The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,098 times Debate No: 54010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit.

I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp.
The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.


To require anything - even firearm ownership - is still to require something - which infringes on freedom(s) to a degree.

To require and mandate also means to force.

So first, let me just say there is something very un-American about your belief.

Second, our current armed forces are kept as a "volunteer army" one is forced to serve in the military and this is a good thing. Many would argue that voluntary military service is precisely the reason why our military is so well kept - because only the people who want to serve do. No one serves in the United States military against their will. If you want to see poorly regulated armies with low morale, take a closer look at armies where service is required or forced onto their citizenry.

Third, your idea about non-deployment of a national militia is probably the best idea you have - but then go on to say that this militia would still be deployed in times of need.. so I'm assuming that this group would still be deployable - just not by the federal government(?) Which then brings up a bunch of other issues like: who gets to control this national militia if not the States or Federal government, etc. (?)
Debate Round No. 1


We are already required to carry vehicle insurance( not knocking it ok..I like auto ins) we are required to have health insurance now...we are required a lot of things. Why not add to our lengthy list of state and federal requirements house security...aka firearms and training to go with it.

the militia section.
American military is less than 1% of the population. I served myself... so I understand what you are saying. But...most join the military for 1) to get a job. 2) to be able to afford college. 3)to get away from where they live.
There are remarkably few that join for the sole reason of defending their country or due to patriotism. Why else would they have to recruit so hard?

Then you have the fact our nation is one of the fattest nations in the world. If we had to maintain a certain level of fitness we would live longer and be more active by design.
I am NOT saying folks with HONEST health issues should be required to maintain such a level...but they could contribute in a way.

The deployment during times of crisis could be handled on the local level. Why should first responders, police, so on and so forth be the only ones dealing with after tornado devestation...or hurricane...earthquake? All military trained personnel are required to take basic first aid classes, furthurmore they are trained to think clearly during times of stress.

It is everyone's responsibility to keep our country and ourselves safe. Not the government. The police are a great thing...but let's be realistic...when seconds count...they are only minutes away.
The regular armed forces should fight the wars overseas that defend our...OUR freedom...from enemies from citizens should defend our country from enemies from within. All of us should be responsible for keeping our communities safe and residents aided in times of need.




So far, I like your debating style because it is short and sweet and you are very clever. So, let me first thank you for the challenges, tactics and for being concise.

Your Question:

You asked, "We are already required to carry vehicle insurance( not knocking it ok..I like auto ins) we are required to have health insurance now...we are required a lot of things. Why not add to our lengthy list of state and federal requirements house security...aka firearms and training to go with it.(?)"

Implicit in your question is an idea like, "What is the difference?"

Well, I will tell you the difference: PUBLIC SAFETY!

The government at all levels makes this distinction when it is decided that public well-being and safety is at stake. After-all, what else is a government good for if not the well-being and safety of the public?

Un-American Sentiment (Freedom):

The idea is simple: how can we say that we are truly free when we are forced to do something?

Anything - policy or law - in which we find government forcing anything infringes on freedom. So we find, in almost all areas where people are required or forced to do anything, resistance and protest (even in cases of public safety and well-being, e.g. required drivers license, auto insurance, ObamaCare, etc.).

I'm glad you brought up insurance, health care and licensing because these are perfect examples which can be distinguished from a mandate like required firearm ownership and training.

Health insurance and drivers license requirements are clear cases of government regulation which benefit public safety and well-being - as where required gun ownership would not.

The Gun Issue:

There is much data which suggests to the contrary; when more firearms are introduced, the instances of gun violence and firearm accidents increase [1][2][3].

So this is the crux of the Gun debate and exactly why the public and the government are polarized on the gun issue in America.

On one hand, if NO firearms are present then there are no firearms to contribute to these kinds of occurrences.

On the other hand, if firearms are completely removed, our 2nd Amend. rights are violated and we lose the ability as a people to protect ourselves and revolt if we deem necessary.

But the trade-off might be more Sandy Hook(s) and Columbine(s) and accidental shootings - regardless of how much training is infused and required - simply by virtue of inserting more firearms in the public arena.

