The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 118309
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I believe that firearms should be legal in the United States without many or more restrictions, Because of the second amendment. It is the only amendment in the constitution that says it will not be infringed. Yet it is the amendment that is changed the most and argued constantly.

People may say that the constitution was talking about muzzleloaders, But those were assault weapons to the people without them. In addition, The term assault rifle changes throughout history. The M1 Garand was an assault rifle of WWII, But in current day isn't considered a threat as much. Who determines what is a true threat and why. One could easily cause harm with a 22lr as an AR-15.


In this debate, I will mostly be arguing about the 2 Amend. 's obsolescence.

1. The 2nd Amendment was written to balance state and federal powers.

Following their independence, Many were extremely weary as not to create a federal govt. That held too much power like the British. This meant that a fragile balance had to be struck between the state and nation (hence the entire separation between Federalists and Anti-Federalists).

The 2nd Amend. Too, Was a balancing act. Madison, Who was influential in framing it, Described the guaranteed militia as an opposing force to the federal army. However, Following the many trials that the nation went through, The national identity began to outrank the state identity in many Americans, Diminishing the need for such legislation.

2. Tyranny is no longer a concern

With limited chars. Left, I will say that, Unlike the Weimar Rep. Or Rus. Rep. , The current political structure and climate makes tyranny in the US impossible.

I will be refuting in Round 2.

Debate Round No. 1


The idea that guns kill people would be true. Firearms are able to kill people or other organisms, But that idea would ignore other cases. If one were to claim that guns are responsible, Then think about cars or knives. The people are responsible, Like in the gun instance, However, Society blames the person more than the vehicle for instance. In contrast, With guns, Society is more likely to blame the gun and not the person. Is there a call for car control, When there is a big reck. Accidents rank fourth on the top ten causes for death in America, While gun violence doesn't make the list. , According to Medical News Today.
( https://www. Medicalnewstoday. Com/articles/282929. Php )

The idea that owning firearms is bad in general would be wrong. The use of weapons to protect oneself is a valid and truthful explanation. There will always be people that obtain something that is banned, And the loss of means to protect oneself against those people would result in more casualties than now.


For R2, I will refute.

1. The definition of 'assault weapon/rifle' is constant

Earlier, Pro stated that the term 'assault weapon/rifle' changes. This is simply not true. Both have clear criteria [1][2]. This means the muzzleloader or Garand, Which were never considered an assault weapon, Are not comparable to actual, modern assault weapons.

2. People kill people, But guns are made to help

It is not likely that an average American decides to kill. But it is likely for that same American to be in an accident, Because it is precisely that: an accident. Cars are made for transportation, With some fatal errors. Guns are made for killing. On the list provided, Many of the causes of death are illnesses, And is therefore irrelevant. But, murder statistics show us that handguns and general firearms were the most popular weapon [3].

3. Only 0. 9% of owners actually use it in defense [4]

[1] Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)
[2] https://bit. Ly/2jVmym1
https://bit. Ly/2hXZIJ3
[4] https://bit. Ly/2EHxu3u
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
But is that justified?
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
Inherent human tendencies are such that ultimately someone is going to pull the trigger.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
The issue with the second amendment comes from the way and time when it was written. Based on your interpretation you could argue for or against regulations.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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