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

The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed upon

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Antoine_Wolfgang 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: 4/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 112574
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




This house believes that the 2nd Amendment and the rights to assemble a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon within the United States.


I know that the NRA runs the country in the USA, with 36 billion dollars in revenue last year, the NRA has the government in their pocket and with the antiquated 300 year old parchment called the Constitution that was written when USA was the wild west and you needed guns to survive. Well times have changed in 300 years. And we don't need guns. Only in America do we have a gun death every 11 minutes, rampage school shootings, well people have finally had enough. And it's about time.

All those stubborn NRA loving people with the mentality that "Nobody is taking my guns away" well we don't have to, we will just hit you where it matters, your pocket/wallet. I applaude Deerfield Michigan to be the first to outlaw assault rifles, and if you are a trailer park, confederate flag waving, redneck who says he is not giving up his guns, well we will fine you $1000.00 a day!! I'm pretty sure that welfare check and those moonshine and meth proceeds of crime won't be enough to cover that fine every day, so it's time to get rid of guns, this is the first step. Way to go Deerfield!! People have had enough with Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tec, Orlando Nightclub, Florida school, on and on, enough is enough.

The wild west is over, there are grocery stores for food, we have police forces, FBI, ATF,, State Police, city police, we have enough police presence to protect the public, now lets get rid of the guns, so stop your paranoia and get rid of the gun or be fined $1000.00, how does that catch yea hillbilly?
Debate Round No. 1


Going by the fact that you sourced CNN (The same biased news network who are exploiting the kids of a school shooting to further their agenda), it comes as no surprise to me that you would claim that the NRA runs the country as if the government itself were its puppet. Before I initiate my rebuttal, I should like to mention that the revenue of the NRA in 2016 (On the assumption that it was relatively similar to 2017) was approximately $433.9 million (, not $36 billion. I couldn't imagine where you found such a ludicrous number.

In order to answer the question regarding the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, we must understand the contextual information surrounding the reasons for why our founding fathers implemented the 2nd Amendment into the constitution in 1791. The reasons for why we were granted the right to bear arms was to protect ourselves against an external or internal tyrannical government, bent on the authoritative-like control of our people. If you have noticed, all clauses within the constitution serve the single purpose of limiting the power of the government, whether it be the 1st Amendment, which prohibits any law that restricts the freedom of press, speech or peaceful protest, or the 3rd or 4th Amendment, which prohibits quartering or house searches without a warrant for arrest. The 2nd Amendment is no exception. The Amendment itself is not as much the right to bear arms as it is the right for us to protect ourselves against any form of institutional oppression. This is unfortunately often ignored by many mainstream outlets and sources of information, and the majority of people don't understand this concept.

As for your second argument. To say that the 2nd Amendment is not relevant today because it was written "300 years" ago is an unfortunate statement to make. I recall in the last century alone containing multiple oppressive regimes that brought their countries into war and deprived their own citizens of their rights. I recall Italy, Japan, Spain and Germany undergoing fascist regimes, I recall the Soviet Union spanning a life of 80 years, installing terror on its own citizens and imprisoning and systematically starving over 40 million of its own people. China serves as a similar case, under the totalitarian regime of Mao, which led to great famines, persecutions and the death of another 40 million people. I can assure you, every government that attempts to take over the rights of its own people will be completely deterred from a population that was granted the ability to protect itself against such a tyrannical regime. One might make the gross assumption that the United States could never turn authoritarian, while completely ignoring the blatant fact that the government today has more control over its people than it did in the 19th century, and that the role of government has far outreached the role intended by the Founding Fathers. I say we cannot predict the future, and neither could the founding fathers, which is why they tried to limit the role of government in every way they saw fit. It only takes 1 great recession for an authoritarian leader to rise into power, or any sort of sudden political shift in ideology. So understand that the United States was not limited to "The wild west", but rather a country with a government elected by its people, of its people and for its people.

