The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 71407
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.

First round for acceptance only.


I accept, and look forward to this debate. Just so no time is wasted in asking for clarifications in the first and second rounds, could you please be very specific on terms of importance. For instance "infringed." Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1


We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word "infringed". [1]

The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.

In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.

The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.




I appreciate the clarification.

First, the United States Constitution does state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," however, this is not the only statement made in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually beings with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and then follows "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The interpretation of this Amendment is in no way settled, and it may in fact be more telling of what the framers intention was by the first half of the sentence and not the last.

I don't find it necessary to address the second claim, as it is completely subjective.

The next claim, "in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower," is simply incorrect. First, because the United States is has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by 34 % (

Also, I find it worth noting that it seems my opponent is implying that the United States is a Tyranny, otherwise I don't see this statement to have any necessity. The United States is not a Tyranny. The utterance of this phrase in the last four years is nothing more than propaganda.
Debate Round No. 2


"The United States is not a tyranny."

I agree, and never said it was. I was stating that it is my easier for an armed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government, and that our founders knew that. Furthermore, at the time of the writing of the Constitution the "Militia" referred to all males old enough to fight.[2]

The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to arms.[1][2]

A closer examination of the chart my opponent referenced[3] actually works for my argument. For instance, Sierra Leone, at the time the data for this chart was collected, civilians were prohibited from owning firearms. Yet, Sierra Leone had 2.28 Gun Homicides per 100,000 people, only slightly lower than the United States. Furthermore, with guns in Sierra Leone numbering 0.6 per 100 people, guns were used to commit 87.7% of the homicides.

When ranked by the number of gun homicides per capita, the United States doesn't even make the top 25. In the top 25 gun homicide per capita nations, not a single one has a number of guns greater than 25 per 100 citizens.

In Brazil, a nation with a population roughly 2/3 that of the United States, and ranked 75th in gun ownership, has about three and a half times more gun homicides and and ranks first in percentage of homicides by gun.

In fact, when ranked by total number of homicides by gun, the US ranks 5th. The top for all have populations lower than the US, and not one of them has a gun ownership rate above 15 per 100 citizens. The ownership rate in the US is 88.8 per 100 citizens.

What does all of this show? First, a nation where private ownership of guns was banned had a massive percentage of their homicides committed with guns. They saw the error of their ways a legalized private ownership about two years after the data in the chart was collected.[4] The only country that had a higher rate of their homicides involve a gun was Leichtenstein at 100%, but to be fair that was the only murder in the country all year.

      1. References


        2. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 US 570




I find it interesting that my opponent has used a Supreme Court case as evidence of the "individual right" the Second Amendment affords to American Citizens. The case referred to, District of Columbia v. Heller, does indeed assert the individual right of citizens to possess a handgun for self defense; however, it is equally as important to note that this case was not decided unanimously. In a 5-4 decision, which the Court used textual and historical evidence to decide the original application of the Second Amendment, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all applied the same textual and historical examination of the Second Amendment, but came to a very different conclusion than the majority. This case does not prove any conclusive evidence for the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was only the interpretations of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court at the time. I realize that decision by the Supreme Court have the binding ability of law, or the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, but it is also true that the entire Judicial Review power of the Supreme Court is not found in the Constitution; it was a product of the Courts decisions in Marbury v. Madison, and Cooper v. Aaron.

I included the chart on the Washington post's website to respond to my opponents argument "in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower," which shows that there is no higher gun ownership than the United States. The debate to crime differences overall must be omitted, being that the chart only provides information about gun violence and crime. But since my opponent spent a large part of their rebuttal giving examples and comparisons based upon this data, I will respond to it as well. Being that I find a fundamental flaw in the examples and comparisons given, I will address the comparisons as a whole, instead of responding to them individually. The overall objection I have is the incompatibility of the countries that are being compared as examples. I will use the resource "" as evidence of the generally accepted rankings and theoretical approach to calculating the "quality of Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the non-political dimensions)." The website lays out its ranking system as such "all indicators are transformed to a value range of 1 to 100, where "1 represents the weakest (poorest) and 100 the strongest (best) value." If you look at the rankings, a few interesting factors arise. First, Sierra Leon is not on the list. This is because this website only uses countries that are categorized by Freedom House as either "free" or "partly free." Is this not a telling indication that the comparison of Sierra Leon and the United States may not be the best? The United States is categorized by Freedom house as completely free, with a "democracy score" of 76.9; where as Sierra Leon is not even included because it isn't a "free" or "partly free state." This has to be taken into account when comparing the gun homicides in each country. The Brazil comparison is indeed a better one, but is still in the "medium 2/3" of all countries on the democracy ranking site. Would it not be more advantageous to compare apple with apples? When looking at the top 10 on the democracy rating compared to the United States on the Washington Post website, the U.S. is number one in gun ownership as previously stated, and Switzerland is third. Although Switzerland has a higher total gun homicide rate of 72.2 compared to the U.S. 67.5, the total number of gun homicides in each becomes relevant to examine. This is where the biggest jump in data between the top 10 "democracies" and the United States happens. Switzerland had a total of 57 homicides by gun, compared to the United States at 9,960. Of the top 10 "democracies" on the democracy ranking website, the next highest number besides the U.S. is Germany with 158. We have to travel over 30 spots on the total homicides by guns to reach our first top 10 "democracy." There is a 9,802 difference between the United States and Germany of total homicides by gun. This cannot be due to nothing.

In summary, there is a heck of a lot of data to sift through and attempt to determine what is important and what is not. The statistical significance of these categories would take far to much time and effort to exert for this debate, so I present all this information only to illuminate the inconsistencies in comparisons and other possible factors leading to the numbers presented on the Washington Post. I don't not contest the necessity of citizens protecting themselves by the use of guns, but to say that they are used only for this purpose would be absurd, that is evidenced by the number of homicides by guns in the U.S. on the Washington Post's website. Keeping and bearing arms for the soul purpose to defend against tyrannical governments or over oppressive governments may indeed be necessary, but that would suggest a cynical view of our government, and the assumption that this tyrannical government will arise at some point. There are plenty of people in Congress that share the views of my opponent, and I would highly doubt they would allow for a tyrannical government to take hold of our country. If we have no faith in our government and its ability to protect and provide for its citizens, then we are having the wrong debate.
Debate Round No. 3


Robert_Weiler forfeited this round.


thenewkid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 2 years ago
Looks like you had a title typo, m8.
No votes have been placed for this debate.