CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
37
yes no
Debate Score:62
Arguments:48
Total Votes:62
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (24)
 
 no (23)

Debate Creator

Cuaroc(8826) pic



Is the argument that assault rifles are necessary to protect against tyranny a lunatic ide

yes

Side Score: 25
VS.

no

Side Score: 37
1 point

There's no situation where a bunch of regular joes and janes with guns would ever be able to fight off a tyranical government. Either they believe another country will invade the U.S. in which case the U.S. military was ineffective, and so they would be crushed, or more commonly they believe this government is out to get them, in which case 1. Move to Mexico asshole. 2. At least 50% of the population voted for whatever and so there are just as many nuts with assault rifles for whatever as against whatever.

There is no situation where it is necessary.

Side: yes
Scout143(651) Disputed
4 points

Libya, Syria, American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Italian Reunification, Simon Bolivar's Revolutions, Texas Independence, just to name a few. Saying people can't fight off governments is historically inaccurate. Inaccuracy is a pet peeve of mine. :) And if you seriously don't like the way guns are in the US, move to Britain or France. I bet they have the kind of socialism you like to. I sure as hell ain't moving.

Side: no
iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
1 point

Texas isn't independent. I know, don't tell Texans that.

But none of those scenarios were individuals with guns by themselves. It requires outside force and some faction of that government itself to be in on the revolution. It requires a movement. A movement requires some valid complaint against those in power.

There is no movement going on. There are no inalienable rights being violated. If anything the last several decades have been the most free in the history of humanity.

When gun nuts have an actual complaint based in reality I'll completely support it.

I find though that those most desperately in love with their guns are the same that want others not like them to have less freedoms, not more. From my observation they are the ones who would need to be defended against, if you are gay, or not religious, or happen to not care for guns particularly for example.

Best to get those guns out of their hands now. Avoid the whole mess before it starts.

I bet they have the kind of socialism you like to. I sure as hell ain't moving.

Neither Britain nor France are socialist. The only areas of their government which are more "socialized" than ours is healthcare, and their healthcare is like way better and way cheaper for everyone so not such a bad thing.

I'd rather try to talk logic to people who live in this country, and be part of slowly continuing this country's progress to a "more perfect union." I find that more rewarding. Thanks though.

Side: yes
Niko(127) Disputed
1 point

Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.

To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

Side: yes
1 point

Assaultrifles are not necesary. However only the military or people with special permits are allowed to have access to assualt rifles. AR does not stand for assault rifle it stands for ArmaLite which is the comapany that designed it. An assault rifle has either a fully automatic fire selector switch or a three round burst switch. No regular civilian will be able to buy one of those. What you see the shootings done with are gun that are styled like assault rifles but in are NOT actually assault rifles.

Side: yes
1 point

I meant to put that under this. What I said was you can, it just costs money to get a permit and full auto weapons are insanely expensive.

Side: yes
1 point

Well, civilians can buy them. But to do that they need a permit which costs money. Then the fully-automatic weapons are insanely expensive.

Side: yes
1 point

Your right. Cilivians technically can buy them but i know a lot of gun nuts and dont know one that owns a true assault rifle. Its just plain not worth it. I mean you can easily spend 10 to 20 thousand on one gun by the time you pay for the gun and all the fees. No average civilian is gonna be able to buy one of those and a criminal that can afford it will have the money to get it no matter what laws are out there.

Side: yes

Is the argument that assault rifles are necessary to protect against tyranny a lunatic idea

Meaning, just in case the government becomes a tyranny, or if the government is a tyranny, and the people need to protect themselves from it?

Side: yes

Yes, it is. We wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from our own or foreign governments with just assault rifles; they have high grade explosives, tanks, unmanned drones, and heavy weapons like grenade launchers and Gatling guns. Therefore, so we actually can properly defend ourselves in a situation like this, I propose that it be made legal for civilians to purchase and own things like high grade explosives, tanks, unmanned drones, and heavy weapons like grenade launchers and Gatling guns. An assault rifle might allow you to kill a few of the tyrants men; all the other weaponry will allow you to take the fight to the tyrant himself.

Side: yes
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, great. Let's have children go to school with grenades in their backpacks. Seems legit, oh look teacher, i brought in my daddy's grenade and if i pull this ou- oh fuck, now it's not just the sick ones, it's the curious ones we've got to worry about.

As i've said before. Guns are a symbol of a human desire to KILL efficiently. It's, at it's base purpose, not a defensive item. If you want to defend yourself, get a shield.

Sure, it can be used as a weapon, but at least, you can say with conviction that it was created with the intent to defend. You can not defend a gun the same way.

Why do you think that captain america's shield was his most well known tool? He was a symbol of the DEFENSE of america. If guns were equal to defense, he's have had a Browning .30 cal instead. But no, we know him as the guy with a SHIELD.

Side: no

It is lunacy and a scare tactic to make the NRA rich. Some people live in delusion.

Side: yes
1 point

You are a perfect example.

Side: yes
2 points

If our government ever gets hijacked by someone who wants to be a dictator we need to be able to take our country back that's the main reason we have the second amendment

Side: no
iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
2 points

We have three branches of government and elections for that. This is not a valid reason within the realm of reality.

Side: yes
Scout143(651) Disputed
1 point

Unless we have a military coup. That shoots the 3 branches out of the water.

Side: no
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Or some really charismatic guy comes along and executes a hitler style power grab

Side: no
Warjin(1577) Disputed
1 point

200 years ago maybe, but now days, you can kiss you ass good-by, no hillbilly with a gun is going to stop a dam thing vs drones, tanks, bio weapons, nukes ect. the argument for needing a gun to protect against tyranny is a joke now days, if our government wanted to take us over they can do it without any effort at all 1 virus and "Bam" millions dead.

Gun nuts just want guns for there own selfish reasons now days and use this tyranny argument as an excuse.

Side: yes
warrior(1854) Disputed
2 points

Well as the saying goes I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Just make a stand don't ever back down and we'll see how many US solders would shoot at there own citizens just because they were told to.

Side: no
Sitara(11101) Disputed
1 point

Hitler approved of gun control. ;)

Side: no
2 points

It's more about establishing "need" which isn't necessary to keep something legal.

Only under such a schizophrenic form of tyranny is proving "need" for legalization in anyway reasonable.

But welcome to the United States government. Held back by "checks and balances" and a "constitution," all which are terribly ignored.

Side: no
2 points

I'm fine with background checks. They can be stricter. I have nothing to hide. Funding the fight on poverty would be great too.

Side: no
2 points

The law was made to level out the playing feald between the government and the people.

If they ban guns then government leaders will start passing bull shit laws knowing that we can do nothing other than pace around with signs.

At time they had just muskets and yes that is a primative weapon and today we have tanks and many better guns.

takeing away our guns would be like if the founding fathers allowed us to have swords when they had muskets.

Side: no