CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
32
1776 Red coat
Debate Score:68
Arguments:65
Total Votes:88
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 1776 (29)
 
 Red coat (23)

Debate Creator

FactMachine(387) pic



Will 1776 commence again if you try to take our firearms?

SUICIDE PILLS, MASS MURDER PILLS

1776

Side Score: 36
VS.

Red coat

Side Score: 32
2 points

Hello F:

Oh, I'm sure there are right wingers who think their puny AR-15's will defeat an Apache helicopter. I have NO idea why..

excon

Side: 1776
Amarel(2376) Disputed
1 point

I don’t know why either. The Veit Cong thought so as did ISIS. But they should have learned from history that guarilla tactics by large swaths of the population across a vast land area is completely ineffective to conventional war methods...wait a minute.

Side: Red coat
excon(4376) Disputed
1 point

Hello A:

Who knows? The rebels might win.. But, I'll put my money on the good ole US of A.

excon

Side: 1776
AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

The thought that those on the right want that for America boggles the mind! Let's see. They don't like paying for others health insurance ... even though others pay to fix their roads, plow them out, build their schools. That's what "insurance" is, a bunch of people putting money in the "kitty" to spend where it is needed. (Whether it is a "non profit" government or a private fund where billions OF that money are spent on executives and luxurious buildings to house them!) "I don't know why" an American would want to even uphold a militia overthrowing what has been the most successful government in the worlds history, kill millions of men, women children, endanger their own, just to get THEIR OWN WAY ... screw the rest of you Americans ..... wait a minute!

Side: 1776
Chinaman(358) Disputed
0 points

Calling for war on America goes back to the Libtard Commie roots that run deep in your party.

Side: Red coat
2 points

Second amendment...

"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."

The people being allowed to keep and bear arms is what regulates the militia. An unregulated militia, or one that cannot be kept in check by the people, is a danger to the security of a free state.

They always try to take the arms. Most of the country, you can't walk around with a sword. Did the people who wrote the second amendment have swords in mind? They sure did, but it is illegal to run around with a sharpened sword in most of the country.

It's got nothing to do with reducing violence and everything to do with compromising the free state.

Side: 1776
excon(4376) Disputed
0 points

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

Hello Pepe:

In Heller, a 5 to 4 decision, SCOTUS decided that INDIVIDUALS had a right to gun ownership.. SCOTUS can change their minds..

excon

Side: Red coat
TzarPepe(323) Clarified
1 point

If the supreme court were to do so, I would be of the opinion that they are in violation of the constitution.

A supreme court ruling that I disagree with is the one that says you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I would never do such a thing, and anyone who would do such a thing is worthy of contempt, but the first amendment reads, "No law shall abridge", which means that any law that limits free speech is technically and legally unconstitutional.

Side: 1776
Chinaman(358) Disputed
0 points

When SCOTUS changes their ruling then the Brown Shirt take over will fulfill the Libtard dream.

Side: 1776

HITLER TOOK THE GUNS, STALIN TOOK THE GUNS, MAO TOOK THE GUNS, FIDEL CASTRO TOOK THE GUNS.

Side: 1776
Eloy(196) Disputed
2 points

You need to get your facts straight, FactMachine. In the Weimar Republic which preceded the Nazis because of the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the private ownership of guns was banned and guns already in circulation were confiscated. When Hitler took over he immediately exempted all Nazi Party members from these restrictions. Furthermore, in 1938 Hitler completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. Meanwhile, as well as Nazi party members, many more categories of people were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. (Jews were not included in the deregulation.) So, you see, contrary to what you wrote, Hitler did not take away any guns but made then more accessible.

Side: Red coat
1 point

And then he allied with Islam and told us how wonderful it was... just like the left...

Side: 1776
2 points

HITLER TOOK THE GUNS

No he didn't you ignorant halfwit. Do you genuinely get your information from Alex Jones? Are you that stupid? Guns were outright banned under the Weimar Republic and when Hitler arrived he relaxed gun laws in Germany.

Side: Red coat
Eloy(196) Clarified
2 points

Congratulations on your knowledge of the Weimar Republic.

Side: 1776
Eloy(196) Disputed
1 point

Had Fidel taken the guns the Cuban people would not have been able to defend themselves from the American invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

Side: Red coat
AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

NONE of them were democracies. We are headed for a one party system, largely because of right wing Gerrymandering (controlled voting results). When that happens, we are no longer a democracy .... THAT'S when your guns will disappear.... like Russia, China, Cuba. Do you think that an authoritarian government will want "the people" running around with guns, that might object to their keeping the most of the money for themselves??

