All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Guns do not offer any kind of protection. If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at. Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet. Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests? Why do people believe guns will protect them?
The second amendment clearly states that every American citizen has a right to a gun. The Constitution is a huge part of what makes up America. We must abide by the Constitution and this means allowing everyone the right to a gun. If the United States bans guns the Constitution is being denied. We cannot have that happen. If you support banning guns then you are anti-constitutional and thus anti-USA. If you want guns to be banned so badly then move to a country where the constitution doesn't give everyone the right to a gun.
Buy Guns Online Norway,Guns for sale Norway, Buy Black Market Guns Online,Where to buy Guns online,Purchase Guns Online,Buy Firearms online,Why you should Buy Guns online,Best place to buy Guns online,Best place to buy Guns without FFL,How to buy a Gun online,Purchasing Ammo online,Ways to obtain Ammunition Online,Why acquire Ammunition online?, Secure ammo from the solace of your home,Best Guide on how to buy guns online
The gun debate in america is a water mark issue in individual vs the state. The problem is, as I understand it as a Brit, the right is to bear arms is the provision and guns are simply the interpretation of this rule. Now hundreds of years ago, that meant literaly arming yourself with a gun, to protect yourself against potential state invasion or encroachment onto you, your property and your rights.
FF to 2014 and the whole debate is a distraction flirting with irrelavency.
The key issue here isnt whether guns are a rightous moral instrument against state oppression. The problem is that they arent effective at all. If the state ever wanted to crush the individual, it has more than enough power to feasibly do so. The real interpretation of the ammendment isnt concerning guns, but instead is a continuation of the spirit of the rule, which means the individuals ability to hold insurance against the state. Those who are pro gun or anti gun can maintain their stances. What Im saying is someone needs to reinterpret the morals and spirit of this ammendment and use it to incorporate civil right to resistance, against things such as the patriot act and the wiretapping revelations.
Americans need to protect themselves against 2014 encroachments of the state, and not just arm themselves ineffectively for a civil war that will probably never come.
↓ Show Details
