
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 Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
gahbageRedEyeTied
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