Speaking of school shootings, let's completely ignore the fact that 98% of mass shootings occur in Gun free zones. It's somewhat humorous (Rather facetious of me to say it in this manner) that you would list countless of shootings that took place in either gun free zones (Orlando and Florida shooting) or where the arms themselves were illegally purchased. I would like to reiterate that gun bans and fines simply do not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. Dylan (During the Columbine massacre) obtained his TEC-DC9 illegally considering Bill Clinton's gun reform ban was already emplaced ( It's also quite convenient that you leave out the Sutherland Springs church shooting, The recent Youtube shooting and the Parkland high school shooting as they do not necessarily fit your argument.

You claim that the police have situations under control for the most part, yet you neglect to remember the fact that the police were issued 44 warnings from teachers, parents and students regarding the behavior of Nikolas Cruz before he committed the crime. Furthermore, there were 4 police men present outside the schools unwilling to go inside the school during the mass shooting, demonstrating another failure of the police force.

How about the Sutherland Spring Shooting, which saw the standoff between a legally armed citizen who chased the shooter (Who obtained his gun illegally) away and saved countless lives before the police even were aware of what was happening. The police failed in both these circumstances. It is estimated that gun carriers tend to be 8% more reliable in life threatening situations than police. If you were to outlaw guns, not only would you be taking away people's rights to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, but you would encourage a black market of guns to form, with illegal gun owners buying from them. Take the drug war for example, when Richard Nixon outlawed the possession and use of drugs. Did that work? There are more guns in the United States than people, with over 40,000,000 carriers of fire arms. Good luck trying to take their rights away from them without causing a civil war that would kill well over millions.

In 2016, there were 33,636 gun related deaths in the United States. That's 0.0000925% of the US population each year. 65% of those gun related deaths are by suicide, which would not be prevented by any gun law. 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and tend to be justified. 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related crime and 3% are accidental discharge deaths. Of the 33,636 number, roughly 5,100 are homicide related deaths (most of which are in self-defense). Within the United States:

- 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
- 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
- 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
- 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC (54% increase over prior years)

That means 25% of all gun related homicides in the United States occur in 4 cities. All 4 of those cities are democratically run and contain strict gun laws. The number of gun related deaths is not so blown up to proportion. Especially considering 500,000 - 3,000,000 lives are saved with guns according to the 'Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies.' They quote: "All National survey estimates indicate that defensive use by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.

Finally, although the United States have a gun problem, they're gun problem is not nearly as bad as the amount of shootings that takes place in other countries upon taking into account population size.

In terms of Mass shootings per 100,000 people, the United States is 11th with (0.089), behind Norway, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Albania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and Czech Republic. (

In terms of Homicides by guns, The United States is 16th with (4.62) behind Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, Mexico, Paraguay, Costa Rica and Uruguay. (

To conclude, Banning guns and fining ownerships of guns only forbids law abiding citizens from obtaining said guns. Much appreciation for calling me a hillbilly though. Appreciate it


The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, woman and child.

Why do so many Americans own guns? The main reason, according to surveys, is protection. Advocates argue that guns in the home both deter crime (criminals refrain from even trying to break in because they fear being shot by an armed citizen) and thwart it (an armed citizen can stop a crime in progress, preventing injury or theft).

The scientific evidence, however, provides little support for these arguments. Quite the opposite.

In terms of deterrence, a recent study found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher levels of firearm crime and do not have lower levels of other types of crime.

Another study, in 2003, found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact.

As for thwarting crime, gun advocates claim that guns are commonly used in self-defense, and that without a firearm, one is essentially at the mercy of a criminal. Yet, again, that is not what the data show.

The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of information on the nature and extent of criminal victimization in the United States. Some 90,000 households, comprising about 160,000 individuals, are surveyed twice a year.

Along with Sara Solnick, a professor of economics at the University of Vermont, analyzed the data for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011, looking at more than 14,000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator " incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, assaults and robberies).

