The Instigator
Umasi93
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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  
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: 6/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,608 times Debate No: 4535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (15)

 

Umasi93

Pro

This excerpt from the US constitution makes it clear that all US citizens have the right to own guns.
Johnicle

Con

With every right comes it's proper restrictions. People can't always get what they have a right to and sometime they are not due their rights. Therefore, I had to be opposed to:

Resolved: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

For purposes of sticking to the resolution, I will offer (in contentions) people who "shall" have their rights infringed for good reasons.

I. Minors
We all know minors who can and can't handle "Arms", however, in todays society, we can't be giving EXTREMELY dangerous weaponry to people that may not know how to use them. This includes ALL ages including 2, 3, 7, 9, 17, or even 13 year olds.

II. Felons
What more do I have to say... Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities. Bearing arms isn't a right, it SHOULD be a privilege. A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have. FURTHERMORE, as proposed by the resolution, you have to see that if a felon commits a crime with a gun, then it should obviously be taken away. BUT, the resolution says that the guns are "to KEEP"... When such atrocity has been committed, the gun MUST be taken away.

III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school.
Not only do you have to worry about WHO can have a gun, but more importantly WHERE. People on planes, in buildings, and in school should NOT be allowed guns. If they were, the safety of ALL would be at risk.

=================================================================

IV. Not all "Arms" are appropriate for the average citizen.
Simply put, there could be the most responsible person in the world, and yet, there are "Arms" that even THEY should not have. "Arms" is defined simply as weapons, so what falls under that category includes normal weaponry such as rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But what ALSO falls under that category includes tanks, machine guns, C4, dynamite, and even types of atomic bombs. The constitution DOES say arms but when you take the rule of law word for word, you must adapt to the proper and safe interpretations of the law.

In other words ladies and gentleman, "Arms" need to have restrictions toward certain people, and certain places. The law can't take the constitution seriously if it puts the people of America at risk for their good health (and lives)... Because of all of this, I urge a CON vote.

Thank You!
Debate Round No. 1
Umasi93

Pro

You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one.

I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense.

the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully.

George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict.

Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense.

As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs.
Johnicle

Con

"You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one."
--> Perhaps I 'misunderstood you', but the fact of the matter is that I interpreted the resolution in a completely legitimate way. However, you have yet to argue my legitimate interpretation of the resolution and until you do that, the round goes to CON. The TRUTH of the matter is that I would MUCH rather spend my time arguing about how the right to bear arms taken word for word actually endangers the welfare of society.

"I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense."
--> YOU may only be talking about citizens that can handle themselves properly... BUT if you go by the constitution AND the resolution you'll see that there is no clear line between the two entities. Therefore, pro MUST argue BOTH ideas. Furthermore, I HAVE argued his idea as well extending that certain arms (machine guns, C4, nukes) should not be owned by ANY citizen. Also, I argued the interpretation of the constitution and how there is an exception to every rule.

"the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
--> Ok... I'd like to extend the argument made about felons that they do not deserve to KEEP them after already proven as people who can not handle responsibility. Also extend the arguments about how to "bear Arms" NEEDS responsibility and appropriation.

"not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully."
--> If someone were to start making his own nuclear weapons, would he be appropriate under the law? NO, because even that weapon with the MOST responsible people is still dangerous. But yet, it is an arm... What does this lead me to conclude, that ALL laws have certain exceptions and that the right to bear arms must be taken into SAFE context in order to protect this nation. Therefore, I do fit under the interpretations of the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.

George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.
--> 1) This proves nothing... 2) I would like to point out that I am not saying getting rid of ALL arms but simply that the right to bear arms should sometimes be infringed when the safety of America is at risk...

I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict.
--> Ok... but you still have to see that there are exceptions to the rule. MOST people will be able to still own "arms", but only when it is a safe person AND a safe weapon. Otherwise, civil conflict MAY occur by following this part of the constitution WORD for WORD (so instead of stopping it... it creates it.)

Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense.
--> This argument doesn't make any sense. The REASON that children can't own a gun is for purposes of them having an "accident"... NOT to prevent them from going hunting with their buds. The REASON that felons can't own a gun is to prevent them from going on some random killing rampage... NOT to prevent them from "protecting" themselves in their home. To be honest, if a felon has a gun and says it is only for self defense, I would have a lot of trouble believing him...

As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs.
--> Ok, I already covered this to be honest but simply put... A child can really use something that their parent has BUT a child can also have an accident with something their parent has. ALSO a child could be a 12 year old who thinks that he can own a gun and get a gun. Responsibility must be put into the law.

In the end- The side that achieves the most safety and protection in this round is CON. I prevent inappropriate people from owning guns and thus prevent inappropriate accidents that did not need to occur. Because of this, I urge a CON vote!

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
Umasi93

Pro

"you have yet to argue my legitimate interpretation of the resolution"

I believe I have but you continue to spin it to mean something predominantly evil.

The way I understood the Resolution I devised to be was that Pro would mean FOR gun rights and Con would be AGAINST Gun rights.

I. Minors
Minors rights lie with their parents. In my previous argument I stated this. If a child's parent has a gun or refuses to get a gun or whatever the case may be the children's right is still being represented by their parents.

