The rite to bare arms
Debate Rounds (3)
1. 2nd amendment rites
2. Safety and protection
I will debate you on all of the points you have listed. Please remember that as Pro, the burden of proof falls on you.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UltimateSkeptic 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||1|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.