More than 42% of the time, the victim took some action " maced the offender, yelled at the offender, struggled, ran away, or called the police. Victims used a gun in less than 1% of the incidents (127/14,145). In other words, actual self-defense gun use, even in our gun-rich country, is rare.

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.

Indeed, a study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1,100 sexual assaults, in only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense.

The data, moreover, do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use " the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, struggling) and some with lower (for example, running away).

Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal , the victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon " Mace, for instance " appeared equally effective as using a gun.

Almost two-thirds of the people in the U.S. population live in homes without guns, and there is no evidence that the inhabitants of these homes are at greater risk of being robbed, injured or killed by criminals compared with citizens in homes with guns. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the likelihood not only that a household member will be shot accidentally, but also that someone in the home will die in a suicide or homicide.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of household guns are stolen each year. Gun theft is a main pathway by which guns end up in criminal hands. The public health costs of gun ownership are very high.

That is why physician organizations " who care about your health and often see firsthand the harmful effects of firearms " suggest that you very carefully weigh the actual costs and benefits before bringing a lethal weapon into your home.

Guns do not save lives, they KILL PEOPLE, get rid of guns and the senseless killings will go down. Th 2'nd Amendment needs to be removed from the constitution. Guns should be illegal like they are in most countries. Like Canada where the guns are prohibited, the crime rate is 90% lower then in the USA.

Case closed (mic drop)
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
I live in Canada now Archaholic, I was tired of the gun violence and having to mortgage my house for medical health, so I moved to Canada where there are no guns and I get free health care
Posted by Archaholic 3 years ago
Well done, FanBoy. Your arguments were so well-thought-out that it's hard yo believe you're American. Lol.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
Looks like I win this debate without a doubt, my irrefutable evidence just goes to prove that the 2'nd amendment is archaic and should be abolished. It made sense 300 years ago but not today

Case closed (fanboy out)

mic drop
Posted by Antoine_Wolfgang 3 years ago

You have brought up various points for which I would love to address within a civil debate and not on a comment section (I hope you understand). I strongly encourage you to challenge me in a debate with the 2nd Amendment in question.
Posted by Comet76 3 years ago
I understand that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect its citizens from a tyrannical government, however times have certainly changed. Don't live under a rock. The guns before were muskets that gave ample amount of time to think whether you want to take a life or not. These days its a different story isn't it? Not only that the U.S government has drones and trained operatives. Normal citizens with guns are more likely to use it on themselves than on actual terrorists. Hope you don't forget the las vegas and school shootings. The kids got their gun either purchasing it from wal mart for maybe 1k using their mom or dad's credit card or using one they already had. Furthermore America has far too many guns. In the entire world, America has the most amount of guns.
Personally, I don't think your guns should be taken away since it affects hunters,etc. However, having no restrictions on the type of guns you have is insane. You wouldn't want to go to a school where a maniac with a machine gun walks in and takes lives of innocent children.
Now I'll also counter some arguments
1) I need it for protection- this argument is used by a lot of gun maniacs ( props for not using it). As I said before if your government wants to kill you they will have no problem. Lets say you're assaulted, perfect time to pull the gun of your holster and defend yourself. Except you cant because you prolly weren't expecting to be assaulted were you? You also cant leave it lying around at your bedside table because one of your kids might pick it up and shoot another one of your kids. So you keep it out of their reach or in a safe. If its safely locked in a safe how tf do you expect to depend yourself. The assaulter isn't gonna go "Oh yeah take your time, I'll wait while you arm yourself" A world where citizens don't have guns make sure that if you call your neighbour fat, he isn't going to get his pump shotgun out and shoot your guts out.
Posted by Antoine_Wolfgang 3 years ago
And how would you go about removing over 340 million guns from over 40 million people in the United States?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Public citizens should not have guns, cuz there are to many crazy people, simple as that
This debate has 4 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.