If we lived in a society that Minors owned property and had the right to use it, I would concede this part to you. Minors don't have any independent right to own or use arms. Minors are under the protection of their parents.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms doesn't apply to Minors until their independent. Just like the Fourth amendment doesn't apply to Minors since any property the child owns is in reality, owned by their guardian.

II. Felons
the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws restricting Felons from using them. You can still restrict an EX-criminals right to bear arms without it being infringed.

"Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities."
So your saying that a criminal that has already served his time in jail and is a citizen of the united states and has been deemed fit for for society.

Should have his rights taken away COMPLETELY? If that's your thought on this then readers should Vote Pro. If Con had his way EX-criminal would have no rights and freedoms.

"A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have."
Now I have to be the Con guy and disagree with you their. The right to freedom of speech wont be infringed if I get sued for Defamation.

III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school.
Like Ive said the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons in places not deemed safe for guns.

I would also like to say that their are Police officers who are in those places to protect us. while that may not always be the case, In most high schools/colleges police have been put their to protect us.

why restrict a police officers right to carry a gun in a plane, building, or school?
I don't know about my opponent or the reader but I feel safer with police officers protecting me in places I cant protect myself at.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington

Well said Thomas Jefferson I wish my opponent saw it that way.

"BUT if you go by the constitution AND the resolution you'll see that there is no clear line between the two entities."

Their might not be any clear line between the two. But I still (at least I HOPE!) believe that most people in the united states of America are law abiding citizens who care about each other and are in no hurry to die.

Readers please Vote PRO If your not Pessimistic about the motives of gun owners. I can say with a lot of certainty that most(99%) of americans are not out to get you.
the 1% that is can be dealt with with without EXILING them or something.

Vote PRO if you agree with me on this.

"(machine guns, C4, nukes)"!!!! O.O
Good thing we have laws to protect Americans from these kinds of thing.
my opponent seems to think that ANY law passed to regulate guns means that the right of people to bear arms is Infringed.

Which is note the case.
Vote Pro for a safe right to bear arms.
vote con for no right at all.
--The End--
Johnicle

Con

Straight down from his last speech…

I. Minors- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms doesn't apply to Minors until their independent."-->
-The problem with this argument is that minors ARE people and when the constitution says people AND the resolution says people, this argument becomes void by default. My argument from the beginning has been about how taking the constitution word for word harms the society (in the ways stated in the original contentions). By passing the resolution, you harm the society but if you don't vote for the resolution then you protect the society.

II. Felons- "You can still restrict an EX-criminals right to bear arms without it being infringed."-->
-Quote from the resolution- "shall not be infringed."
- Personally, I don't see any restrictions brought up in the resolution or in the constitution. No implication has yet been made by pro as to why the constitution interprets the exception he talks about.

- "If Con had his way EX-criminal would have no rights and freedoms."-->
-That's not true, if I had my way criminals (felons specifically) would have not rights and freedoms that gave them the capability of KILLING people.

- "The right to freedom of speech wont be infringed if I get sued for Defamation."-->
- Here is what I am actually trying to prove. Rights have restrictions and the resolution poses none. Furthermore, he offers no constitutional quotes that grant exceptions.

III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school.
-Here is another exception that the resolution does not grant. He says that it doesn't infringe their rights to carry weapons wherever but I feel "infringed upon" when I'm not allowed to carry my Swiss Army Knife in school. However, I understand that the right NEEDS to be infringed for everyone's safety.

-The police argument is ANOTHER exception to the rule. Our "school cop" still carries a gun but when he is a citizen (off duty) then he must remove his gun on the plane.

-I'm sorry but not everyone is a law abiding citizen and because of that we need the exceptions to ENSURE that dangerous people can not get dangerous weapons at dangerous times and places.

- "the 1% that is (out to get you) can be dealt with without EXILING them or something."-->
-HOW are YOU going to deal with them? You offer no solution to this obvious problem but yet I argue that we should take away dangerous weapons from dangerous people and dangerous weapons in dangerous places. I have a plan to take care of the bad and you don't, why should people honestly prefer your stance over mine?

IV. Not all "Arms" are appropriate for the average citizen.
- "Good thing we have laws to protect Americans from these kinds of thing."-->
-Yeah, it is a good thing that we have these laws but it's too bad that the resolution that YOU wrote does not support these laws. "Shall not infringe" means shall NOT infringe not infringe when appropriate… that's CON's position.

He says that vote CON to get no right but all I have to prove is that the resolution is not a good idea not the opposite of the resolution. The middle ground is my position (restricted rights) and that IS the CON position.

In the end- You have to see that CON protects the people and PRO simply has poor wording of the resolution… Even he supports my position and because of this I urge you to vote CON!

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
And also Puck that amendment like others doesn't apply to them legally.
Posted by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
well they should have specified. >.>
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
A child is a citizen and is excluded legally and morally from a "right to bear arms" :P
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Tavadon 8 years ago
Tavadon
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 Teddy_Bear 8 years ago
Teddy_Bear
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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 ILoveCheese 8 years ago
ILoveCheese
Umasi93JohnicleTied
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