CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
44
Yes, hippies want my guns No, I dare you to take my gun
Debate Score:53
Arguments:26
Total Votes:55
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, hippies want my guns (5)
 
 No, I dare you to take my gun (21)

Debate Creator

pugilist77(63) pic



Is the 2nd Amendment in danger?

You have the right as an American citizen to own a gun. Does the current administration want to take your guns and gun rights away from you? Is Obama going to put a serial number on every bullet and shell? Or is our 2nd Amendment, pardon the pun, bulletproof?

Yes, hippies want my guns

Side Score: 9
VS.

No, I dare you to take my gun

Side Score: 44
1 point

Well there not going to ban guns, they will just make guns a bullets more expensive and harder to get. Which is complete crap.

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
curtix(41) Disputed
4 points

Technically the people afraid of obama are the only ones that have made it harder to get guns or ammunition so far.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
2 points

Oh really, hows that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
1 point

yes because you have the rapists, murderers, and other people that would hurt u how would u defend urself while u r getting raped or kidnapped

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
5 points

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

There isn't a soul on this planet that can take the things that I have earned away from me because someone else is a afraid of 'gangstas' and 'terrorists'.

Supporting Evidence: The source on Google Books (books.google.com)
Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
xander(438) Disputed
3 points

I agree that people should be able to be armed; however, arms were completely different in the days of the Constitution, and that's important to remember. Really, who needs a fully automatic assault weapon for home defense? Nobody. So, I think that there should be (as there are!) sensible limitations on what you can have. I'm also a huge fan of laws that make you wait several days before getting a gun! These make a whole bunch of sense to me.

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
Warlin(1212) Disputed
2 points

I'm not exactly sure what your point is or why it pertains to the question of this debate, but I agree with you that there should be certain measures in place. I honestly don't want the person living next to me to have a rocket launcher. Especially if he's crazy.

The question here, however is asking if the 2nd Amendment is in danger. Which it most certainly is not. If anyone in a high position of office changes this, I can assure you there will be rebellion and riots, because it won't just be the 2nd Amendment that is in danger, but the supreme law of the land. The Constitution.

Supporting Evidence: Second Amendment (www.usconstitution.net)
Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
itsnotright(24) Disputed
2 points

So in essence you are saying that if some regulatory regime tries to confiscate what is legally mine, or make me change my political view I have to fight back with a flintlock? I don't know how many times I or anyone else has said this but, the only thing criminal about a criminal is that they are in fact a criminal. The LEGAL citizens of this country, the Law abiding LEGAL citizens are not the problem. If I choose to spend the thousnads of dollars neccesary to get the FFL needed in order to spend thousands of dollars on a fully automatic weapon, it is my choice, my right. Also, if I have passed the mandatory background check implicitly indicating I am indeed NOT a criminal and of sound mind, who are you to say I have to wait a few days to be able to buy a gun. Here's a little brain buster for you. How could having to wait a couple of days to have your gun in hand effect a woman that has been recieving threatening statements and actions from an ex-boyfriend/husband, or whoever? Fill out a restraining order. You know as well as I do that if someone is intent on bringing violence on another human being, they will do it, no matter what the laws states. That is why they are criminals.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

however, arms were completely different in the days of the Constitution, and that's important to remember.

That means bad people can get more dangerous, more effective weapons. To level the playing field (which is largely what the second amendment was written for) law abiding citizens should also be able to own more effective weapons.

Really, who needs a fully automatic assault weapon for home defense?

Actually, full auto weapons are much more effective on multiple (gang) intruders, as well as intruders wearing body armor. You can kill them much quicker, and in that situation, seconds count.

So, I think that there should be (as there are!) sensible limitations on what you can have.

