The Instigator
FunyBone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aned
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

how wrong you are

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 2 votes the winner is...
Aned
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,147 times Debate No: 28365
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

FunyBone

Con

Simple statement...

YOU are wrong.

"We the people" were the militia... no matter how you libs try to twist that FACT.
Aned

Pro

One way the NRA has been able to manipulate the public is by labeling people with different names to discredit them in a very simplistic way. I am not a liberal, nor a democrat, nor a republican, nor a marxist, nor nothing. I am my own person, a free thinker that does not belong to any association. I do not like parties, to begin with.

The Constitution mentions "a well-regulated militia" and "people" (plural), not individual citizens. Besides, it was written thinking on muskets, not AR-15s or AK-47s.

Besides, the Constitution was not a perfect document. That is why it had to be amended several times such as to grant women the right to vote and to allow interracial marriages. It did not abolish slavery either. And every generation has the right to make any change to meet its needs. The Constitution is an evolving document.
Debate Round No. 1
FunyBone

Con

Apparently you are extremely liberal as you berate the NRA while trying to claim innocence at not using labels.

Now on to your absurd claims.

1st)
The Militia Acts of 1792 actually required all able-bodied white males between 18 and 45 to own a "good musket or forelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack" among other goods.

The "good musket or forelock" would be the equivalent of modern day weaponry in terms of relative applicability. As the MILITARY used those very same weapons. The error on your part is that you erroneously equate a painted, plastic stock gun to military grade armament.

2nd)
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

3rd)
YOUR claim that the constitution and Bill of Rights are flawed.

What you refer to as evolving subjective is nonsense" Your use subjective (evolving) interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress. ie: slavery and women's rights. That is why we pass laws.
Aned

Pro

If being against the proliferation of assault rifles means being liberal, then the majority of people in England, Japan, Australia, and most of the world are also liberals. But I differ from that because most level-headed conservatives most likely oppose assault rifles, too. Moreover, I do not see the connection between partisan interests and the right approach that every reasonable politician needs to implement. During these days, I have not seen any conservative person talking in defense of assault rifles despite all the opposition that is soaring against the NRA. If they were so certain about the need of assault rifles, they would be standing up for them in this critical moment. But they cannot be found.

Ridiculously, a CEO representing the NRA suggested on national TV that every school needs the presence of a police officer to avoid more massacres, while not even mentioned any measure that could prevent the easy access to AR-15s and AK-47s.

I do not think that it is too convenient or tactical for conservatives to label people who oppose assault rifles as "liberals."
Debate Round No. 2
FunyBone

