The Instigator
datguy2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tommylibertarian1
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

protecting the 2nd Amendmant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
tommylibertarian1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 262 times Debate No: 96611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

datguy2

Pro

look people the Second is being violated. People should have the right to bear arms. if you are attacked a gun would protect you. The criminals that use guns would ignore the law anyway. so take a side with me and say Yes to guns.
tommylibertarian1

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." -Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Regulation means "To make regular" and Merriam-Webster defines militia as: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
subject to call or the whole body of able bodied male citizens subject to call to military service. I ask pro where is a individual right for guns?
Debate Round No. 1
datguy2

Pro

First of all regulate does not mean "to make regular" it means "regularly." so, do your homework before you before you state the facts buddy.
tommylibertarian1

Con

I'm not sure the judges here will take kindly to ad hominem and it is not necessary. To regulate means to make regular or "put into good order" (1) We also see in precedent with the Commerce Clause where regulation means "to make regular" commerce among the several states. (2) I would call upon pro to actually address the argument I made in its entirety with rational response.
Sources
(1) http://www.thehighroad.org...
(2) https://www.bu.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
datguy2

Pro

individual right to guns comes when people attack you or are trying to inflict harm upon you or others. Pearl harbor could of had Japanese soldiers on american soil killing civilians. I ask you if a man was attacking you're loved ones what would you do? without guns you are able to be attacked. in gun free zones people are killed and police are often too slow to help people under attack. so take a side with me and say YES to guns!
tommylibertarian1

Con

It has been said that the Japanese were afraid to attack the mainland because of weapons concentrated in the hands of citizens. Also some private ownership of firearms for self defense can be justified but you haven't addressed this in terms of the Second Amendment. There is no language in the Second Amendment that clearly defines an individual right to have arms. Having arms for self defense may be a good idea but there is nothing to codify it as an individual right that is inalienable.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by datguy2 1 month ago
datguy2
:p
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 month ago
tommylibertarian1
For the record..I'm personally pro gun but enjoyed taking the other side of the argument :)
Posted by datguy2 1 month ago
datguy2
srry my friend got on this did not mean that
:)
Posted by chazzerz17 1 month ago
chazzerz17
Gun free zones kill people. 2nd Amendment allows We the People to protect ourselves.
Posted by datguy2 1 month ago
datguy2
that sux for u libertarian guy but i dont need too many
Posted by datguy2 1 month ago
datguy2
vi spex just shut th crap up
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
to many religious people for that stuff
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 month ago
tommylibertarian1
Why such a limited amount of characters? Hard to make good arguments that are robust.
Posted by datguy2 1 month ago
datguy2
This will be Good XD
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 month ago
warren42
datguy2tommylibertarian1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, Pro made an unnecessary ad hominem attack, which Con actually refuted by giving the definition in context of the Constitution. Con proves that there is no protection of individual gun ownership, with no rebuttal or really any arguments made by Pro.