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

Gun Control

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 118657
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.


Gun control in the United States is a violation of the 2nd amendment, The purpose of which has nothing to do with hunting, Or even personal protection, But to rebel against corrupt government, James Madison, The man who wrote the 2nd amendment, Justified the creation of a federal government in federalist paper number 46 by saying that the states (subjected to the people) could rise up and fight it, And that the american people are unique in being armed and able to defend their liberties from a corrupt government, Something the residents of european countries, Ran by leaders afraid to arm their people, Did not have. Alexander Hamilton supported the right of the people to keep and bear arms in federalist paper number 29 for defending liberty as well.
In order to fight a corrupt government you must have adequate arms to do so, Which is why we need AR-15s, . 50 bmg rifles, And other modern weaponry.

Background checks are also a violation of the purpose of the 2nd amendment as they allow the government to decide who can and can't own guns, And since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to be armed against said government it doesn't make sense that that same government should be able to decide who can own guns, The same concept applies to felons not being able to own guns, As they pass unconstitutional laws regarding firearms (or other things) and people become felons after violating them.

In regards to school shootings, Schools used to have a lot more guns in them as students would bring rifles for target practice or hunting after school ended, And school shootings were far less common, Which shows that school shootings are a result of other things, Which is a debate in and of itself.

Regarding the US homicide rate, A rate that is higher than other 1st world countries, We must take into account the fact that America has a lot more blacks and hispanics than other countries, As they commit a far higher rate of violent crime.
In 2016, According to the fbi, Blacks commited 52. 6% of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 29. 1% of rape and 54. 5% of robbery, Despite taking up only 13% of the population.
Hispanics (who are erroneously counted as white by the fbi, Despite hispanics usually being mixed-race mestizos or castizos) commited 20. 0% of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 27. 0% of rape, And 21. 1% of robbery, Despite only being 18% of the population.
The US homicide rate is so bad because of how black and hispanic this country is.

Since you did not clarify what gun control measures you supported I covered a couple angles, (a shotgun approach)but I would like to know specifically what you mean so I can argue against it.

Madison's federalist paper: http://avalon. Law. Yale. Edu/18th_century/fed46. Asp

Hamilton's Federalist paper: http://avalon. Law. Yale. Edu/18th_century/fed29. Asp

Proof that schools used to commonly have armed students: https://www. Nationalreview. Com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/ (A better resource than this is to talk to men who went to high school in the 70s/80s or before in rural america).

FBI crime statistics: https://ucr. Fbi. Gov/crime-in-the-u. S/2016/crime-in-the-u. S. -2016/tables/table-21
Debate Round No. 1


Gun control is not a violation of the 2nd amendment just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The supreme court has recognized that the 1st amendment does not mean unlimited free speech, And a similar argument can be made with the 2nd amendment. Gun control measures such as background checks, Training, And licenses do not infringe upon the right to bear arm, Or prevent citizens from rebelling. These measures would simply keep dangerous firearms from the people who are incapable of that responsibility. I don't think gang members, Mentally ill, Or jihadis are your allies when fighting a tyrannical government. There are already restrictions, Should people be able to possess rocket propelled grenades? If so, Is that an infringement on the 2nd amendment?


Is a ban on RPG's against the 2nd amendment? Yes, Because it infringes on our ability to protect ourselves from tyrannical government, Nor were explosives on a similar scale a concept foreign to the founding fathers, And if they wanted to ban them they could have written that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect bombs.
It is not comparable to shouting fire in a movie theater in regards to the 1st amendment, Because the 1st amendment is about the right to criticize the government (and reasonably it is about the ability to criticize society as a whole as well), And panicking people without a reason is not included in this. But the regulation of the ownership of firearms is different because this is directly what the 2nd amendment addresses.

If a person is too mentally ill to be trusted with a gun then they are too mentally Ill to be trusted in society and should be in an asylum, They shouldn't be used as an excuse to infringe on other's rights. Nor should jihadis, As they should not be allowed into the country in the first place.
Gang members are usually blacks and hispanics, The races that commit most violent crimes, And we shouldn't limit white people's rights because blacks and hispanics kill people.

