The Instigator
DonaldAbraham
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
nmlow321
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The right to bear arms is good.

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: 2/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,998 times Debate No: 2346
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

DonaldAbraham

Pro

The right to bear arms is absolutely crucial to individual freedom. The right is clearly set forth in the US Constitution in the second amendment. It is also extremely important in the idea that citizens should have the means to overthrow an oppressive government, if necessary.
nmlow321

Con

"The right to bear arms" is terrible, because it is a vague expression, written over 200 years ago. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution and bill of rights they obviously couldn't predict the future. They didn't know what kinds of arms the second amendment would come to describe. Their definition of arms -muskets and cannons- applied for almost 150 years, until 1945. With the development of nuclear weapons, the term 'arms' was changed forever. Obviously you wouldn't suggest that people have the right to bear nuclear arms; such a scenario isn't even plausible. The topic at hand is whether or not 'the right to bear arms is good.' If it was any good, we wouldn't still be arguing over its meaning 200 years later.
Debate Round No. 1
DonaldAbraham

Pro

Absolutely no one on any side is trying to fight for there right to bear nuclear weapons. As you said, its hardly plausible. Your argument that the definition of "arms" has expanded is really missing the point at hand. While technology has advanced significantly...the purpose of owning a gun has not. And if you want to make the argument that, "if this is a good thing we wouldn't be arguing it 200 years later", is absolutely ridiculous. There are so many congressmen who come up with absolutely terrible ideas. Thats what congressmen do...they argue about things. So to say that since were arguing about it, means that its wrong. Really lacks, well, anything. There are federal laws that have already draw the line between nuclear weapons and handguns. What I'm against is that people want to pass more laws, and more restrictions, which are truly pointless. Also a national handgun ban would be a huge step in stripping citizens of there individual rights.
nmlow321

Con

Here is my point as simply as I can present it:

The topic is: The right to bear arms is good. Of course, what you probably meant is that people should be allowed to own guns, a common interpretation of the Amendment. All I'm saying is this: The phrase "the right to bear arms" is not good. It was written 200 years ago and so the people who wrote it had no idea what it would come to define.

Should people be allowed to own firearms? Of course. Should there be limits on the number and type of firearms that a person owns? Of course. As we've agreed, no one is advocating that citizens own nuclear weapons. But if they don't have them, they would have no ability to stand up to your "oppressive government". The militia argument is worthless. People have the right to own reasonably powerful firearms for protecting their property and family, and for hunting as well. But there needs to be limits, and at the very least, the gun show loophole must be closed. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.
Debate Round No. 2
DonaldAbraham

Pro

DonaldAbraham forfeited this round.
nmlow321

Con

nmlow321 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
an armed society is a polite society
Posted by shutterbug13 6 years ago
shutterbug13
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

The founding fathers labored under the idea that a well-armed militia was essential to preserving freedom. A judge recently interpreted this to mean that only military personnel should have the right to bear arms. However, this was completely false when the Constitution was written since the United States back then relied on the average citizen for military action. "Militia" back then referred to able-bodied, armed, ordinary citizens who came together to defend and protect in a time of crisis.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
No, the right to BEAR arms is not good as it encourages the extinction of Bears.

Oh, and I vote con.
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.
If I was pro, I would have argued that people should be allowed to bear all types of arms.
Anyway, con will win due to pro's weak stance and forfeit of a round.
Posted by biggiiboy 6 years ago
biggiiboy
hey, man. I have to say that most people will def. agree. Good luck tho...haha

maybe jziggy the 3-year-old will challenge you.

hahahahaha
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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 shutterbug13 6 years ago
shutterbug13
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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 Capt.Herp 6 years ago
Capt.Herp
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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 Lightning-2-the-Storm 6 years ago
Lightning-2-the-Storm
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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 Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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 GaryBacon 6 years ago
GaryBacon
DonaldAbrahamnmlow321Tied
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