CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
89
Yes, less violent crimes! Hell no!
Debate Score:102
Arguments:35
Total Votes:144
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, less violent crimes! (6)
 
 Hell no! (29)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



Should we ever give up our right to bear arms and vice Versa?

right to arm bears and vice versa

Yes, less violent crimes!

Side Score: 13
VS.

Hell no!

Side Score: 89
1 point

I think this is what they mean when they wrote the bill of rights:

Supporting Evidence: right to bear arms (uncyclopedia.wikia.com)
Side: Yes, less violent crimes!
0 points

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.

Supporting Evidence: The Supreme Court Considers Gun Control (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Reasonable Controls OK
jal1337(54) Disputed
2 points

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!

One up vote for the hard work (research). Really good quotes backing your argument.

Side: Hell no!
-4 points
2 points

Down voted for whining about this irrelevant shit here instead of actually starting a debate thread about exactly what you are talking about .

Side: Hell no!
Tamisan(890) Disputed
1 point

Because sex is not nearly as much fun to debate.

But feel free to make up some debates about sex and invite me.

Hey, it's the #1 pastime of humanity!

Side: We all need a hobby
Chicken(202) Disputed
0 points

well seeing how the average male has an attention span of a 3 month old baby and the emotional capacity of a teaspoon its not that hard to tell. but these days its either sex, tv or food. not just sex...

Side: Yes, less violent crimes!
7 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!
4 points

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!
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

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!
garrett99(23) Disputed
1 point

how would you know if they dont like the way their country is run, they can t speak out like americans can

Side: Yes, less violent crimes!

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!
2 points

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!

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!

We will need those guns once the revolution starts.

http://tinyurl.com/6caxn9

Side: Hell no!
3 points

Lol. So true! So very true!

Side: Hell no!
3 points

i think everyone should have the right to hang a pair of bear arms in their house/appartment

Side: Hell no!
3 points

Remember, remember,

The 5th of November,

The gunpowder treason and plot.

I know of no reason,

Why the gunpowder treason,

Should ever be forgot.

how could this have happened if we didnt have the right to bear arms?

Side: Hell no!
3 points

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.

Supporting Evidence: Guy in Japan (news.yahoo.com)
Side: Hell no!
3 points

This shouldn't even be a debate.

Side: Hell no!
3 points

The problem is our culture. In Switzerland, gun ownership is Mandatory. Their murder rate is near zero, because their culture does not glorify violence.

Side: Hell no!
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
0 points

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!
3 points

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!
3 points

I don't think that is possible, because even if we do, VIVA LA BLACK MARKET! hahaha. it isn't ganna cut back on crime, but it'll increase the chance of a revolt against our government.

Side: Hell no!
3 points

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!

Am armed society is a polite society. ;)

Side: Hell no!
2 points

no... i want australia to have same constatution =P

Side: Hell no!
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

I will NEVER give up my bear arms! They look so good hanging over my fireplace.

Side: Hell no!
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

Exactly! Remember V!!! My "safety" is not worth my freedom! Those who want to change our constitution (even more ) should go live in the UK! I wonder, why did we fight the British????

Side: Hell no!

I don't know about the rest of you, But I'm no fan of having my rights, stated in the Bill of Rights, taken away from me. You can read the 2nd Amendment anyway you want, but I know when I read it, it says I can keep my guns!!

Side: Hell no!
1 point

you can take my guns from my cold dead hands! it is my got given right and is part of the constitution for a reason

Side: Hell no!
1 point

"Hell no" is my name so I choose this option! Go Hellno !

Side: Hell no!