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

Gun Rights

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: 7/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 24833
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I for gun rights, and believe according to the constitution that it is our right to bear arms as self defense.


Debate Round No. 1


I have 3 arguments for gun rights.
1. Guns keep us safe from our government
2. It is our constitutional right to bear arms.
3. Guns keep us safe from criminals

(1.) Dictators prefer unarmed citizens.

In our own American history we have had to use arms against our government in the Revolutionary war. When our government oversteps its bounds it is its citizens' job to keep it in check.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

(2.) The founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

It is our government officials' jobs' to uphold the Constitution. It is in there oath, and the Constitution states this right blatantly.

"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."

(3.) Criminals prefer unarmed victims

Through the first six months of this year the city of Chicago have had an aggregate of 228 homicides. Chicago has some of the very toughest gun laws. It also has the most police officer killings than any other city.

Just recently there was a shooting in a theater in Colorado. If one other person in that theater was carrying, the shooting would have been much shorter.


Re: (1) "Dictators prefer unarmed citizens."

My opponent has given no reason to believe a dictatorship is bad, no reason to believe dictators prefer unarmed citizens, and no reason to assume the preferences of dictators have any relevance to the issue of gun rights. My opponent's contention thus has no impact on the issue at stake in this debate.

My opponent claims it is the job of citizens to keep the government in check. I also don't see how this is relevant to the issue of "gun rights." First, the US government has an extensive system of checks and balances which keeps the government from overstepping its bounds. It is therefore unlikely that citizens will ever be in a position where they have to lead a violent revolution against their own government.

Second, the idea that citizens can take up arms against the government in today's world is a non-starter. The government will always have bigger and better weapons, more resources, and more organization. There is no reason for citizens to pretend they have a chance, as they will be taken out before the revolution even begins. The only things a gun does is make it easier for people to kill other people.

Re: (2) "The founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights."

First, the quote my opponent provides does not guarantee a right to keep and bear arms for everyone. A careful reading of the Second Amendment only allows the carrying of arms for militia service, which applies to the right of states to have a militia. This does not mean every individual has the right to bear arms. The right of individuals to own guns is never established by the Constitution.

Second, even if my opponent's reading of the Constitution is correct (it isn't), my opponent has offered no reason to believe the Second Amendment is right. I would argue it is no longer relevant. The Constitution was drafted at a time when allowing citizens to own guns may have had a positive impact, but the Second Amendment is now obsolete, because the idea of a citizenry rising up against the government's military is a non-starter, and because guns lead to murder and crime, making the cost of gun rights unacceptable.

Re: (3) "Criminals prefer unarmed victims."

The same argument could be turned around: the victims of crime would prefer unarmed criminals. My opponent's argument has no relevance to the debate, as the preference of criminals and the preference of victims is irrelevant to whether the government should prohibit individual gun ownership.

The number of violent murders in the United States far exceeds countries that have stricter gun control laws. The cost of having guns readily available is not worth the benefit (if one can even be proved). An armed citizenry is not going to change the fact that gun rights perpetuates crime and murder.
Debate Round No. 2


Prez_Siler forfeited this round.


Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


Prez_Siler forfeited this round.


Extend arguments. My opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Prez_Siler 6 years ago
People argue that there should be federal gun bans, and that the constitution can be interpreted to say that the constitution has changed meaning over the years.
Posted by jaketaz 6 years ago
First of all, I don't really understand the one sentence you put down for round one. You vote for gun rights? You lobby for gun rights? What goes there?

I wanted to accept this, but I don't see how I could argue it, because the Constitution states in plain language our right to "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."

Gun laws that restrict people exist on a state-to-state basis, federally speaking they are totally legal. What is there to debate about? It says right in the Constitution that we get guns.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: (here's the secret: there might be a forfeit)