The Instigator
mattj11111
Pro (for)
The Contender
BobRogan
Con (against)

2nd Amendment

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
mattj11111 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 112701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

mattj11111

Pro

I am for the 2nd Amendment. "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." While I do believe that parts of this are sometimes taken out of context, let me define what the 2nd Amendment is actually intended for and why it is important. The 2nd Amendment is designed for use against government tyranny. The main reason for this debate will be stated below:

Following the recent tragedy that was the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, many have called for more gun control. No one here wants to see more children, or anyone for that matter, killed as a result of an evil murderer. (Or if you do, you are truly a malicious human being.) The disagreement occurs when people talk about what should be done to prevent something like this from ever happening again. I would like to make it clear however, that Dana Loesch and the NRA are NOT responsible for psychopathic killers shooting up schools. Dana Loesch has never killed anyone. Side note: how many members of the NRA have committed an act of gun violence? 1 or 2 might be found, but some seriously deep digging would have to be done.

Anyway, many are spouting the idea of an "assault weapons ban". This is speaking specifically about the AR-15 and other big scary guns. A simple Google search would tell you that "AR" means Armalite Rifle, which is the brand of the firearm, not Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle or whatever else people (without any prior knowledge or experience) like to brainwash with. Also, AR-15's are NOT automatic, they are SEMI-automatic. This means that for every time the trigger is pulled, the gun will fire 1 time. This is not my opinion, this is simple fact. Again, anyone who disagrees can look it up. Now, for those who may think that AR-15's and others should all be banned and are wondering why a normal citizen like you and me might need one, here is your answer in short: Government tyranny. Before evil dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, and others committed mass genocide on their own citizens, they disarmed them. The American government and military are the strongest in the world and would therefore be the hardest to defeat if they were to turn tyrannical. Here is a quote from Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, referring to Nazi Germany; he is Jewish, by the way. "The... Second Amendment... Is about resistance to government tyranny... The fact that my grandparents in Europe didn't fear [tyranny] is why they are now ashes." This grim detail makes sense, if one steps back and looks at it from a factual perspective. I welcome anyone and everyone to research further and maybe watch a documentary or two about this information.

With all this said, how does it relate to this debate? Again, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect civilians from government tyranny, by the use of firearms, including the AR-15 and others. Therefore, if you oppose these (semi-automatic) weapons and are proposing a ban on them, you are against the 2nd Amendment, because without these tools, the act of any government seeking full, ruthless power will be inevitable and unstoppable.

Finally, just out of curiosity, please comment or respond in some way if you agree with the text of any of these quotes and/or think they sound reasonable:
1. "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let"s not have any native militia or native police."
2. "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The.... party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
3. "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
4. "The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. " They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
5. "Armas, para qu"? ("Guns, for what?")"
A response to [nation's] citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after [he] announced strict gun control in [nation].
BobRogan

Con

The second amendment may seem like a good idea at first. If there was a tyrant or a corrupt government we can just gun them down. But imagine that there is not a single gun in the USA for a moment. In this imaginary world, most of the citizenship agree that the government is turning into a corrupt one and needs to be overthrown. The first thing they should try is to start peaceful protests, like The Salt March in India. If those peaceful protests against the government don't work though, the citizens could turn to violence. Again, there are no guns in this world, and so they'd use other weapons, such as fire, swords, etc. And if the rebels are the majority of the population, then the government would be outnumbered. Therefore, it is likely that the rebels will take down the government. My point is that there are other weapons you can use in order to overthrow a corrupt government. If there were no guns, then there would be no mass murdering anymore because there would be no weapon (except a bomb) that could kill masses amount of people. I mean, it's pretty difficult to kill a great number of people with just a knife, right?
Debate Round No. 1
mattj11111

Pro

You: "The second amendment may seem like a good idea at first. If there was a tyrant or a corrupt government we can just gun them down."
My response: Exactly. What would be so bad about that? A tyrannical government doesn't care about you or your family. To trust any government fully is very dangerous.

You: "But imagine that there is not a single gun in the USA for a moment."
My response: There are more guns than people in America. I can appreciate your imaginative thinking, but this is a Utopian world. In fact, it's not a Utopia, because millions of Americans enjoy hunting and shooting sports. (These are law-abiding citizens, by the way.) My point on this is that the idea of "not a single gun in the USA" is not going to happen; it's just not. There will always be guns in America. This is where we now have to make a decision about what sounds more reasonable:
1. Would you rather have guns be legal in the US where good guys and bad guys will have them, regardless? (Goods guys with guns who can stop bad guys with guns)
OR
2. Would you rather have guns outlawed and only criminals can get them? (Criminals don't care about the law, and they will get guns even if they are banned... Murder is illegal but criminals do it anyway.)

