CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The second amendment is not 100% clear on what the preconditions for allowing gun ownership are. But disarming the whole population would definitely render the second amendment null and void, and thus be a crime against the people and the Constitution.
The title of this debate mentions disarming an unwilling population.
Hello again, Big:
Good question..
I made two assumptions in my answer.. If the government is "disarming", then the 2nd Amendment has already been repealed.. And, the "unwilling", are those who balked at repeal, but it happened anyway..
80% of America supports the 2nd, so how you going to do it without tyranny?
Hello again, bront:
Relax.. I don't know how to explain this to you.. You asked about what's TYRANNY and what ISN'T. I told you.. I didn't SAY it was gonna happen.. I didn't say it SHOULD happen.. I simply said it wouldn't BE tyranny IF it DID happen..
Try to follow along.. This IS your debate, isn't it??? DUDE!
You aren't a spokesperson for the population. You don't get to decide whether anybody except yourself is either willing or unwilling. You include false parameters like these into your debates because you are anti-reason, anti-fact and anti-honesty.
How is the Internet Troll going to control guns in all countries ?
I will make it illegal for guns to have three dimensions. Responsible gun owners will be perfectly welcome to own as many two dimensional firearms as they like.
Reports of violence, stabbings and murders have hit the headlines in recent months, with daily occurrences in London. But how widespread is violent crime, why is it growing and who are the victims?
The vast majority of people will not be a victim of violent crime. In England and Wales, four in five people did not experience crime in 2017 and overall crime has been steadily decreasing since 1995.
Although people are experiencing less crime, high-harm incidents, including offences involving knives and firearms, are on the rise. In 2017 there was a 22% increase in knife crime and an 11% rise in gun crime, according to offences recorded by the police. These crimes don’t occur very often, but they do attract a lot of media attention.
Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.
Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.
The Met said although crime rates were rising they remained at a much lower level than five years ago.
Scotland Yard registered annual rises across a number of serious offence categories in the past 12 months, following several years of falls.
The total number of offences during the 2016 to 2017 financial year was 774,737, an increase of 4% from the previous year when total offences stood at 740,933.
Knife crime offences that resulted in an injury also increased, by 21% to 4,415 from 2016 to 2017, compared to 3,663 offences the year before.
The force said robbery offences, which increased 12% year-on-year, were at about half the level of 2006-2007 and there were 58 fewer homicides this year compared to 10 years ago.
The Troll should use it's power of intelligence in the UK !!!!!!!!!!!
Is attemting to disarm an unwilling population tyranny?
Hello bront:
Nahh…
The Constitution CAN be amended, of course, where amendments themselves get repealed.. Therefore, IF the government was going to confiscate weapons, one would assume that they're going to do it CONSTITUTIONALLY..
In that case, gathering up the guns would be anything BUT tyranny..
Looks like you want to amend the 4th out of existence too.
Hello A:
Dude! It's NOT something I want.. It would BE the law. Look.. This discussion is about what WOULD be tyranny and what WOULDN'T.. I'm simply saying that if the 2nd were repealed, then rounding up the guns ISN'T tyranny..
That's just SO.. It's NOT about my preferences.. Reading counts..
Even if the 2nd were repealed, going house to House is a breach of the 4th. If the 4th were repealed, by whatever means, you would have tyranny in the form of unreasonable searches and seizures.
Ok, ok.. Look.. I dunno HOW the government is gonna round up the guns. I dunno if they should.. But, if having a gun is illegal, they'll find a way.. Is it gonna be successful?? Sure.. About as much success as their war on pot..
Look.. I don't want 'em to round up the guns. I want us to act responsibly so the government doesn't have to.. But, 2nd Amendment or not, there is SOME point in time when the citizenry will RISE up..
If you think we'll sit idly by, while these shootings go on, and on, and on, and on, and then on some more, you're wrong..
I'm sorry.. I thought I was clear.. We'd AMEND the Constitution.
In other words, we agree with the founders and you don't, so let's leave the founders out of this one. You'll bring them up in a future debate, but who'll really know why...
How will you get em if the gangs, militant groups and we aren't giving them up?
I dunno.. How about a house to house search??