Debate Round No. 2


So you believe any citizen should be able to equip themselves with an RPG? I can't believe that someone would really believe that. If you do think civilians should be allowed to purchase these, According to you it would have to be completely unrestricted because any form of regulation is against the 2nd amendment. The first amendment is not only about the right to criticize the government, It governs all types of speech, And my example still demonstrates that the amendments to the constitution are not without some restrictions. I never said ban all guns, I said increase controls, That does not go against the 2nd amendment. I don't think locking up all mentally ill people is a good solution, Many people with mental illnesses are otherwise fully functioning people, Bi-polar people for example don't need to be in an asylum, But it should be known when they try to purchase a gun.


The 1st amendment is also about criticizing society, As I said. It's about the right to voice your opinion on things without legal consequences, And when it was written that was mainly about the right to criticize the government.
I didn't say it was only about criticizing government, But that was what caused it to come about, It was never about the right to sadistically panic people, And trying to force it to include your point in order to make ridiculous exceptions to the 2nd amendment isn't reasonable.

What is so hard to believe about me supporting the right of the people to own RPG's? I'm not the only one that thinks this, Certain tribes in Pakistan are legally allowed to own them, Not that I look there for justification for my beliefs, But your shock is ridiculous.

Regarding bi-polar people, Any threat they may possibly pose from being able to buy a gun is not worth the threat to the people's liberty that background checks impose, Nor are they likely to go on a shooting rampage anyway. As shown by the fact that most don't though guns are easy to obtain.

You saying that gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment doesn't change the fact that it does violate the 2nd amendment.
Debate Round No. 3


Same thing could be said about the 2nd amendment, It was written so that citizens could rebel in times of tyranny, It was never about the right to shoot up schools and churches. I think it's telling that the country you mentioned in your argument for RPG's is Pakistan, What happened? You couldn't find any stable developed nations that support your idea? Since when do background checks infringe on someone's liberty? That's a normal aspect of society today.


Who said it was about the right to shoot up schools and churches? I'm not advocating for that, But the existence of those shootings doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the guns that school shooters choose to use. You can kill people in a church or school with a musket too and they still wrote the 2nd amendment, While being well aware that guns can be used to kill people. But if the government has advanced weaponry, And the 2nd amendment is about fighting corrupt government (which it is), Than obviously the founding fathers wouldn't say we should only use black powder guns (or whatever guns liberals arbitrarily decide can be legal).

My point with the rpg's was that other people obviously agree with me as well, Nor is Pakistan a 3rd world country because rpg's are legal for some people, Nor does it make Pakistan a worse country. The reason Pakistan is so bad is for political and racial reasons, Problems that wouldn't exist in a white country if you gave rpg's to white people. Whites are the reason why America is a stable developed country, And this won't change if we have access to the full range of arms protected under the 2nd amendment, Which includes explosives, Which existed back then too.

Background checks infringe on someone's liberty because the government, That the 2nd amendment exists so people can violently resist when it gets corrupt, Gets to decide who can own guns. Is this not obvious to you? I already explained this so I have to assume you're just choosing to ignore it. But on top of that there is also a fee to do it, And a fee in order to have a basic right is unconstitutional by itself and disadvantages the poor. Which is why poll taxes were banned.

There are lots of normal aspects of society which aren't right, Nor does the 2nd amendment say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Unless someone feels restrictions are a normal part of society", This only became a normal aspect of society because someone decided to infringe on the 2nd amendment in the 90s, It wasn't a normal aspect of society before this, And to justify an infringement because it's been around for a couple decades does not change what the 2nd amendment says.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering backwards horrible vote.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "Gun control in the United States is a violation of the 2nd amendment" Huh? = WRONG! Con"Or even personal protection" If Con would have done some actual research, the Violence Policy Center found that a gun owner is 32 times more likely to use their weapon in criminal homicide rather than in self-defense. Con "We must take into account the fact that America has a lot more blacks and hispanics than other countries, As they commit a far higher rate of violent crime." That's a stupid statement. It certainly shows why gun control is more imperative than ever. I as a voter simply stopped reading after that. No point going on.

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