The Instigator
BigSky
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
josh.schamberger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

United States citizens should not be denied the right to bear arms by government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
BigSky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,095 times Debate No: 29750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

BigSky

Pro

United States citizens have the right to bear arms under the second amendment of the constituion, and cannot be denied this right through gun control.
josh.schamberger

Con

Your argument is one that lacks a considerable amount of information. 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. And these rifles have no purpose besides to take the lives of another human being and to satisfy testosterone ridden fantasies.
Debate Round No. 1
BigSky

Pro

To start I would like to thank you for accepting my debate, this is my first and I wish you luck.

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.

http://www.businessweek.com...
josh.schamberger

Con

I will rebut in reverse order. 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. If one is so inclined to have a rifle and use it for a good cause join a military force. As for the burglar scenario, in most house robbery situations the distance between you and your intruder is less that 10 yards a shotgun (which can be used for hunting) would be more than sufficient enough to either intimidate said intruder or take him down.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
BigSky

Pro

Thank you for the response, I will begin by pointing out several fallacies in your argument.

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.

http://www.ammoland.com...

There are about 80 more reasons on this site for your viewing pleasure.
josh.schamberger

Con

josh.schamberger forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Pro presented a pretty long laundry list of reasons for assault weapons (I should point out that they are not technically assault rifles). Con has their work cut for them to refute all or a majority of those uses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
BigSkyjosh.schambergerTied
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:60 
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.