They wouldn't make it across the yard. We'd booby trap everything. Breathing incorrectly on our properties would become a safety hazzard. Watch your step. Don't step there. Not there either. Or there...hell, don't step anywhere....hell, don't even think, or the mines are going off.
Would there be a few gun nuts who'd oppose it? Sure.. So what? The government has MORE weapons than does your local right wing militia..
The government can't beat the Vietnamese. Oops, did I say that? The police hid from one kid shooter in Florida. So how they gonna take us? We actually are trained better to kill them than they are to kill us. Just letting you know.
In other words, we agree with the founders and you don't,
Hello again, bront:
The founders said that black people were worth 3/5 that of a white man.. OF COURSE, I disagree with them.
Furthermore, you asked whether disarming an unwilling population is tyranny.. I calmly explained that IF the Constitution were amended, it would NOT be tyranny..
Then you asked HOW they'd enforce it, and I told you..
Nowhere, did I say that I favor such action.. Oh, I DID say that if we eventually PROVE to ourselves that we CAN'T handle having guns, we should round them up...
I won a Daisy BB gun when I was 12.. My mom let me keep it as long as I didn't shoot out windows, or put a friends eye out.. What's WRONG with my mothers position??
The 3/5 compromise was designed to take power away from slave owning states when determining Congressional seats by population.
How do you expect the government to Amend the Constitution if the people are unwilling to go along with said Amendment? If the Constitution is Amended without the consent of the people, is that alone not tyranny?
The government is not your mother. Even so, if you prove you are not responsible enough to own a gun, you have proved nothing about me.
If the Constitution is Amended without the consent of the people, is that alone not tyranny?
Hello again, A:
Dude.. You don't know the law at all.. In simple terms, the Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of 2/3 of the states.. If that's NOT the consent of the people, I don't know what is..
DUDE!
I don't expect ANYTHING... Lemme remind you once more.. This is a question about what tyranny IS and what it ISN'T.. It's NOT about my preferences.. It's a LEGAL question requiring a legal answer.. DUDE.
the Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of 2/3 of the states.. If that's NOT the consent of the people, I don't know what is..
That’s consent of the representatives of the people. It’s very nice for you that you cannot imagine a world wherein representatives are unfaithful to their constituents, but it’s unrealistic.
That’s consent of the representatives of the people. It’s very nice for you that you cannot imagine a world wherein representatives are unfaithful to their constituents, but it’s unrealistic.
Hello again, A:
There are thieving, low life, scoundrels all over the place.. But, the founders didn't think they could influence more than a few states, and I agree with them.. That's why the founders require 2/3's of 'em to ratify a change..
The question was about law, NOT my imagination.. I'm just telling you what the Constitution says.. You don't think it'll work.. I do.
The founders said that black people were worth 3/5 that of a white man..
Actually this had to do with how they counted people for delegates. The anti slavery areas didn't see it as logical to give slave owning areas more delegates based off of a population that they didn't even allow to vote. The people who inacted the rule were actually the anti slavery people.
Nowhere, did I say that I favor such action.. Oh, I DID say that if we eventually PROVE to ourselves that we CAN'T handle having guns, we should round them up...
So who decides that Con? The populace majority? Looks like we've already spoken. We don't negotiate inalienable rights with terrorists, the government, nutjobs wearing masks calling themselves "antifascists", etc.
I won a Daisy BB gun when I was 12.. My mom let me keep it as long as I didn't shoot out windows, or put a friends eye out.. What's WRONG with my mothers position??
It's a fine position for children. But we aren't children, are we?
The Internet CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR is for amending the 2nd Amendment and wanting a Police State ! What good LEFTIST values you have there SUPER STUPID !!!!!
I don't want to disarm the population. I want to somewhat LIMIT the arms of the population. If you MUST have an assault weapon it should be an expensive, licensed, hobby, well vetted. No restrictions on hunting rifles with reasonable magazine capacities. Well vetted ownership on handguns, w/license, and another expensive license for YUGE collections. Ballistic samples on semi-auto handguns would be a nice requirement too, so a killing bullet might be traced rapidly to an owner. This would drastically cut down on crime and crazies! KEEP OUR GUNS ,,, within reason.