"FACTS, but not from the "FactMachine".

Side: 1776
Rusticus(280) Disputed
0 points

Here's the the 2nd amendment in full:

"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."

Of course given that the founders wrote that in the era of the muzzle loading musket, this should be interpreted to mean this:

You're entitled to all the muzzle loading muskets you can carry, PROVIDING you're part of a well regulated militia.

The days of the gun fetish cult are nearly over.

Side: Red coat
TzarPepe(323) Disputed
1 point

The people being allowed to keep and bear arms is what regulates the militia. An unregulated militia, or one that cannot be kept in check by the people, is a danger to the security of a free state.

What you are saying is pretty much the opposite of this. You are saying that only the militia should have arms. This is not a regulated militia.

Side: 1776
1 point

Really? From my cold dead hands... a war between the anti gunners and the pro gunners would last about oh...ten minutes. Maybe you guys should have learned to use a gun. We sure did.

Do you know why Trump won? The days of the liberal cult are? Over....*

Side: 1776
Chinaman(358) Disputed
1 point

All the pistols should be safe then in the gun fetish world.

Side: 1776
1 point

Gosh I sure hope so. That would finally separate the red and the blue states.

Side: 1776
1 point

I do think that hundreds of thousands would die if mass gun confiscation was attempted in the U.S. If you try to take the guns of "preppers" and similar groups and individuals they will respond with force.

Side: 1776
1 point

You might be right but are not gunlovers known for their respect for the law?

Side: 1776
1 point

Constitutional rights supersede law, and the gun loving types are largely aware of this. Their allegiance is first to the constitution and second to the law (and rightly so, in my estimation).

Side: 1776

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. TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. NOT JUST A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BUT ALSO THE NON INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. You can try and play with the words of the second amendment but it clearly says that you can't take our firearms because WE WILL NOT RELINQUISH THEM PIERCE.

Side: 1776

This thread reminds me of when Alex Jones went full retard on Piers Morgan.

Americans are like children. They have the mentality of spoilt children. They think guns are toys and if a parent steps in to take away their toys they are gonna kick and scream and stamp their feet like the tantrum-throwing kids they are.

Side: Red coat
FactMachine(387) Disputed
2 points

You don't understand the issue at all. It's not about a toy, it's about a means of self defense. The state is not a "parent" it's an institution which is supposed to work FOR THE PEOPLE. You have a stupid submissive slave mentality and you think it's okay for the government to have nukes and drones and chemical weapons but god forbid anyone who doesn't wear a uniform having a gun. If every jew during the holocaust had a gun maybe things would have gone a little differently? Your analogy shows what kind of mentality you have, you think the state is your daddy because you're a little cuck boy.

Side: 1776
xMathFanx(673) Disputed
1 point

Arguments along the lines that "people need to be able arm themselves with military style weapons/arsenals because the government has these weapons and we need to be able to keep the government in check" to be patently absurd considering that the Government has the entire US Military forces on it's side including tanks, fighter jets, chemical and nuclear weapons, ect. Any argument along this line in favor of not restricting gun rights to any extent is the product of a mind that is egregiously delusional.

Now to expand on my point of where we disagree, although it is not possible to take on the Government as a whole by physical force, I can imagine situations where for instance a Police officer that is a loose canon were in your presence and having a weapon of similar force to such a Government agent could be beneficial and a "fundamental right" insofar as "if the officer is going to have a gun, than I can have a gun to protect myself from their misconduct". I concede a scenario such as that to you 100%. Now, in our current society, one would find themselves in tremendous legal trouble if a citizen "stood up for themselves with their fundamental right to defend themselves and family (by being armed) from a Government agent". I am not sure what your feelings are of a potential scenario like this (but would be interested to know where you stand on it and scenarios potentially similar to this) but if you said in this case, "the citizen is in the right and the law (government position is wrong)", then I would side with you. However, attempting to go from a small scale situation like this where each party has similar level of weapon power to fighting against the Government on large scale in any way that could hold them truly accountable and in check is not realistic through the use of physical force because the weapon power is so obviously slanted in the favor of the Government to a tremendous degree over the citizenry. Therefore, any large scale project of keeping the Government in check is going to have to come from a collective/broad scale consciousness raising/protesting effort by the citizens that reaches such a tipping point that it could not go ignored or unanswered in some form by the Government.

Side: Red coat
1 point

You've figured us out. Wasn't hard, was it? ........................

Side: Red coat
1 point

And oddly, these American children know how to take care of their teeth. Strangely, the British "adults" haven't mastered the toothbrush...

Side: 1776
0 points

"Never go full retard."

Side: Red coat