Con

1st)
Why not try addressing the FACTS for once.... oh wait you have finally admitted to being a liberal... facts and you folks are seldom if ever seen together... Apparently you do not dispute or are unable to refute any of the facts that I have posted. Just mindless liberal diatribe.
*
All you did was spout hogwash..."IF", the so called "Majority" of people, "most" of the world.... eh? LOL sadly pedantic
and totally devoid of facts. Nothing more than your personal opinion.
*
Apparently you feel that the majority o f the world are mindless lemming idiots.
*
At one point in our history, how many nations (in your words "Most level headed) people thought that slavery was a grand idea... they were wrong then, just as you are now.
*
Let's look at just one of your erroneous claims, shall we? A nation better off because of banning guns.?.?.?
*
Australia banned most firearms from the populace in 2002.
http://www.ncpa.org...
"In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
"Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
"Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
*
Imagine that... but the sad fact is, the folks in the U.K. don't have to imagine... they live it every day.
*
Simple FACT: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
*
Educate yourself sport. Facts are never a bad thing.... go look for yourself
*
2nd)
Do you even know what a so called "Assault Rifle" is? Do you know that the "look" of the firearm is totally irrelevant to the caliber or type of round it may fire?
*
An "Assault rifle" has select fire capabilities... which you would need a class 3 license to legally acquire.
Most folks (I cite you) are woefully unformed about firearms and just follow the herd.
*
3rd)
Imagine if the liberal media actually reported on cases where the LEGALLY ARMED CITIZEN saved a life or stopped a crime.
*
I am betting that in your myopic world view that has never occurred.
*
4th)
Abusive leaders throughout history spoke much like you... the Need to disarm the populace "For their own good" (Chavez, Hitler, Castro.....etc.) and just look how well that works for most folks in those countries.
*
Why is it that every time you folks try to do something "to us, "For our own good" it never works and ends up being just another form of control?
*
Bloomberg ring a bell? The soda pop Gestapo...
*
Let us take a look at certain facts shall we?
*
The truth is, most mass shootings in the US have taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.
*
In essence, the victims are sitting ducks and the armed gunmen know it.
*
How many THOUSANDS of gun control laws are already on the books? Hell, we even have a President and an Attorney General supplying fully automatic assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels... yet you folks don't seem overly concerned about that... imagine my shock at your hypocrisy.
*
As far as armed Police in schools:
*
A recent Gallup poll finds more than half (53%) of Americans view increased police presence at schools as a very effective way to prevent mass shootings at schools. http://www.politico.com...
*
Now...a real culprit...
*
According to liberals, the movie industry has no fault in any of the shootings that have occurred...
*
BUT...When we have a mass murderer, dressed up like the Joker, gun down innocent moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado; it"s difficult to dispute the influence of the entertainment industry on the mindset of a killer.
*
Wanna bet that "most of the world" and the "Majority of clear headed individuals will agree?
*
Mental health advocates fight against involuntary commitment under the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment.
*
The "play makers" fight for their artistic expression of free speech under the First Amendment.
(Oddly enough, when folks lose their right to bear arms, they quite rapidly also loose their right to free speech.... Castro ring a bell?)
*
Gun owners fight for the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
*
Along with these precious American rights, come responsibilities. Responsibilities that folks like you seek to suborn and/or remove.
*
The bottom line is simple, freedom has risks... The very freedom to disagree has risks... but without those risks, there is no freedom.
Aned

Pro

I will help you get your facts straight. The crime rate in Australia decreased tremendously after banning assault rifles while in Japan you can count with your fingers the number of dead people by firearms in a year. That is freedom: the right to walk on any street without being intimidated by people carrying guns, as well as the right to attend school without being concern about a mass massacre. We live in a technological era, not in a wild west era. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Your arguments lacks a sense of commitment and responsibility. Assassinations will continue as long as the citizenry has access to weapons. We even have lost presidents to this sick mentality and false sense of freedom that the NRA sells us; for example, President Lincoln, President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, and many other important figures have been ridicously shot by someone with a gun. Even President Reagan was the target of an assassination plot; fortunately he survived. Is that the kind of freedom you are refering to where not even a president is safe in his own country?

Allowing the proliferation of assault weapons is equivalent to imposing a war environment on our civilian population, including children at schools. Those weapons belong in the military; civilians only want peace. Peace and weaponry do not mix, or look at Somalia. Do we want to look more like Somalia or like Japan, Germany, or Great Britain?

Why don't we listen to our teachers, police officers, community organizers, technical personnel, developers, engineers, and see what they have to say about weapons and safety? But instead, people like you, listen to anti-social and extremist groups like the NRA that lack the minimum sense of sociatal harmony and human enhancement.

Your argument is too biased and lacks the necessary balance; besides, all the facts you cite are misconstrued to deceive the audience. Then as you run out of misguised facts, you start offending the audience, typical behavior of the impotent and crippled debater. I am sorry, but you cannot cover the sunlight with a finger.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
FunyBoneAnedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con seemed more interested in being insulting and a dumbass while the pro actually gave sounds arguments for his case.... Arguments to the pro, and conduct to the pro for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by PhantomJedi759 4 years ago
PhantomJedi759
FunyBoneAnedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pain to read. Poor usage of English, and ad hominems chucked around everywhere. No linked sources, just improperly cited information and quotes.