You: "Again, there are no guns in this world, and so they'd use other weapons, such as fire, swords, etc. And if the rebels are the majority of the population, then the government would be outnumbered."
My response: Again, you are referring to an imaginary world where there are no guns. This world is imaginary for a reason; it's impossible.
More importantly, the last sentence frankly sounds like Star Wars. The only difference is that in Star Wars, the good guys almost always win, and Star Wars doesn't have Nazis. Just 6 million Nazis killed 20 million people. Majority doesn't equal victory. Also, in government tyranny, the corrupt government confiscates all the citizens' guns; citizens are left unarmed but the tyrannical government is not. Why would a tyrannical government disarm themselves? They wouldn't. Therefore, the government would win because a bunch of bad guys with guns can, will, and have demolished populations of unarmed innocents with EASE.

You: "My point is that there are other weapons you can use in order to overthrow a corrupt government. "
My response: Like what? Name one that would be effective against a tyrannical government. Swords, fire, rocks, bow and arrows, etc. wouldn't have defeated the Nazis, the Soviets or any other evil tyrants.

You: "If there were no guns, then there would be no mass murdering anymore because there would be no weapon (except a bomb) that could kill masses amount of people. I mean, it's pretty difficult to kill a great number of people with just a knife, right?"
My response: This is where your argument falls apart. The simple fact is, guns certainly aren't just going to disappear off the face of the Earth. Even if you ban guns in every city, country and continent in the world (which will never happen), criminals will still find a way to obtain them and kill enormous amounts of (unarmed) innocent people. Next, a knife isn't the only thing other than guns that can be used to kill people:

In 2016, 10,497 Americans were killed by drunk drivers. Should we ban alcohol outright? Should we ban cars?
The lifetime odds of being killed in the US from any murderer with a gun are 1 in 315. 1 in 108 deaths are due to all motor vehicle incidents.
1 in every 122 Americans are killed annually from... falling. Should we ban stairs?
These are compared to ALL gun-related incidents. However, you were talking specifically about mass shootings. While these are unexplainable acts of evil and terror, the odds of being killed in a mass shooting in the US are 1 in 11,125.
1 in 1,133 are killed by drowning. Should we ban pools and visiting lakes, rivers, etc.?
1 in every 2,499 are killed in airplanes, boats and spaceships. Should we ban those? The people riding them?
1 in 2,517 are killed by assault from any sharp object. Should we ban knives? Everyday cooking ware?
1 in every 4,030 Americans will be killed in bicycling incidents. Should we ban bicycles, and every other form of transportation vehicle, for that matter?
All of these previously mentioned items could become a weapon, if abused by a psychopath. The point is, when trying to outlaw anything, there will be repercussions.
One last point: 2.5 million law-abiding citizens use firearms to save lives every year.
30,000 citizens are killed in firearm-related incidents annually (2/3 of which are suicides).
Guns are used to save lives 227 times more than they are used in homicides.

Lastly, I appreciate your willingness to have a real debate. Far too many are so closed-minded and quick to make gross accusations, but you are clearly open to a real conversation.
BobRogan

Con

You have some very good points. First of all, I"d like to say out of all the people who I"ve seen argue for the 2nd amendment being a good law, you are one of the few that have actually presented reasonable arguments.

You could be right in saying that banning all guns in the USA isn"t possible since Americans love them too much. In Australia, a country that banned guns completely in 1996 - some citizens didn"t want to have their guns taken away from them either. What do those people say now after over 20 years of the gun ban? They say they"re okay with it now. These people were angry at first, but after a while, they just accepted it and are no longer upset about it. Take a look at this video, with emphasis on the man who is talking at 3:36 -

The problem with the right to bear arms is anyone can purchase a gun easily. According to this article: http://www.businessinsider.com..., in 33 states, you can buy a gun without any background checks. And even if there were more background checks, it would still be pretty easy to get your hands on a gun. You could just take it from a friend or family member, for example. That"s why no guns at all would almost guarantee that there wouldn"t be any mass shootings. Yes, some may be able to get their hands on a gun somehow, but it would at the very least reduce the chances of a mass shooting from happening. The number of mass shootings in Australia is 0 because they banned guns. The UK almost completely banned guns, and while there are still a few gun-related homicides, there is significantly less than the USA, where pretty much anyone could get a gun. As you said, "The lifetime odds of being killed in the US from any murderer with a gun are 1 in 315." That is appalling. And unlike stair-related deaths, we can actually prevent a great number of gun-related deaths.

Also, if there was a tyrant, wouldn"t they shoot us down first since they"re the ones that command the military? As well as nuclear weapons? Besides, are there actually any cases where a tyrant was stopped due to the citizens having the right to bear arms? If there is, please let me know.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WhiteHawk 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
Considering Australia and how they banned all guns with a 'buy-back': The main purpose of this was to keep people from killing each other. This didn't change on e bit, they just found another way to kill people such as with knifes. The buy-back had no effect on the crime rate. In fact, it seemed to rise after the buy-back happened.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Ban islam
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
AMERICANS KNOW IT.. ye
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Its madness, public people shouldnt have guns, as we all well damn know by now.. especially americans
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.