The Instigator
zezima
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Kenneth_Stokes
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

banning all guns is wrong

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...
zezima
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,014 times Debate No: 33393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

zezima

Pro

banning all guns is wrong and the American Government should not try or do it.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

I accept that banning all guns is morally right and the American government should at least try to do so.
Debate Round No. 1
zezima

Pro

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.

the reason why we have this amendment is to protect ourselves, mainly from the government. many people believe that the government would never do such a thing. personally I don't think so either, or at least anytime soon. but what I "think" will or will not happen does not matter.

now lets say the government wanted to destroy this country. could they? assuming they could owning guns would not matter. but as long as we own guns, the government will not be able to get too controlling without the people having a say in it.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU.
it is up to you and only you to protect your self from an oncoming attacker. now lets say someone breaks into your house with some type of weapon ( not necessarily a gun). what do you do? try to talk them out of it? fight them? assuming your a guy, what do you think would be best for your family if someone came in trying to hurt them? call the police? it takes time for the police to get to your house. they don't just POOF and magically appear to save the day. yes it is true that there are more unjustified murders than there are justified, but that doesn't make it morally right to take away the best option for someone to protect themselves with.

lets take a look at history. banning all guns always leads to evil dictatorship. now the reason why the second amendment was put into place was so that this would never happen. if we ban all guns, that could lead to this country becoming a communist country. even though this may sound like it would never happen, we can only make this mistake once.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

"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."

Such a quote brings me toward my ultimate resolution. We don't have a well-regulated militia. In fact, the militias we do have are largely based upon irrational fear, leading them to be not militias of the state (although their names may claim to be) but militias of collective individualistic ideologies. There were less than 150 radical militia groups before President Obama took office and now there are more than 1,400, an 800% increase. The irrational fear of a communist dictatorship and broad racism fuel these anti-government groups. They are not for the people or the state. And since there is no such well-regulated militia, then any binding laws that cooperate with such a decree are void.

"the reason why we have this amendment is to protect ourselves, mainly from the government."

False. Our founding fathers gave the civilian the right to bear arms (not restricted to guns) for two current motives in their time: to hunt food and in fear of another British invasion. And as said before, it was intended for those in a well-regulated militia--one in which he do not have.

"THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU. it is up to you and only you to protect your self from an oncoming attacker."

Your arguments are not only inconsistent but contradictory as well. You say the right to bear arms is against the government, yet you use a citizen versus citizen example. As to your example, the "best" way for someone to protect themselves is to place field mines across the lawn, barbed wire fences, posses light-machine guns, and an air-to-ground missile system, yet those are banned... To what limit are we confined? And what if that mentioned criminal was in possession of a gun? Will he not be just as effective, if not more so as he came prepared and you aren't?

"banning all guns always leads to evil dictatorship."

I usually remain formal when debating but that line made me chuckle. Is Australia an evil dictatorship? Or maybe Canada? Japan? The U.S. is leading the world as the highest gun-related death rates in industrial developed societies, and those deaths are virtually never in the name of freedom from tyranny.

"if we ban all guns, that could lead to this country becoming a communist country."

Coincidental I mentioned such an irrational accusation is my first paragraph before I even read this sentence. How peculiar. Either you're trolling or you know nothing about Communism. With that said, I'm not sure on how I should necessary approach this statement other than by saying that Communism has no correlation towards gun control thus making the statement false.

Ultimately an amendment is just that: an amendment; something that is able, and should, be amended to fit the current societies technological advances and social fallacies. It is quite obvious that our founding fathers could not have predicted that assault rifles with high penetration, high accuracy, and a quick loading time that can be mass produced in the hundreds of thousands would ever come to existence. Also to "bear arms" is not restricted or directed strictly towards firearm ownership.

My claim is that with the lethal advancements of weaponry, the vagueness of the amendment, the lack of a well regulated militia, the lack of decent identification needed to purchase a weapon and ammunition, the high crime rate, and the fact that governments who ban gun are functioning perfectly fine is reason enough to ban are guns aside for the use of authority.

Sources: http://www.usatoday.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
zezima

Pro

No, your absolutely wrong. The second amendment was not put in for hunting. You forget the part where it says to protect a free state. This meaning protecting ourselves from the government. Animals aren't going to try and take over our government anytime soon.

Yes there are some good countries that have a ban on guns. But does that mean we should just give up ours? There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good. The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof? Go get your own by going back to school and taking a real US history class.

We should not give up the one right that has the only power of us being able to keep all our other rights.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

"No, your[sic] absolutely wrong. The second amendment was not put in for hunting."

May I clarify and restate that hunting was only part of the reason, nor did I say it was "put in" for hunting, only that hunting inspired, significantly or insignificantly, the reasoning for the amendment. I never once denied that is wasn't from protection from tyranny, nor have I mentioned the invasion of animals. Such motions were only enlarged by you and you alone.

"Yes there are some good countries that have a ban on guns. But does that mean we should just give up ours? There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good."

Where is this evidence? I have shown you mine (Japan, Australia, etc.)

"The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof? Go get your own by going back to school and taking
[sic] a real US history class."

False. The right to bare arms mean to protect yourself with whatever weapons are "in common use of the time". The arms that are to bare are both limited and unlimited. Limited by what is popular in the time of the people. Unlimited as future popularity is ever changing. As for your final two sentences, if you wish to insult me on "proof" perhaps you should get some yourself. By the way most U.S. history classes (except for private schools) fail to elaborate the reasoning of the second amendment, therefore "going back to school" will be quite useless.

"We should not give up the one right that has the only power of us being able to keep all our other rights."

May I state that if the government truly, truly wanted to take away your rights for evil purposes, there is not a single thing you could do about it UNLESS the individuals are allowed to own tanks, mines and other heavy weaponry. A citizen with a gun is naught but a small grain of sand in comparison to the un-manned technologies that our government possesses.

In conclusion, you have either failed or refused to address my remarks regarding: a well-regulated militia, inconsistent arguments, contradictory arguments, my scene regarding the criminal, the (inane) notion that banning guns leads to a Communist dictatorship of sorts, the death toll by firearms, the ignorance of our founding fathers, lethal advancements in weaponry, the lack of well-regulated militia, the lack of identification and mental status needed to purchase a weapon, the high crime rate and the fact that there are democratic governments who have a weapon that operate fairly well. I have effectively rebutted all of yours.

Debate Round No. 3
zezima

Pro

Ok, even if hunting had something to do with it, people still hunt. Some people actually still do it to survive.

From the previous round you said, //"False. Our founding fathers gave the civilian the right to bear arms (not restricted to guns) for two current motives in their time: to hunt food and in fear of another British invasion. And as said before, it was intended for those in a well-regulated militia--one in which he do not have."//
It is not just to protect us from England. It was to protect us from our own government, seeing the history and the reason why we left England in the first place.

Now let"s say we get rid of the second amendment. What are you going to do if the others were also starting to be taken away? I understand the fact that there is a very low chance of this happening, but it still could. Without guns, the government has no reason to fear us, therefore they could do whatever they want. Again there are some things that may make it hard for them to take complete control, but the second amendment is a last resort.

The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700"s. The "militia" clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.
That being said, the militia doesn"t have anything to do with being allowed to own a gun or not.

//"You say the right to bear arms is against the government, yet you use a citizen versus citizen example."//
So what"s your point? I gave you examples of both. Field mines and air to ground missiles are not part of the constitution, and I shouldn"t have to explain that. If you want to understand what I"m saying, go take a history class.

//"May I state that if the government truly, truly wanted to take away your rights for evil purposes, there is not a single thing you could do about it UNLESS the individuals are allowed to own tanks, mines and other heavy weaponry. A citizen with a gun is naught but a small grain of sand in comparison to the un-manned technologies that our government possesses."//

Now ill say this. The marines, army, navy, air force would never turn on us. They fight for America, not the government. Could the government destroy us if they wanted to? Yes whether we had guns or not, they could. But would they be able to take us into their own control? Not very easily.
One grain of sand may not be a lot, but a lot of grains of sand make a beach.

China, North Korea, Hitler did and then was able to kill millions of his own people, because they had nothing to protect themselves with. Japan is not a great example. They listen to what their "owner" says. They don"t need guns because they could attack us in a flash of a second. They did it before, they could "try" it again. Italy, example WW2. England may be in good shape, even though they have a higher crime rate then us, but they are the reason why we put the second amendment in the first place. Your only good example, that you mentioned is Canada. But no one cares to attack Canada and they have many allies that would be able to stop an oncoming attacker. America on the other hand is not very well liked by many powerful countries.

Also a good example of gun control in affect is Chicago. Take a look at that and you will see what I mean.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

"Now let"s[sic] say we get rid of the second amendment. What are you going to do if the others were also starting to be taken away?... Without guns, the government has no reason to fear us..."

Which brings me to another point. The American population, including yourself, do not understand their true power nor what it is in. The American power is in the dollar, not the gun. Instead of clamoring in the streets or threatening violence--which only provokes and gives legal reason for authority to use more aggressive action--the citizen should learn how to spend his/her money and where to do so. As I said, a gun is nothing against the arsenal of the government, and with the advances in machinery and other technologies we really do not need actual people doing physical labor. The only reason we current have people doing labor is for profit and a steady flow in the economy--but that is another topic. My point here is guns are not only unnecessary but ineffective.

"So what"s your point? I gave you examples of both. Field mines and air to ground missiles are not part of the constitution, and I shouldn"t[sic] have to explain that. If you want to understand what I"m saying, go take a history class."

My point is that your argument is void. It was under the objection that if the citizen was armed then he would have been better off, my rebuttal was that if the criminal was armed as well then the citizen would have been in an even worse position, thus the only way to truly defend oneself is with mines and other extreme security procedures. Such an example was to stress the unlimited yet limited meaning of what it means to bear arms. And in what will reenlisting into school and taking an entire year of vague U.S. history benefit me when I can simply look for such information online? If you're going to insult me, do it properly.

"Now ill say this. The marines, army, navy, air force would never turn on us. They fight for America, not the government."

Such is debatable. You do know what propaganda will be used to influence their minds. Many servicemen regret joining, or at least taking an active role, in the mission that they did. They don't know what their doing, they just do as their told. A year ago I was in high school and every now and then I would see someone from JROTC. And after a year of being around them I have came to multiple conclusions: 1.) They know nothing of government or it's policies, 2.) They just want a thrill (I can even show you the twitter account of a current 18 year old Marine who I want to school with and he wants to do is "be in tha sh!t"), 3.) Most are poor and are looking for money, 4.) They believe the military will help them in college, and 5.) Their siblings or parents are/were in it. I list all of this not to discredit the military establishment but to let you know that not every military personnel is this bold, die-hard patriot who wishes to fight for "freedom and democracy", and I use those two words loosely. In fact, out of every person I physically knew wanted to go into the military most of them were/are gangsters. I have yet to physically meet an American who claims they have thoroughly studied the history of the United States, it's laws and relations with other countries and chosen to lay their life of the line to defend it. Never. Not even on the Internet, and the Internet is full of tales. Although I have typed a lot for this one rebuttal, it is all moot because I have stated before that the government possesses high-tech unmanned weaponry. The military is just as useless as the militias.

"China, North Korea, Hitler did and then was able to kill millions of his own people... Japan is not a great example. They listen to what their "owner" says. They don"t[sic] need guns because they could attack us in a flash of a second. They did it before, they could "try" it again. Italy, example WW2."

I truly mean no offense to what I'm about to say (honestly) but you're either trolling or have no rational input about... anything, especially in foreign areas. A person of yourself would have been an up-standing citizen in the McCarthy era. Japan has a fair government just as we do (may the word fair be used loosely). As for your second sentence, it made no sense. "They [Japanese citizens?] don"t need guns because they [Japanese citizens?] could attack us in a flash of a second." WTF? Do you realize that the Japanese are our closest allies in the Asian region? And when Imperial Japan bombed Pearly Harbor, the U.S. was warned by Britain and other others of the invasion but refused to act upon the knowledge. Not to mention the numerous military bases we have in Japan. "Italy, example WW2" What? What does modern day England have to do with with colonial England over 300 years ago? What does an invasion Canada have to do domestic gun policy?

"Also a good example of gun control in affect is Chicago. Take a look at that and you will see what I mean."

My previous examples of countries not only neutralize but overpower Chicago's statistics.

Conclusion. My opponent is either trolling or has so much anti-communist fear installed into him to prevent him from forming a rational opinion about foreign entities. Gun control has proven more positive effects than that of what the second amendment can offer. It is the irrational fear of tyrannical government, and that fear alone, which persuades my opponent into accept current gun "rights" and thus causing the death of many American civilians, a number that at times can override the number of gun deaths in a other foreign countries by over 1000% (even more). And don't even get me started about the massive drug cartels that thrive from our gun rights, which also kills hundreds and thousands of Mexicans per year, not including death by the massive amount of drugs being sold.

To the voters, I am not saying you have to agree with me or my logic, but for the sake of decency, vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
zezima

Pro

//"My rebuttal was that if the criminal was armed as well then the citizen would have been in an even worse position, thus the only way to truly defend oneself is with mines and other extreme security procedures."//

How would the citizen be in a worst position?
You don"t need mines to protect yourself if you got a gun.
A gun is the best option and is a lot safer compared to mines.
I don"t think I should have to explain this.

//"And in what will reenlisting into school and taking an entire year of vague U.S. history benefit me when I can simply look for such information online? If you're going to insult me, do it properly."//
I"m not insulting you, I just get annoyed when people say I need to prove something that is common sense. you have not done this yet so it doesn"t matter.

//"The military is just as useless as the militias"//

Again im saying if the government with a few clicks of a few buttons (long story short), there would be almost nothing we can do. Again if the government wanted to take control without the population being destroyed, is another factor.

//""They [Japanese citizens?] don"t need guns because they [Japanese citizens?] could attack us in a flash of a second." WTF? Do you realize that the Japanese are our closest allies in the Asian region?"//
I said that wrong. I meant the Japanese could attack us, not their citizens. I understand that they are one of our biggest allies, but they were before to.
And please explain the biggest reason I gave, the holocaust. You never explained how I was wrong about that one.

My Chicago point is that we already have so many guns in the country that no gun laws would work. The other countries pretty much had the law from the beginning.
//"And don't even get me started about the massive drug cartels that thrive from our gun rights, which also kills hundreds and thousands of Mexicans per year, not including death by the massive amount of drugs being sold."//

Drugs are banned. You think banning guns will be able to stop this? Already way to many guns to even use an example like this. This example only shows how they would also be able to sneak guns and do with them what they are doing with drugs, hiding wise.
Kenneth_Stokes

Con

"How would the citizen be in a worst position? You don"t need mines to protect yourself if you got a gun. A gun is the best option and is a lot safer compared to mines. I don"t think I should have to explain this."

Okay... Let's break this down into itty-bitty little bits for you. In one scenario we have a criminal breaking into a house with a knife and the owner has a gun either one him or nearby. In the other scenario we have a criminal breaking into a house with a gun at hand and the owner's gun is either one him or nearby. Whether or not the owner kills the criminal or not is not the focus. The second scenario is obviously worst because the criminal has firepower AND he is aware of what he is doing and the owner is not, as he is an unsuspecting victim. Therefore scenario two is worse. Okay?


"...I just get annoyed when people say I need to prove somthing[sic] that is common sense."
"The right to bare arms means to protect yourself with a gun. Not bombs, tanks, or anything like that. You want proof?"

First off, I wasn't asking for proof of what the right to bear arms mean, I was asking proof of, "There is just as much evidence that the outcome could be bad as there is as much that it could do good.". Second, I rebutted the claim that the right to bear arms is limited to a gun by saying, "The right to bare arms mean to protect yourself with whatever weapons are "in common use of the time". The arms that are to bare are both limited and unlimited. Limited by what is popular in the time of the people.", something you have not rebutted but insisted on directing me to retake a high school class. It is YOU who focused on proof for your own claim. And, yes, you are insulting me by implying that I don't have a basic High School education.

" I understand that they are one of our biggest allies, but they were before to[sic]."

Before what? World War II? No they weren't. Such irrational fears are void.

"And please explain the biggest reason I gave, the holocaust. You never explained how I was wrong about that one."

You didn't specifically say the Holocaust, you just said "Hitler". But as a response it is difficult to claim Jews as "his people" for they were rounded up and exterminated. It wasn't as if Hitler publicly made guerrilla warfare with the Jews. Even if they were in possession of arms, they would have still been stripped, rounded up and placed into concentration camps. Since this was done systematically in secret the Jews would not have known what to do before it was too late.

"My Chicago point is that we already have so many guns in the country that no gun laws would work."

Such defeatist logic is futile. It is better to minimize pain than to prolong it by letting the source of pain (guns) roam freely simply because a 100% neutralization is not probable.

"Drugs are banned. You think banning guns will be able to stop this?"

Again with the defeatist attitude. Doing something is better than nothing. They enforce their drugs and kill people in the masses because of easy access weaponry they buy here. Ban such weaponry and their cartel will crumble to the point of where it is nothing but another drug gang.

Banning guns in America is morally right, not just as an American citizen, but as a humanitarian. Such bans will drastically decrease the number of deaths in the U.S., Mexico, and northern South America and cripple cartels as well. Not only that but even if I am wrong my opponent is clearly not the better debater. He obviously has xenophobia and other irrational fears.









Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Aaannnnnd I lose yet another debate because of one inane voter.
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 4 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Kwhite7298's vote makes no sense. He claims I introduced no arguments and that neither of us had sources. Yet I was the only one to have sources (two) and my arguments were scattered within the rebuttals are collectively defined in round 4.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
i don't have any irrational fears, just explaining why the second amendment was put in place. and yes it was put in place so the government wont get too controlling. I don't believe we will be taken over by our own government, and I don't think it is possible to be invaded by another country. or it at least wouldn't work out that well. guns don't keep other countries from invading? " a rifle behind every blade of grass". this is part of the quote a Japanese admiral gave, one of the reasons why they didn't even try to invade our country.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
zezimaKenneth_StokesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Kenneth because zezima personally attacked Kenneth ("no you're absolutely wrong"). Arguments to zezima because I didn't see Kenneth introduce his own arguments, instead, every single post was spent shooting down zezima's. No sources either side so it's tied.