The Instigator
mghee188
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
WhiteWolf
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

We all have the right to keep and 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 2 votes the winner is...
mghee188
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,586 times Debate No: 15018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

mghee188

Pro

We all have the right to bear arms, isn't that what the U.S Constitution states? So why is it all of a sudden horrible to own a gun. People argue guns kill people, but last time I checked the gun was not going off by itself, they had a hand attached to it and someone pulling the trigger. When people look into the horror stories of owning a gun people only see the negative facts, and now with that in play many people want to ban guns in general. They want to get rid of organizations like the NRA and give people "mental health -checks" to see if they are sane enough to own a gun. Even if you ban guns they are still going to have a way to obtain them illegally. Like the constitution states we all have the right to bear arms, why take the option away now?
WhiteWolf

Con

No, we actually don't have the right to bear arms without a license. Killing a Bear, and taking its arm is considered poaching in America, and in most states can result in serious jail time. When this amendment was passed there were no poaching laws so this was acceptable. Now the bear population has gone down, and we need to protect them from people like you. The constitution did say we have the right to bear arms, but we need to protect the bears, and thats why states have made laws against it. This amendment is almost impertinent now.
Debate Round No. 1
mghee188

Pro

If you actually read the U.S Constitution you would know that the right to bear arms means carrying a firearm. Killing a bear has nothing to do with this unless you hunt, and in that case people do have the right to hunt. I do understand that if a specific species is at risk, hunting is not appropriate. Otherwise hunting and shooting a gun is a perfectly acceptable hobby; many people make a living hunting and feeding their family if necessary. So once again I do not see why it is so horrible to own a gun, and why to this day they think it is necessary to take away our right to bear arms.
WhiteWolf

Con

I have read the U.S. Constitution, and this is what the second amendment says.
"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"
So where does it say something about owning a fire arm? It says we have the right to have bear arms?
If no one had guns, bear arms, or any weapons, and were educated, they wouldn't want to kill anyone. So there would be no reason for a militia.
Debate Round No. 2
mghee188

Pro

Well I have also read the U.S Constitution and in my reading the Second Amendment had two clauses. The first clause being the Militia clause which you mentioned - Militia Clause (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.) Except the Second Amendment also holds the clause Right to Arms Clause - Right to Arms Clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.) What people don't realize is many pass this clause over because they are more concerned with the security of a free state, but I assure you it's in the text. If you would like to see where I obtained my information from here is the website.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu...

If no one had guns, bear arms, or any weapons, and were educated, they wouldn't want to kill anyone. So there would be no reason for a militia.
--> So what your basically saying if we had no guns there would be no war, so having no guns would stop the violence? I would beg to differ. People who are educated would have to realize the guns are not making people violent, people have a natural aggression anyway - regardless without guns people are still going to find the need to argue, be right, and fight for whatever they believe in. Also many people do not own guns just for killing, there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets for example take the NRA. The NRA isn't encouraging anyone to hunt they are encouraging people to fight and protect the second amendment and our rights as citizens and civilians to bear arms.
WhiteWolf

Con

But we still don't have the right to bear arms? I would appreciate it if you weren't such a poaching advocate.
Ok the NRA leader (Charles Heston) believes all these guns problems are because we have a more mixed ethnicity in the United States. Let me go over the reason you should vote con. I don't support poaching, and I am not racist.
One quote pro said was this. " there is a deeper meaning behind the bullets"
Are you on acid?
I would just like to say to you mghee188, that there are places to help people like you. Poaching is a curable problem, but stupidity isn't. Guess you will have to live with that.
Around 4:40 is where Charles Heston makes the NRA sound so great.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
Ronald Reagan? No, it is not. The picture was a picture of Richard Nixon, smart one.
Read a history book, why don't ya?
Posted by WhiteWolf 6 years ago
WhiteWolf
Troll? Of course not.
Unrealistic logic? Says the guy with a Ronald McReagan profile picture.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
"Let me go over the reason you should vote con. I don't support poaching, and I am not racist."

umm.....
Posted by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
WhiteWolf, Charles Heston is not the leader of the NRA. He died back in 2008.
I'm giving my vote to Pro. Con just seemed to be trolling, if you ask me, and used unrealistic logic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
mghee188WhiteWolfTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly, but amusing.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
mghee188WhiteWolfTied
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: Conduct- pro. Just read the last argument.. S/G- Tied. Arguments- Mghee. Whitewolf uses semantics, and makes ridiculous arguments, and drops the argument that people will still get guns illegally. Sources- pro. Mghee188 had better sources more reliable, while con only had a youtube video of a guy who died.