The Instigator
dbradway123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

the right to bear arms

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 76180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

dbradway123

Pro

we the people of the united states deserve this second amendment right our founding fathers wrote it in the constitution
Wylted

Con

Bear-mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Arms- upper limbs of a body.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

I'm not sure what the 2nd amendment has to do with bear arms, but I'm sure my opponent will explain.

I don't think people should be allowed bear arms. Many species of bears are endangered and it would be a shame to make them go extinct for this wierd fascination to own parts of their bodies, plus owning bear arms, has no benefit to anybody other than the bear.
Debate Round No. 1
dbradway123

Pro

The right to bear arms means we posses ( or have the power or right to ) own guns and to protect ourselves with them. I am not talking about the animals arms. I believe as us citizens we deserve this right because if we do not have anything to protect ourselves with how will we be able to fight wars and or even stop an intruder from breaking into ones home and potentially killing you?
Wylted

Con

I now understand the title of the debate, and will argue against the right of the average citizen being able to carry guns. I'm not going to be too formal here. We'll treat this as a casual conversation between friends and the voters can determine who made superior points.

1. The second amendment was created in the infancy of the United States. The United States was mostly rural and was pretty easy to invade without a standing military or border security. Part of the reason for the second amendment was national security from foreign forces. It's important to remember when looking at laws, the spirit in which it was written, so that we can make sure it's being applied according to the spirit. One of the reasons the constitution was written is to give the courts flexibility in creating laws, so they could keep with the spirit of the laws. We no longer need to worry about invading armies, due to the fact we have decent border security, and a pretty good standing military. The United States is the only super power in the world at the moment and nobody is going to go to the United States and go toe to toe, regardless of whether civilians can carry weapons or not. So we're not going to meet that purpose by arming the population.

2. The second amendment may have also been created because of the threat of wildlife in these rural populations. With the United States being mostly urban and suburban the Right isn't necessary. Homeowners now have access to fences, can get away from the situation easier or take advantage of animal control. There really is no need for guns for these purposes in even the rural areas. If it was necessary in the rural areas, it no way means that people living in suburban or urban areas would need guns for those purposes.

3. The second amendment was also implemented because the founders felt people should be able to defend themselves from each other. We have police now who have access to guns who can help average citizens if things come down to that. There are also other weapons that could be used to take away any advantage an attacker has, pepper spray, tazer gun, baseball bat etc.. The problem with guns is the access to them. Sometimes the bad guys buy them legally. Any outlawing of them would prevent the bad guys from getting guns. A second way the bad guys get access is to steal them from people who bought them legally, or buy them illegally from somebody who purchased them legally. If we completely outlaw guns, it would be extremely rare for a a bad guy to have one at all. By restricting access to guns, it no longer becomes necessary for citizens to need them as an equalizer. Now ordinary citizens will have the ability to use other less lethal options as remedies, and best of all the bad guys will have a harder time killing people. The right to guns is not necessary for people for this reason, when all access is eliminated.

4. The fourth reason for the second amendment is that the founders of the United States had just escaped from the clutches of a tyrannical nation. They wanted to be sure that no despot could take power and subject the United States from tyranny. No matter how big a military the despot created, the everyday citizens would have the same resources to fight as the military. We'd have some musket on musket action. This seems sensible for that period of time. Now it is no longer sensible. If congress did make somebody dictator (and they continually keep granting more power to the president, so.....), ordinary citizens armed to the teeth would stand no chances. We couldn't take down tanks, grenade launchers, helicopters, drones, surface to air missiles, etc. we stand no chance. It is better for the ordinary citizen to just surrender to the despot, no need getting crushed by an unstoppable force. We can't expect to stand up to that, and no amount of guns will stop that. What we have now, that could stand a chance is the local police and national guard. Do you remember where the second amendment said well regulated militia? Well that's the national gaurd. Now the national guard and police could stand up to the United States military. They probably wouldn't win, but they could if they combined their forces probably secure a large portion of the United States and create enough bloodshed to make an up and coming dictator think twice. Any dictator taking controll of the United States military, would probably win that civil war, but there would be a legitimate threat to his life and him winning. We clearly serve the purpose of the second amendment through other means.

Conclusion- The second amendment is not relevant in today's society, at least not in the same exact way. We have a national guard and a police force which serve most of the purpose for the second amendment. When you take into account the amount of lives saved by completely eliminating access to guns (or coming close to it), than we can say that repealing the second amendment or interpreting it in accordance with it's spirit means that the people, average citizens, should not have the right to bear arms.
Debate Round No. 2
dbradway123

Pro

we deserve the right to protect ourselves!!!! therefor i rest my case.
Wylted

Con

My opponent has dropped every single one of my arguments and has ignored my rebuttals. This is essentially a forfeit. Vote wylted
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Thanks
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
True he has nothing better to do.

Also Wylted so you are saying that you are 32 years old. If you are you do not act like it.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Your mom has nothing better to do
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Yeah, he has nothing better to do.
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Yes I misspelled
Posted by stargate 1 year ago
stargate
Wylted are you just arging for the sake of arguing.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Wylted don't you have better things to do....
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
No surprise there... If the south was going to treat slaves as property and not people... why would property be able to vote....
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
By the way it was the southern states who wanted to count slaves as humans, while the northern states only wanted to count them as partial or non humans,
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Considering Bruce is a women!? haha
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
dbradway123WyltedTied
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: Pro dropped all of Con's points and essentially forfeited the debate. Thus, con gets conduct and args.