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

This House believes in 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  
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: 11/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 64712
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I make the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms. I also clarify that I do not assert the right to military grade weapons. Now to the structure:
1. Acceptance
2. Main Argument (no rebuttal)
3. Rebuttal (no new information)
4. Conclusion/Rebuttal(Include any last information)
If you accept this debate, you accept the outline. Breaking this outline or trolling in any way results in your immediate forfeiture. I hope for a good debate :)



Thanks to my opponent for hosting this debate. Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting. I will jump right in:

1. Guns are a constitutional right because they are both a symbol of power and literal power. In the early days of the United States, weapons were banned from the general public. Why? Guns are a symbol of power. If you own a weapon, you have the means for change and it is used to rise against tyrannical government. Ever since the first French Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England, guns have been used to throw over oppressive government. If we take away guns, we take away the ability to rise against your government. To see the coming argument, guns can be used against the government, which is why I still leave out the use of automatic weapons. Normal weapons, when used en masse, can be used against the government. The majority of the population rising up against a fair government, however, is extremely unlikely and has yet to happen in history.

2. Guns are used for protection. When someone breaks into your house, the first thing you do is get a weapon and call 911. If there was no weapon in this equation, we would tell them not to call the police but the ambulance because there would not be people left to save. Taking guns out of the equation for protection in this day and age makes you more vulnerable than ever before. Having a weapon is key to survival against crime in the home. Without it, crime would spiral out of control. The police can't do anything because they can't be everywhere at once. Only the average person can protect themselves from crime.

3. Guns are to be used correctly. I make this argument, but also add this. I have a strong belief that guns should be regulated. No one with a past of crime, major potential for crime, and needs to be proficient in gun use and safety. There are too many people who don't know how to use firearms and so end up afraid of using them. This is another problem that I accept and should be fixed.

Over to you Con and good luck!


My opponent has stated he is making "the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms." I as Con fully intend to refute this claim that "the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms."


RIGHT:"legal entitlement to have or do something[1]"
ARMS:"Weapons and ammunition; armaments[2]"


(A)Legally Americans don't have the right to bear arms in the sense that most people think of. The "right to bear arms" related to strictly militias. I will explain why thoroughly below.

(1)The origins of the "right to bear arms" is based on the lack of a military industrial complex. Often in modern America, we forget that the idea of a professional military in the United States is little over a century old. Traditionally in the United States, the federal government drafted citizens when the United States needed to fight a war[2]. It wasn't until the periods of after World War I that the idea of maintaining a professional military was thought. The period after World War II, the Cold War, cemented the idea of the United States maintaining a professional military.


Previously, before World War I, states had their own irregular militias which would be called on for service by the federal government first before a draft was initiated. These militias would eventually be what we term in today's time, the National Guard. But in the early days of the United States and during the period when the British governed the colonies, the militias were of great value for the defense of towns. Some states when so far as to require the citizenry to carry firearms. An example of this would be in Maryland how every able man under law was required to carry a gun on his person[4]. The law existed because there was no professional military or large National Guard existent at the time. Citizens were organized themselves into militias to defend their towns. They did not wear uniforms in most cases and were not trained that well at all.


These militias would be the base of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the base of the army during the War of 1812. This is why the Continental Army lost majority of the battles during the American Revolution because these militias were intended for a limited defense of a town not a prolonged war. The "right to bear arms" specifically is related to these poorly equipped and poorly trained militias.

This is very clear by what 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.[5]"


(2) I have no intention of arguing for gun control or anything similar stating guns aren't safe or Americans shouldn't be wielding firearms. I am here to argue that the idea that Americans have the "right to bear arms" for private use is not true and certainly is not a right. The "right to bear arms" related to the public usage of firearms in order to defend the United States via militias which were irregular and unprofessional military forces.

This can easily be seen in English Common Law:
"The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace[4]"

Knowing that the "right to bear arms" related to militias and the public usage of firearms, this refutes the claim that the "right to bear arms" applies to most Americans because they are not part of an irregular military force such as a militia.
Debate Round No. 2


LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments. I have refuted my opponent's claims by showing that the Fourth Amendment was made for public usage of firearms. Therefore, there is no general right to bear arms as my opponent makes the claim. My opponent made the claim for private usage of firearms and I have refuted that claim.

Vote Con please.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
The right to bear arms is conditional in America. If you live in a democrat controlled area, your rights have been rescinded.They call that a gun free zone.I call it a green light for the criminal to ply his trade.And I also see it as a ploy by democrats to take away the fear they would have of the folks to stop their tyranny.When the government fears the people, you have freedom, when the people fear the government you have tyranny, and ultimately firing squads.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
Lol I notice where you see the trap. Suckers we already have the right to bear arms!!! Hahahaha! Lol no I'm not doing that😄
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
yes. I simply was explaining that I believe we "should" be able to own and use guns
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 1 year ago
I would consider taking this, however the wording appears to be a trap. "I make the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms."
Obviously they do (in most places, anyway). Do you mean to debate whether they *should* have the right?
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
lol thought of that right when I put it up. I made sure to get the point across that I'm talking about guns. Gotta love dos bear arms do.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
The right to bear arms?

Poor bears.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture