The Instigator
advidiun
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

gun rights should NOT be taken away.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,737 times Debate No: 1369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (19)

 

advidiun

Pro

If we take away gun rights innocent people would be un armed against intruders.
Imagine how many people have been saved by just owning a gun. you cannot expect taking away gun rights will keep criminals from getting them. After all they do still get a hold of drugs don't they?
cody30228

Con

Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc.
Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms.

I will debate the validity of having the RIGHT to own a gun. In my position as con, I will argue that people have the PRIVILEGE to own a gun :)

Ok?

Good, so to begin we must decide what a right and what a privilege is:

Right: something guranteed that you do not have to deserve
Privilege: something granted that you have to deserve

I agree, the ability to own a gun is good. But it is also bad.
1.) You must get a license to own a gun, therefore, a gun is a privilege not right
2.) Those who want to commit crimes should not have the right to own a gun. If the right to bear arms was in fact a privilege to bear arms, then less people would be able to grab a gun and shoot someone.
Debate Round No. 1
advidiun

Pro

ok i somewhat agree that it should be a privelege.

but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes.

If you do not have a liscence you should not be able to own any more than a simple small calliber hand gun. not every thing should need a liscence.

If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime.

when i started this debate i expected someone who would say that no regular citizens should own guns. arguing against you makes things more complicated.
cody30228

Con

Here is what you said
"but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes."
-You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people
only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun
only those over the age of __
no more handguns to those without a military license
some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege
this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves

"If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license."
First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point.

Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed.

"If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime."
This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime
Debate Round No. 2
advidiun

Pro

a comment made said that criminals can get guns and hurt people if gun rights are kept. but if they are dangerous criminals it should be hard for them to get guns and if gun rights are kept the victims may be able to better defend themselves.

Drugs are illegal but people still get those. people will still be able to smuggle guns around too.

Imagine this: dave is a law abiding citizen so he does not own a gun. joseph gets an illegal gun and breaks into daves house dave grabs a knife but is shot before he can defend himself.

If guns are not legal and a criminal wants to hurt or kill someone they can still use bombs kinves poisons or everyday objects to use as clubs. these objects are not also potentiall dangerous but easy to make untraceable.
cody30228

Con

I agree with your example, which is why I did not say guns should be illegal. I said they should be a privilege, not a right.
I gave many reasons why above.
You did not attack these reasons.
I gave many reasons why bearing arms as a right is bad.
You did not attack these specific reasons.

I have proved why gun rights should be taken away and they should be instituted as a privilege.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I don't know how I feel on the issue. I don't think we should take the rights away , however I do think there should be some ground rules. For example, I think we should prosecute parents if they have guns and do not lock the guns up and a child gets ahold of the gun. I think although people have a right to own guns , they need to accept responsibility for their guns. So I voted not in favor , but I suppose I am really not oppsed as much as thinking there should be some rules and responsibility with gun ownership. I do think to take this right away will only cause more illegal guns and then we won't have record of the guns. Guns are going to be bought , so at least when they are bought legally there are records kept and guns are registered. However I do think people should be held accountable. I do not think a person with a criminal record (involving a gun or violence ) should be able to buy a gun. (maybe they can't I am not that informed of gun laws). Like I said parents should be held responsible if a child can gain acess to their guns.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
I dunno, Hitler's speeches were pretty effective at killing people.

I just don't see how you can pick and choose which amendments you like, and which ones we could do without. How about the amendment about search and seizure, or the one dealing with private property?

In short, you start screwing with the Constitution in the name of "safety," and it won't end until they do away with YOUR favorite amendment.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
Look what I say ion a debate round does not reflect my personal views. It's called debate and playing the devil's advocate. Look at my profile. What does it say I support about 2nd amendment?

But why would it be fought so much? It's not hard to get a hunting license, and people could respect the fact it's for one's own good.

Plus it's a compromise between dems and GOPs.

Why would free speech by a privilege. I have reasons why 2nd amendment should be. There is logic behind one and not the other. One kills people, the other doesn't.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Yeah, I read it. I can't believe someone from Texas wants to take away a Constitutional right, particularly gun ownership, and make it a PRIVILEGE. Sorry, but gun owners across the US would fight you tooth and nail on that one.

Again, perhaps we could make the exercise of free speech a privilege, subject to control by the government.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
I wonder, have you read anything I posted above? I do not wish to remove the ability to own a gun. Simply making it harder to get a gun and make it a privilege.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
"I said this for the sake of debate because the second-amendment can be, well, amended"

So can the First Amendment. Would you like that?

The Second Amendment was primarily created, not to allow people to have self-defense against criminals (although they have that right) but to protect an unarmed populace against a tyrannical government. I can't say with absolute certainty, but it's always been a position of MANY people that the placement of the amendment allowing citizens to own firearms (or weapons in general) is indicative as to how important the Founders thought this right was.

As to taking guns away from EVERYONE, that's a well-meaning but poorly-thought-out position. It hasn't stopped criminals in the UK from perpetrating an INCREASE in gun-related crime, because guns can be made (they've been making guns out of things like car antennas -- zip guns -- for decades) or smuggled in to those willing to pay the cash to accomplish that, and the reason that criminals are criminals is that they don't CARE about obeying laws. All this Pollyannaish hope that taking all the guns away would result in is to create a nation of sheep (law-abiding citizens) subject to being harvested by a subset of wolves (criminals). Might as well walk around with a target on my back and a sign that says "Please rob me."
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
"Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc.
Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms'

I said this for the sake of debate because the second-amendment can be, well, amended
Posted by TeaandScarves 9 years ago
TeaandScarves
Just think about this avidiun.

You say that "If we take away gun rights innocent people would be unarmed against intruders."

If we keep gun rights, guilty people would be able to hurt the innocent people. It would really even out and it does.

If we DON'T keep gun rights, then NEITHER side (presumably) has a gun, meaning no one is injured or dies and instead the intruder is penalized justly through a court of law.

To cody.
Guns are very easy to get even if you don't have a license or have evil intentions. Gun shows will sell guns to almost anyone. Even obtaining a license is not difficult, not much more so than obtaining a driver's license. These simple regulations are not stopping gang fights ending with gun deaths. They are not stopping kids from pulling guns out of their parent's drawer and accidentally injuring or killing someone.

Capt.Herp.
I agree with your statement that about the Bill of Rights. I still don't support the second amendment, but what you are saying in response to Cody is true.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Excuse me, Cody, but in Arizona you don't have to get a license to own any legal firearm at all. Where did you get your information?

I can go downtown tomorrow, if I have the cash, and buy guns all day with no "license." You better do a bit of research.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. There is no Bill of Privileges.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by paulbrevik 3 years ago
paulbrevik
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: pro gave good reasoning
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
advidiuncody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: His arguments where self defeating, poor, short, and well not logical.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 5 years ago
DevonNetzley
advidiuncody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The sheer thought of taking away our rights is un American. Cody30228 stated to take away one of our rights and that is just not cool man.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
advidiuncody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses points for grammar, but Pro used more common sense tactics
Vote Placed by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by crabjuicer 9 years ago
crabjuicer
advidiuncody30228Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30