Then who determines what is sensible? There have been many bills proposed to eliminate assault rifles from the civilian market, which sounds sensible to most people, but they never defined their terms on what an assault rifle is. Basically, it could encompass any rifle that was deemed "unsafe" which is a silly definition since all guns are unsafe if used improperly, just like many other common items.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun

As long as their are politicians, there's always the risk that they'll try to take away our guns. And I say let them pry it from cold, dead fingers ;)

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
3 points

I knew we could find common ground. The second amendment should carry as much weight as the first.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
3 points

Well, I don't have a gun, because statistically you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun in spite of NRA rhetoric.

That aside though,

congratulations, you've fallen for a PR scam. Everytime a dem gets in office the gun industry floats around vague innuendos of immenant doom destruction and gun collecting,

and sales go through the roof.

No one's taking your guns thought Dirty Harry, you can keep playing cowboys and indians and pretending your the last hope for humanity, you and your trusted six shooter,

yeehah! ._.

Side: PR scam

It is exactly because you are statistically more likely to get shot if you have a gun that you should get one ;)

OK, just kidding. That was just pay back for calling me a retard ;)

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
2 points

As a wise man once said, guns are meant to protect people from other people with smaller guns.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
Republican2(350) Disputed
1 point

Well, I don't have a gun, because statistically you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun in spite of NRA rhetoric.

I wonder if you are referring to a study done in Philadelphia which claims that Philadelphians in possession of guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot than Philadelphians who didn’t have a gun. There is a correlation, but notnecessarilyy the causality it suggests. For example, many people buy guns for defense. Why? Because they fear they may be harmed. In many cases, people have a good reason for feeling that their life is in danger, and in many cases, they're right. Also, much of the gun violence that happens there consists of rival gangs shootingeach otherr, which alsoslatnss the study results. Ultimately, you can't say that the cause of armed citizens getting shot is the result of them carrying firearms themselves, because the study neveraddressedd the issue of weather or not they were brandishing their weapon, or trying to defend themselves at the time.

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
2 points

The laws can get strict, but that won't keep assault rifles out of the hands of NRA members. They will get their guns, trust me.

And if the Federal Government starts a sweep of all or most guns... well, I can guarantee a revolution.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun

Before Obama tries to ban guns there will be a military 'intervention.' ;)

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Does_Obama_Risks_a_Domestic_Military_Intervention

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
2 points

"Is Obama going to put a serial number on every bullet and shell?"

I sure hope that's hyperbole, but I can't ever really tell with all the "git off my gurn!" rhetoric going around.

Gun control isn't on Obama's agenda. It failed under Clinton, and he realizes this. Even if he wanted to, it would be impractical to put a serial number on every bullet. That would be like trying to label grains of sand at the beach...at high tide...during a hurricane...while wearing a blindfold.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
2 points

Nope, thats what theyre telliing each other... Probably Rush Limbaugh or some shit.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
2 points

I just wanted to make it clear on here to all that do not know or understand what types of legislation have been drafted in the past. Yes, there have been attempts to serialize the bullet itself, along with micro stamping the primers and casings, but to no avail. It is entirely too expensive and counter productive. Also to say the least, not at all effective in thwarting criminal activities. Here in the U.S. we have Californias' righteous to thank for that beligerate attempt.

Side: Yes, hippies want my guns
1 point

what is the 2nd amendment? why do you assume people just know?

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun
1 point

No. There is a difference between outright bans and simply modifying the options.

I find it somewhat humorous that people have this knee-jerk "OhMyGod! There are taking our guns away!" reaction whenever any slightly more restrictive legislation is proposed. Here in the US, we already have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the world.

Side: No
1 point

As far as I can tell it was and always has been. Due to people who are unfamiliar with guns chooses to own one and not take precautionary steps to make sure that the people around them aren't a danger to themselves or others. Also due to the fact the many of our streets are filled with gangs who obtain them through anonymous sources. There are just too many factors. I mean how come our government can spend billions and billions on "DEFENSE" every year and these kind of tragedies are still happening? What exactly is that "defense" for. For all I know we already have enough terrorists' in the u.s. then there are in afghanistan or iraq.

Side: No, I dare you to take my gun