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

US citizens should have 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: 12/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 41626
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The motion is that US citizens should have the right to bear arms.

Pro shall support the motion and give evidence whilst con shall oppose the motion.

I wish my opponent the best of luck.


I accept your debate. Look forward to debating you. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


never, they wouldn't know how to handle them. we should give guns to everybody in your case, especially Britain, don't you agree?


People should be allowed gun rights for two basic reasons. One people should be able to protect themselves. Gun control wont protect you. This is because any thug who really wants a gun can get one. Criminals don't obey gun laws. Meth is illegal, but any one can cook it up in their kitchen. Same thing with guns. You can buy stuff easily on a black market including guns. The argument that guns will cause unrest is impratical because the people that's will cause trouble can get a gun any way. This means a society with gun control is less safe. Even if someone cant get a gun, they can beat someone with a crowbar knowing that the person wont have a gun.The second reason is to resist tyranny. I know this makes me sound like conspiricy theorist stocking up on guns in preperation for martial law, but this is what the 2nd ammendment was inntended to do. George Orwell said, "The rifle on the wall of a labours house is the true symbol of democracy." Even though in most countries chances of tyranny and dictatorship are very slim, it is better to be prepered then lose your freedoms. A people without weapons cant resist any taking of their rights by a government. Probibility wise, dictator ship in a indistrual nation is bound to happen eventually. Considering the rise of fachist, racist parties across Europe, this may be sooner then expected. When dictatorship comes, the people will resist the loss of their freedoms, or grovel and accept their serfdom. A people armed can resit any attempt to strip them of their rights.
Debate Round No. 2


In launching my debate, I would like to remind pro that this debate is not about gun control, but questions the basis of the Second Amendment. I apologise that I did not stipulate this clearly enough in the motion.

However, I must also consider the generalities which pro is guilty of. Pro assumes that a society with gun control is less safe, yet does not take into account that the USA is one of the very few, if not only, developed countries in the world that does not just allow guns, but places them as a civil right for its citizens. In addition, of all the developed countries, it has the highest gun related mortality rate, suggesting that it is not any more safe than Germany or Norway. Much to contrary, killing someone with a crowbar, although plausible, is not nearly as effective as killing somebody with a gun. America's gang violence is mainly attributed to the use of firearms, yet if there were no firearms, that does not mean that they would all resort to using blunt force weaponry and have the modern day equivalent to a swashbuckle. Simply put, if an effective means to an end is taken away, it provides a deterrent towards that end. An individual may feel safer with the protection of a gun, but that does not relate to the Second Amendment's wider social context. Indeed, society is less safe when each individual has the potential to efficiently kill one and other. This argument of mechanised death can be seen in recent massacres throughout the United States and if we were to accept the premise of my argument then we also must accept that these massacres would have been prevented had there had been no right to the Second Amendment.

In regards to his points on resisting tyranny, pro is using the theoretical argument of the Second Amendment, subjective to the 18th Century Founding Fathers and, although, it made sense in its historical context, that does not necessarily mean it is relevant to modern day practice. Indeed, it could be considered outdated and impractical in regards to the 21st Century, much to the fact that its conceptualisation was contextualised by the "evil tyranny" of the British Empire. In terms of society, I have already outlined why it is not practical to the modern day, as guns do not solely serve their intended purpose, but a whole amalgamation of them, many of which are ethically wrong. The probability of a dictatorship rising in an industrialised nation needs to take into account political science before it can be argued. There is no reason, beyond speculation, to believe a political dictatorship has any chance of arising in the USA. Before proceeding to my next point I would like to point out that the intended use (Founding Fathers) of guns is not their utilitarian use. Their utilitarian use is to put a bullet into a living creature, to the effect of injuring it or killing it. It is thus, up to the individual to decide what this utility will be toward. The intended use of giving Afghanistan weaponary during the Cold War was intended for them to fight the Russians, but the de facto result was them using it to fight us in the modern day.

In the event of overthrowing government, for whatever reason, the utilitarian use of a gun would open up the possibility of smaller social groups to establish their own rights, rather than the rights of the American people as a whole. All the more so with the varying social groups of the US. In the event of a destabilised government, any group, for example Neo-Nazis, could establish power as dissident groups across the US. To this effect, pro is using a simplistic argument, which in reality is subject to the differing variables of socio-political reality.

Pro also has very very limited knowledge of the rise of fascist parties across Europe. Europe is a more progressive society than the US as a whole, with note to Northern Europe and these groups are very marginal and have little hope of attaining power, politically or by force, because they do not have a right to arm themselves. Indeed, marginalised groups in the US have a greater possibility of insurgency, as they have access to weaponry. I could argue this with the massacres that have already taken as unaffiliated, individualist insurgencies, commonly ending in suicide.

In rebuttal, I would also like to note that the Second Amendment does not only affect the US, but its neighbour, Mexico. Firearms are continuously traded with the cartels in exchange for drugs and have empowered them to take over much of the country, with resultant damage.

In conclusion, pro does not take into account the utilitarian purpose of firearms, merely their intended use, as outlined by Second Amendment, which is a dated piece of legislation and has no relevance to how the Second Amendment should be considered in the modern day.


Ok, first of all, i would like to point out, even though america has a high rate of gun violence, the areas with more guns ad less gun control have less crime. The violence is in cities with strict gun control. Citizens cant get guns, but street gangs sure can. secondly, even though some countries with gun control have less gun violence, they have more rapes and robberies. this is because one person cant fend off a group without a gun.

