Should we ever give up our right to bear arms and vice Versa?
Yes, less violent crimes!
Side Score: 13
|
Hell no!
Side Score: 89
|
|
|
|
I think this is what they mean when they wrote the bill of rights: Side: Yes, less violent crimes!
From the NYT: "Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can." From the Bill of Rights: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." From my perspective, its pretty clear that guns in cities are not tied to militia service. Therefore, reasonable limits are acceptable. Side: Reasonable Controls OK
Definition of militia according to Princeton's WordNet: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army. The first part of the second amendment (and the only part you cite) says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This basically says an army of civilians trained to like soldiers, but not actual soldiers, is necessary for our security. It's true, we should have civilians trained in the art of using weapons there for our security, instead of only relying on the police force or military our government provides us with. The second part of the second amendment (the part you don't cite) says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This part says clear as day that we as people, have the right to not just keep our arms, but to also bear or use them. This goes hand in hand with the first part because a militia of citizens can't be armed without this second part. If you read some quotes from the founding fathers, then you can see for yourselves just how they felt about owning guns. "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson "A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson Side: Hell no!
1
point
2
points
|
no, for obvious reasons. as V said "The people shouldn't fear their government, the government should fear their people". look at Cuba, they can't revolt against their government because they have no weapons, so instead they all just come here, or whore themselves to American tourists. Our founding fathers gave us this right because the people must stay in control. the only way for the people to stay in control is to have superior strength. lets face it, in this day in age, that means superior fire power. Side: Hell no!
Ah, V was quoting Thomas Jefferson. Are the people of Cuba very discontent? I'm not contradicting you, I'm really wondering. I had heard that this was American propaganda; The "refugees" who come here are simply in search of more money, due to a weak Cuban economy (caused by American policies in the first place). The Cuban I met said that most people there are pretty content with the way their country is run. Side: Hell no!
well, most of my family came from there ;). yeah, MOST hate it. i'm surrounded by them, and they all hate Castro and they all hate Communism. although, the ones who get here nowadays, even though they hate Castro's regime, still think in a communist way. they're so used to it, that they don't know why they hate it there in the first place. they just know it sucks. Side: Yes, less violent crimes!
5
points
People who think gun control actually works haven't begun to research the subject. The worst shootings in recent history have taken place in so called "gun free zones," like schools and post offices. This is because these shooters can do their thing practically unabated. Imagine the conditions that elicit death in Virginia Tech were the same conditions around the country... When guns are criminalized, only the criminals will have the guns. People have the right and obligation to defend themselves. Myth: Gun Control reduces crime
Side: Hell no!
The video you presented is very persuasive. Guns serve the function of keeping everyone equal. While it is the case that some people may use guns for malicious ends, if everyone had a gun, and assuming everyone wanted to preserve the peace, the risk of gun related violence would decrease. Side: Hell no!
4
points
Here in the US the second amendment exist for one reason and one reason alone: Governments can always turn on the people. Here it is in all of it's glory: A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Basically, the country needs an army to be a country, but the founders had just experienced their own country's army at the time (England) being used against them and taking away their weapons en masse. Therefore they enshrined the second amendment in the Bill of Rights just in case it ever became necessary to overthrown the government they created if it had lost its way. Yes, the founders ensured your ability to overthrown the government if that need ever arose. America, Fuck yeah. Side: Hell no!
3
points
We will need those guns once the revolution starts. Side: Hell no!
This is an easy argument for all the cliches: Guns don't kill people People kill people, and as Archie Bunker said "Would you rather someone push someone out of a window. "Bottom line murderers are going to kill regardless of how. Did you see the guy in Japan? Guns are a necessity to a free nation. Side: Hell no!
eh, maybe it's because it's mandatory? plus, we have waaay more people and have much more access to weapons than other large civilizations. this is probably why more of us need to be armed. but not enough of us are armed, so there's more murder. also, since we have more people, there's more crazy people. Side: Hell no!
When governments no longer use weapons as an effective tool, then the people might consider giving up such things. But when each and every government uses guns to not only assert their authority but to also acquire more property makes asking the people to ignore this fact of life and take a passive role in their own future...highly dubious. Authority comes in one form on this planet, that is regrettably, with a weapon in ones hand ; MAD mutual assured destruction. How willing is a thief when they think the victim may be armed? Odd how it is commonly overlooked that not one country would exist without guns. Side: Hell no!
NO we should not give up our right to bear arms, Due to the fact it has been around as long as America has been Born. Plus crime [b]WILL NOT[/b] and I mean [b]WILL NOT[/b] be lowered in fact it would increase and I know for a fact because it has been proving already by some places in England, they banned the use of firearms to civilians and now criminals know that they can break into a house and not worry about getting shot because they can get there hands on illegal fire-arms from trades and such forth and go into someones home put them at gun point and not worry about the civilian having a weapon to shoot back. and thats what will happen in America if it ever happened. Side: Hell no!
2
points
2
points
Not only does private gun ownership provide an incentive not to break into a house, but it also provides a largely unseen national defense system. That is the part of private gun ownership that many people do not realize. In the case of an invasion on U.S. soil, not only would there be the military, but civilians in their homes would be able to aid in the defense of the country. If gun owners are properly trained, they can be a huge asset to the nation. Side: Hell no!
2
points
1
point
the australian government tried to take all the guna away from their citizens in the year 2001. they failed miserably. armed robberies percentage went up, homocides went up, regular robberies went up. everything ironic happened. banning guns from the citizens and limiting it to government and army use doesn't stop the criminals from getting their greasy little hands on weapons and abusing the rights. jesus himself himself said in Lunke 22:36, "Let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one." their was no gunpowder back then, but that still has the same concept as our modern day guns and their maodern day swords. Side: Hell no!
1
point
|