The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Will gun regulation cause a civil war.

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  
Challenge Expired or Declined
Gahere either declined this challenge, or never responded to it. If you are John_Moses_Browning, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Challenge Declined
Viewed: 152 times Debate No: 96192
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The fact is, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right, second only to the freedom of speech. And if we remove the right which quite literally created this country (as if our forefathers had no firearms we would still be slaves to the British like some of their colonies still are) then we may as well pick a dictator. The primary reason the second amendment is there isn't for hunting, self defense, or even for hostile foreign invasion, but as a means to stop corruption and that if our government ever got tyrannical that the people could stage a revolution and overthrow oppressors. We currently have a federal government that has: forced housing loans creating a housing collapse, started wars for the sole purpose of monetary gain, has intervened in civil wars imposing our government onto them, staged several proxy wars, is in a militaristic alliance with countries that are unstable and can force us into a war, assassinates opposing ideologies, supplies police forces with tanks, violently stopped peaceful protests, has a democide epidemic, and the list goes on. The fact we haven't already revolted is astonishing. And if they know that we can't stop corruption, they will grow corrupt. Freedom isn't free, and the government is whittling away at our freedoms, while downright defaming the right maintaining our freedom. The tensions between parties in this country is at an all time high, and the only news reported is news that causes civil unrest. This is going to end in conflict, unless we can civilly secure our freedoms, which will never happen. This government is now an aristocracy, if you have a familiar last name or pander to the sensationalist liberal media then you have the power to remove checks and balances, to remove threats to your hypothetical regime, to enslave a populace of about three hundred fifty million citizens at your disposal. And that's just the issue of democide, not even touching the issues of self defense nor foreign invasion. For personal defense, I would like to cite the case of British Anthony Martin, a man in rural England who shot two muggers in self defense, killing one of them. He had a formerly legal firearm that the government failed to rob him of, and on what he claimed was his ninth home invasion drew his shotgun loaded with bird shot. He was put on trial, and was told that he should have gotten to a safe place, called the police and screamed for help. There were no neighbors for kilometers, and he had called the police whom refused to send officers. He was accused and convicted of murder in the first degree for self defense. The sentence was life in prison. The verdict was later overturned to manslaughter some years later due to the fact he suffered from paranoia likely gained from the crime wave in his town. He was released in 2015 (with the incident occurring in 1999, a for a grand total of 16 years in prison.) The home invader who had admittedly struck multiple times at multiple areas: 18 months. There is currently an active suit from the burglar that survived for 5000" in damages. That is injustice comparable to guilty until proved innocent. If we allow an America where a home invader has more rights in your own home than you do. But hey, those are just home invasions, what about national invasions. I live in Nevada, and am one hundred fifty miles away from the nearest military base. If there is an invasion, the national guard wont help me, and the police here are a joke, so that lies in the hands of the local militia. If all we have is 5 round mag 10/22's, we are dead. We currently are well armed with everything from M2HB's to M348's to 1911's. Obama's proposed (back in 08) gun law would ban all of those. Another few quick notes are that gun confiscation means that all legal gun owners lose the money they invested into them, gun bans will lead to gun companies leaving, and that gun bans, such as the California .50 ban, can lead to armories refusing to sell to the us government. If we mix all of those factors and the government treads on me and my fellow gun owners I will not hand over my gun nor my dignity bur will instead load it and let them ask for it again. I eagerly await your rebuttal.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 10 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.