The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

The rite to bare arms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 27909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I would like to debate on the matter of having firearms. I will give a list of pros and whoever excepts this debate can choose which ones to debate on or all of them.

1. 2nd amendment rites
2. Safety and protection
3. Economy


I will debate you on all of the points you have listed. Please remember that as Pro, the burden of proof falls on you.
Debate Round No. 1


I will try to make this short and sweet.
1. 2nd amendment rites: We have the rite to own and carry guns (with a permit) and the 2nd amendment gives us that rite. If you were to take that rite away from the people what else would we let them take?

2. Safety and protection: in the early 1900's the kkk started a movement to get rid of guns,(you can look it up for more info, it is recorded) the reason behind this was so that they could have total control, as we all know they will never get rid of all guns and the kkk knew that. Also they band whisky or shine, when they did this if gave people like al Capone an opportunity for a criminal empire to rise. The same will happen with guns and there will be no way for good honest people to protect there self's and family.

3.The economy: I know that this is not a huge matter for gun control but it is a huge matter to thousands of dealers, workers and shops. this would put a lot of people out of work and that's the last thing we need

4. Fairness: if they take them from us they should take that from the law also, and think about those problems. even if they let the law keep that, when an emergency happens how long would it take them to get to you?


1. The Second Amendment reads: "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." You have just looked at the second piece of that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first clause is actually more important, because it gives the reason why we are allowed to bear arms. The reason is so that we can have a well regulated militia. People today are not associated with any sort of militia, they just want guns. By not participating in a militia, citizens forfeit the right to own guns. You also say that we have the right to own guns, if we have a permit. This is unconstitutional, and does not contribute to your argument, it actually hurts you. You say that guns should still be restricted. This says that we earn our right to own guns, it is not a native right as a US citizen.

2. Since when is violence the answer to violence? Two wrongs do not make a right. If government were to outlaw the possession of guns, then no one would be able to legally obtain them, and anyone possessing a gun could be tried for a serious criminal offense. Also, if guns were outlawed, it would be extremely difficult to get hold of a gun, and the usage rates would drop very low. This would increase safety.

3. Sources, please. I doubt that gun manufacturers and retailers account for a large amount of the working class, as many weapons dealers produce for the military.

4. Why would civilians not having guns increase the time it took for law enforcement to get to you? Also, it is the job of law enforcement to ENFORCE THE LAW through whatever means necessary. It is not the job of civilians to enforce the law, stop crime, etc.
Debate Round No. 2


Its obvious that you have not done your research. In 2008 and 2010 the supreme court issue two 2nd amendment decisions. In district of Columbia's vs Heller,554 U.S. 570 (2008) . The court ruled that the second amendment protects the individuals rite to posse's a firearm unconnected to services in a militia. And to use those arms for self defense.

And you are rite about 2 wrongs not making a right but that's not what were talking about here were talking about our rites and the rites of the people. Also you said it rite when you talked about how guns would be harder to get for the fact they are illegal. Now guns will be alittle harder to get but not for the ones that know were to look for them witch is why there called criminals, Think about it. They will get guns and break into your house and kill you and the police will not have the time to get to you. Did you know that after they ban guns in Australia it costed tax payers 500 million and in the first year homicide went up 6.2%, assault 9.6% , armed robbery went up 44%. Think about that for a min.


PhantomJedi759 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by hosslay 5 years ago
Look it up. its not just a militia. its the rite of the people.
Posted by Aned 5 years ago
I would like to ask pro what the Supreme Court has to do with the Constitution, as if we did not know how to read. Con was more than clear when interpretering the second amendment, "If you do not belong to a well organized militia and own a gun, you are forfeiting the Constitution." Moreover, judges in the Supreme Court differ from each other when interpreting the Constitution.
Posted by PhantomJedi759 5 years ago
I sincerely apologize; I did not log back on in time. Pro deserves full victory. Again, my apologies to everyone. Pro, I would be happy to try this again with you sometime, if you wish.
Posted by hosslay 5 years ago
Please vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UltimateSkeptic 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct for not forfeiting his side of the debate. Con receives spelling and grammar. Convincing arguments are demanded in the favor or Pro because Con never formed a rebuttal.