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

Should all gun restrictions be abolished?

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
Mark_U has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 103728
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The first round is for confirmation only and will not include arguments. Here are the rules for the debate 1. There shall be no argument brought up without a credible source 2. All arguments must be void of an emotional appeal. 3. Ad Hominem arguments are unacceptable. To start the round my opponent, in their first round must confirm his participation in the debate and his agreement to the rules of the debate.


I confirm my participation, and agree to the rules of the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


All through out history we have seen numerous examples of governments becoming tyrannical and taking away their people's rights. We have seen it in Germany, in Syria, in Venezuela and recently in Turkey. In Turkey a tyrannical president came into power took away the right of the people to bear arms. Then sent out people who would kill any one they thought was saying bad things about the dictator. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it says that

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

What this document is saying is that whenever a Government restricts the God given rights of the people, it becomes the right of the people to destroy that Government. Then again to support this idea the 2nd amendment to the Constitution

"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."

What this text is saying is that in order to destroy a totalitarian government the people should have gun ownership without any Government oversight. The reason this is important is because without the people being able to possess guns and having the right to destroy a government, the rights of the people would be at severe danger.

Next the reason that having guns without restrictions is necessary is because of a couple of reasons. First, The 2nd Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." meaning there shall be no restrictions on the ownership of guns. Second in order to destroy a government the people need to have the adequate resources in order to combat a tyrannical and destructive force.

I hope my arguments have been clear and concise and are informational if there are any questions regarding anything I said please ask me in the comments section. I now await my opponent's response.


Throughout history, I agree, we have seen government restricting and/or taking away the rights of the people by taking away their right to bear arms, and while that is not my contention, I do believe the government should regulate well who would and who wouldn't be allowed to buy guns on the legal market.

Word for word, the second amendment states that, "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." Often times activists holding the same views and gun regulation as my opponent cite the second amendment as the reason for no gun regulation, however as stated above, even ignoring the militia section as that can be contested, the second amendment affirms that the system must be "well regulated," in order for the peoples rights not to be infringed. Another thing I'd like to point out is that even if every civilian was armed with an AK-47, the government still has at their disposal tanks, bombs, jets, ships, lasers, a military, more guns, etc. so destroying the government even if everybody was armed would still be an extremely difficult feat.

While, like I said before, do agree that in history governments have had a tendency to revoke citizens gun rights and in the process become a fascist dictatorship, plenty of democratic modern nations much like the United States have successfully implemented gun control and continued to remain a democracy while in the process seeing a decrease in gun related violence and deaths. These countries include Canada, the UK, Japan and Australia. Focusing on Canada specifically, the nation sees, according to Business Insider, 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun related homicides, where as the United States sees, according to the CDC, 11.1 gun related deaths per 100,000.

And finally, only in recent decades there have been countless examples of times when adequate gun control in the United States could have prevented great tragedy. For example, the pulse night club shooter was able to obtain the guns he used during the event legally, despite being on the FBI's watch list twice. Elliot Roger along with James Holmes were also able to obtain their weaponry legally, even though they had been previously identified as having metal illnesses. If even minimal gun control had been in place at the time, looking at only these three events 67 lives could have been saved, 67 peoples rights likely wouldn't have been so gruesomely violated.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NihilistRafiqueGenius 2 years ago
Imagine this, there is like a huge thing going on where the citizens are unsafe but the police and military all went to the mansions to protect the rich and famous, how are the citizens gonna defend themselves?Or imagine this, the military turns on the people, how is the people gonna defend themselves?
Posted by levi_smiles 2 years ago
There shall be no argument brought up without a credible source. if we can't present an argument that hasn't already been published then original thinking is forbidden. What's the point of having a debate if it's restricted to summarizing other people's arguments with less eloquence?
This debate has 2 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.