Facts about Guns & Mass Shootings:

Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states - from Massachusetts to Hawaii. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally [3].

More guns tend to mean more homicide [2].

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states [2].

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence [3].

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive [3].

Fat America:

Americans are in fact FAT. You will get no argument from me here. BUT it's not illegal to be fat in America (yet).

The Military, Duty & Patriotism:

You said, "..most join the military for 1) to get a job. 2) to be able to afford college. 3)to get away from where they live. There are remarkably few that join for the sole reason of defending their country or due to patriotism."

No offense but if you didn't serve, and suggested what you have just suggested, I would shame you - or at the very least accuse you of being naive if these are the reasons why you joined!

You may have joined for those reasons but not everyone does; I wouldn't even suggest most. Though these are motivating factors and perks for sure, these aren't the only or even the primary reasons why folks volunteer for military service (If they are, I would still suggest naivety).

It is a fact that military enlistment increased exponentially immediately after the 9/11 attacks. We saw the same patriotism after the Pearl Harbor attacks. When these patriots were asked about their voluntary service they would use words like: DUTY, FREEDOM, SERVICE, SACRAFICE, COUNTRY, HONOR, etc., according to a Pew Foundation study, most veterans who served say they are proud of their service [4][5][6][7].

This is probably true of every major announcement of war/crisis (maybe with the exception of the Vietnam War in later years).

Also, if what you are suggesting is true, we would expect to see a disproportionate number of minorities in the military. We don't.

In fact, ""
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently published a study detailing the demographics of the US military. The study was undertaken in response to a request by Representative Charles Ran­gel (D-NY), who in December 2002 claimed that "[a] disproportionate number of the poor and mem­bers of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."

The GAO study surveys a num­ber of Department of Defense (DOD) personnel issues and does not support Representative Ran­gel's claims that poor minorities are disproportionately represented. A similar study by The Heritage Foundation, which will be published this month, is more definitive in answering the question of new enlistees and their "privileged" status. The Heritage Foundation study analyzes DOD data on all non- prior-service enlistees for the years 1999 and 2003 by income, education, and race. Studying the home-of-record ZIP codes of enlistees, we also identify the states and regions providing the most enlistees, and changes since September 11, 2001.

In 2003, blacks made up a higher percent­age of Army recruits (15 percent) than the adult population (11.3 percent) for a recruit-to-popula­tion ratio of 1.44. However, the recruit-to-popula­tion ratio of white recruits was 1.01, meaning that blacks did not displace whites. Rather, the racial groups with disproportionately low recruit-to-pop­ulation ratios in 2003 were Asians, Hispanics, and individuals who declined to identify a race. Regard­ing the issue of disproportionate recruiting from black neighborhoods, we found that the 100 three-digit ZIP code areas with the highest concentration of blacks had 14.63 percent of the adult population but provided 16.58 percent of 1999 recruits and only 14.09 percent of 2003 recruits"" [8].

Cited Source References:


Debate Round No. 2


I served because I wanted to. Never went to college...never did it as a job. I joined before 9/11. I joined because I love my country.

Now....public safety IS a concern...and while it IS true gun related violence increases once more firearms are introduced. Statistic analysis is geared to show favor to the one conducting the study.

50% more guns introduced raised gun related violence by 40%....hypothetical figures mind you...they never make the distinction between Gang banger shoots thug...or home owner shoots a robber threatening his children. They are both violent events which involved a fire arm.

the polarized media...

You show me an unbiased media station or politician...and I will die happy.

Let's face the facts about all the studies we could or could not bring up...mine will be for...yours against. If public safety was the real reason...there is a major underlying fault of everyone not trusting everyone else.
The People...should not need the government, nor fear it...the government needs people and SHOULD fear them.

Criminals should not be given a chance to flourish...they will always obtain guns to kill...every citizen should be armed and capable.

You bring up Sandy Hook and Columbine....both cases were mentally jacked persons with members of the family with firearms who never used common sense security. Gun safe for rifles...quick access combination safes for handguns...then monitoring children through interaction and engagement.