The second part is this tyranny issue, con has said that Fascist parties in nothern europe have no chance of taking power. This is a very stupid statment. There are no fascist in nothern europe, but central and western europe are crawling with them. Example would be france. The Front National is leading in some polls with 25%. This is a party that has a anti-semetic history, but calls all muslims in france not a part of true french culture and nationality. That sounds quite like the nazis. Greece is falling into chaos and the neo-nazi Golden Dawn party is gaining in the polls. Fascist are a huge force in hungery and have held huge, highly racist demonstrations. I wouldn't want to be in Europe. Of course if they come to power Europe is screwed because they don't have weapons. Con says gun control will prevent fascist from getting weapons. That is false. There is a sizable amount of illegal firearms in france and they are increasing. Front National or Golden Dawn will be able to attain weapons. Actually Golden Dawn is already being investigated for smuggling guns around an assassinating people. Yep gun control totally keeps us safe. Despite all the investigations, golden dawns popularity continues to surge. They are the 3rd largest party and their numbers just surged to 10%. They even have greek celebs endorsing them. So your statement is false. We have armed fascist becoming popular and killing people.

Cons third objection is that tyranny will never happen in the unlogical. That is like deciding to not use a seatbelt because a carcrash is unlikely. The constitution is being violated blantenly. Example is that Obama continues to change Obamacare even though the president is not granted the power to alter a law. Not to mention the NSA is pretty much the secret police minus the the kidnappings. Even though they are generally working for the publics safety, the NSA could easily be used to suppress the opponents of the party in power. The IRS has already been used for this purpose. If a government agency trying to suppress free speech isn't tyranny i don't no what is. The IRS and the NSA are the roots of tyranny. The rights of the constitution are slowly meaning less and less. Congress isn't granted the power to regulate commerce in a state. Congress is only granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. However this has been going on for quite a while. This right has slowly dissapered and so will are other rights without protection.
Debate Round No. 3


I must remind pro that this debate is about the legitimacy of the Second Amendment and his argument is hinging on the rise of marginalised parties in Europe. There are many discrepancies and irrelevancies to his deviation of the motion, such as stating that a far right group sounds like Nazis and his mentioning of illegal firearms in France, but they do not need to be considered. In concession, times of economic dishevelment does result in marginalised political parties rising in political profile, but this does not warrant the right to firearms.
Further to this, Pro has not considered many of my arguments and has chosen, instead, to focus on a deviation of the motion and that being justified with a one man smear campaign of Barack Obama. This is a debate all in itself and cannot be considered as justifiable as tyranny. These speculations and generalities, such as a car crash analogy, simply do not justify his position on the motion, to the extent that his argument is faulty.
Indeed, pro's position appears to support my argument that gun's are being considered for their usage, intended by the Founding Fathers, and not on their actual utilitarian use, which is a dangerous gamble to make.
Pro's point of gun violence and cities is, moreover, about the failure of gun control, which is again, a separate debate. I cannot consider pro's arguments, as they are speculative and are full of generalities, with little refutation to the points I have already made.


CON says this debate is about the legitimacy of the second ammendment. The second ammendment was approved by congress and the states. That makes it legitimate. It will exist until it's repealed by another amendment. That isnt that hard to understand. Back to arguments worth having, con says that I am just blasting obama and that guns don't protect you from tyranny.

As of the first point, i'm not just blasting Obama. These policies started with Bush and were continued by Obama. The matter is that allowing goverment agencies the powers they are granted is dangeurus. It is hard for the people in power to not use their powerful agency for their won agendas. The current role of the NSA might not be harmful, but goverment isnt made for such power. The ability to keep tabs on anyone anywhere is the first step to a police state. At first it's just a few muslims. Then it's any one remotly arabic being spyed upon. Then its cartel leaders, crime lords and neo nazis. By these i mean any one with any remote connections to these groups. The ability to tap phones and spy on citizens are the tatics of a secret police, not the protectors of our freedoms. With this power, it is tempting to keep tabs on your rivals Nixon style. Or maybe use some IRS bullying. If you are in a tough spot and your carreer is on the line. You will play dirty. Thats how it always starts.

Assuming tyranny comes to power, America is one of the only countries with the power to resist. The russian people cant overthrow Putin if they wanted. They have no guns. Gun control has been the weapon of tyranny since its creation. Japan banned peasents from owning swords. Gun control was used in the south to stop blacks from defending themselves against the KKK. I bet the Japenese Americans wished they had guns when they were deprived of their liberties and sent to concentrat....... I mean "relocation" camps. You have not made any argument on gun controls supposed benifits so we will assume it has none until u do. Until then, why would you ban guns if it dosnt effect you at all. Thats just telling others how to live their lives.

No goverment can say it is ruled by the people unless the people have the right to rise up against the goverment. This is in the declaration of independence. "When a long line of grievences has accured, it becomes the right of the people to alter or abolish it." If a people cant stand against tyranny what is their to stop tyranny? The knowledge of it being frowned upon? A group will create tyranny if they know there is no threat of a revolt. What better way to stop that other then gun control? To day no one would try to abolish our republic, half the country would be in arms, without guns however, the temptation of the state is stonger.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JackFritschy 3 years ago
Ill just do a basic outline then to keep it fair. Make shure he regrets it.........
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
sorry, somebody commandeered my computer. He paid dearly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by nrpaul1015 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: America is made on the idea of freedom. taking away this right will diminish the meaning of the word here in our country.