United States citizens should not be denied the right to bear arms by government
Debate Rounds (3)
You said: "You first need to know that the government does not intent on taking guns that have practical use. They want to enforce more strict rules against the purchasing of semi-automatic rifles."
I must first point out this is not factual, and you have yet to define "practical use." Any gun you would use to defend yourself if a burglar entered your home would have practical use, even if it was as unnecessary as an assault rifle. I must correct you, they want to enforce stricter laws on guns besides assault rifles, but they want to ban the assault rifles entirely. Quite frankly, some gun control may be fine, but it simply cannot be done. Any attempt to prevent an American from ownership of a gun by the federal government is against the second amendment by definition. Which is here for you to see. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
You Said: "And these rifles have no purpose besides to take the lives of another human being and to satisfy testosterone ridden fantasies."
I agree that the assault rifle was designed to take the life of another human being, but why does that mean its only purpose is to satisfy testosterone ridden fantasies? Assault Rifles are an excellent foreign invasion deterrent, in World War II, Fleet Admiral and Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese National army stated he could not invade the United States because it was like " a rifle behind every blade of grass." Is this invasion unrealistic? Today, Muslim extremists still dream of the day when they will once again control the civilized world, like they once did as the Ottoman Empire. Any invader wouldn't dare face a hundred-million armed Americans. Yes, we do have an advanced military, but as we've seen in the past few decades, Terrorists abroad have shown that they will attempt to attack us anyway.
Gun control laws does not equal the violation of their second amendment right. One can't own a RPG in most states. Is this a violation of ones second amendment right? The answer may differ between us but i would say with all certainty NO because this is an unnecessary weapon that has no other practical purpose opposed to a shotgun or handgun which could also be used for hunting and are more than sufficient for protection against a burglar.
3 shots is the average amount of bullets fired in a home invasion, now tell me why you would need a 30+ shell magazine and an assault rifle when a handgun would be just as effective. And if it takes someone that many shots to hit a target they should not be trusted to operate such a weapon.
You said: "The government is not trying to take away assault rifles from the military if that's what your insinuating I'm saying. My argument is that an assault rifle is an unnecessary weapon for anyone in the common public to own."
I was not insinuating what you were saying, in the first round, you stated that the federal government was not attempting to ban assault rifles, only to put laws in place that limited their use. I in turn, gave you an source that validates the fact that government is indeed attempting a total ban on all assault rifles. I apologize if there was confusion. Also, I agreed that the assault rifle is an unnecessary weapon, but an unnecessary weapon that citizens have the right to own. I also said that while it was unnecessary, any gun can have practical use in protecting a home.
You Said: "this is an unnecessary weapon that has no other practical purpose opposed to a shotgun or handgun which could also be used for hunting and are more than sufficient for protection against a burglar...3 shots is the average amount of bullets fired in a home invasion, now tell me why you would need a 30+ shell magazine and an assault rifle when a handgun would be just as effective."
First off, I never said that a shotgun or handgun wasn't a better choice for self-defense, I said that any gun has practical use when it comes to defending your home. Next, I must ask you for a citation of where you found that " on average, there are three shots fired in a home invasion." I also must ask my opponent where they obtained the data that a handgun would be more effective to defend yourself then an assault rifle, or is it your own opinion? So far my opponent has failed to cite any source to back up his views, and has given no evidence to why an assault rifle should be banned, which was the topic of the argument.
An assault rifle may be "unnecessary," but here are some reason they are useful.
1.to defend yourself against a street gang.
2. to defend yourself against mob violence.
3. to defend yourself against looters.
4. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.
5. to shoot in an "Action Rifle" or "Practical Rifle" target match.
6. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).
7. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.
8. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.
9. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.
10. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.
11. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.
12. to save time while shooting.
13. to have increased reliability in functioning.
14. to have a longer lasting firearm.
15. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.
16. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.
17. to have an easier to repair firearm.
18. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.
19.. to have a more versatile firearm.
To the safe gun owner, these are reason enough for ownership. I admit that not all gun owners are responsible, but also not all gun owners are effective with their weapons, as you mentioned earlier.
There are about 80 more reasons on this site for your viewing pleasure.
josh.schamberger forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct points because Con forfeited the last round. Con didn't use any sources. Pro's arguments were never refuted.
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.