My carry gun stays loaded...never once shot anything until I pulled the trigger. Guns are tools...people are evil.

in and politicians...are calling citizens lazy and untrustworthy. Too lazy to do for themselves in times of tragedy...and too untrustworthy to own guns save those THEY choose.

our 2nd amendment was given to us so that we...the individual. ..could defend ourselves.

If strict gun control is what you wish...look up crime rates for Chicago and New York City where it is extremely hard to legally own a gun.

militaristic training helps everyone better themselves.... furthurmore...
All citizens should own up and take responsibility for each other in times of need and strife...not just when you know what hits the fan. closing I will say may stray a bit but my point on guns should be clear...

Don't blame the spoon for making someone fat....don't blame the pencil for writing a word wrong....don't blame the gun for shooting someone...don't blame me for having to defend my family from a criminal.



First, let me say thank you for your service and thanks for your thoughtful reply!

"Statistic analysis is geared to show favor to the one conducting the study."

Sure, data can be used to skew perspective in order to support one claim over another.

But, if you look closer at my sources you will find that some of this data is collected from within the medical community in trauma and emergency clinics and hospitals.

They are fairly unbiased as they are collecting data (victims) as they come in - NOT trying to prop-up a claim to endorse one side or another. Its more-or-less raw data.

Much of this data suggests that there are far more gun related shootings that don't end with death - which is even crazier if you account for those numbers!

"You show me an unbiased media station or politician...and I will die happy."

Academic and medical journals and publications aren't media or political sources.

"The People...should not need the government.."

I like certain Conservative principles too - but I thought we were discussing the motion at hand..? Are you suggesting that guns in the public would make the government fear the people..? Don't we already have the right to bear arms..? hmmm..?

"..mentally jacked persons.."

No, this is NOT true! In fact MOST mass and simple shootings have been carried out by people who would be classified as sane!

Not only that, their firearms were purchased legally!

"All citizens should own up and take responsibility for each other in times of need and strife.."

Sure, but then you also said, "Criminals should not be given a chance to flourish...they will always obtain guns to kill.." And, "..they never make the distinction between Gang banger..thug.." - which doesn't sound very "pro-community" to me..

"Don't blame the spoon for making someone fat....don't blame the pencil for writing a word wrong....don't blame the gun for shooting someone.."

I like poetry too! You're a poet and didn't know it!

Thanks for an interesting debate!

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Azag 7 years ago
If one citizen inside that store had a chcl...if.... She has the right mindset. I applaud her.
Posted by Azag 7 years ago
That dude is the funniest fake russian I have ever seen. Watch the one where he tries to shoot after being pepper sprayed
Posted by Azag 7 years ago
Thank you Dilara. The training...self confidence...situational awareness, and intestinal fortitude given to me by the complete self discipline hard learned in the military has made me aware of the lack of such traits in others. I am by no means saying I am better than anyone...but when bad things happen...I feel the fear as any sane and rational person does, due to the high stress training...any one can remain functional in spite of it.

Courage and Bravery is not absence of fear...but what you do in spite of it.

that is why I believe everyone could benefit from that training. When no one is running away screaming...but acting rationally during times of adversity...great acts of unselfishness, kindness, and true American spirit happen.

pol8ce officers do fighters do it...first responders, a mother protecting her child...a father defending his home.....why do we not protect our neighbors? Why do we not do such things as a simple kindness of showing others their worth...gathering together and using each other's skills and talents to help each other...that is what military training does. It makes everyone a part of a team to function as a unit..
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
I agree with azag completely .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WhizKid 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm still pretty mixed about this topic. I would just like to say that, historically, initially the 2nd Amendment was important because tyranny. I'm not so sure we can trust "Big Brother" today equally. Pro had some points that addressed this but then would be willing to make a case for forced training and carry of firearms. To me this is creating "Big Brother" all over again in a different way. Con seemed to be a little arrogant and signed off his final round with a slur about poetry, so I feel conduct should be awarded to Pro. But Con's arguments were much, much stronger, used good quality sources, and was much more convincing. Con won this one easily.

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