CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
12
Uhhh, YES Right wingers say NO
Debate Score:25
Arguments:22
Total Votes:37
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Uhhh, YES (9)
 
 Right wingers say NO (9)

Debate Creator

excon(14603) pic



Do gang members have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to own a gun??


Uhhh, YES

Side Score: 13
VS.

Right wingers say NO

Side Score: 12
1 point

Unless they have used one in a crime or been convicted of a violent crime then yes of course they have the same rights as everyone else. Being part of a group for better or worse doesn't instantly change your legal status to the low end of the members of that group. If you commit a crime then you are a criminal until then you are just a citizen.

Side: Uhhh, YES
TheNotorious(8) Disputed
1 point

Unless they have used one in a crime or been convicted of a violent crime then yes of course they have the same rights as everyone else.

And that's the problem, buddy. The legalisation of guns translates to violent people being gifted the means with which to commit great violence. Convicting them after the fact is not going to bring back the dead.

Side: Right wingers say NO
smilinbobs(598) Disputed
1 point

You make is sound as if you have legislation banning guns that magically the people who misuse them would not get them illegally. In a fairy tale this may be true but if we look at real life examples Heroin, Cocaine there is legislation banning both yet there is no US city where a person wanting cocaine or heroin can't get them illegally. The FACT of this matter is that these people will have guns if they want them.

Side: Uhhh, YES
0 points

No. They have a HUMAN right to own a gun. They have a constitutional GUARANTEE- one which is constantly under attack- that the government won't interfere with that.

Side: Uhhh, YES
TheNotorious(8) Disputed
1 point

No. They have a HUMAN right to own a gun.

Owning a gun is not a human right any more than owning a nuclear missile is a human right. Stop being absurd. Human rights are universal: they apply to all people at all times.

Side: Right wingers say NO
TheDevil(1) Disputed
0 points

Nom, I have no need for a lecture on violence from someone so disconnected from reality that their plan when someone intends them harm is to roll over because their offender's life is more valuable.

You have a human right to self preservation. Sometimes this requires that you kill a person who is attacking you, or at least communicate the capability. The safest and most reliable way to do that with minimal collateral damage is with a gun. Yeah, I know you're going to spout some bullshit about that being an attack; that's because you're an idiot. There's an easy way to not get me to "attack" people, and it's really fucking simple: don't try to rob my house, don't try to mug me or my family. People that break those basic rules of society, until they're running away empty handed, have lost their basic human right to live, and I don't owe you a fucking apology for that.

And seriously, if you hold such a high value in the life of someone who breaks into your house to rob or rape or butcher you or your family, get some help.

Side: Uhhh, YES
0 points

Do gang members have a right to buy alcohol?

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?

Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.

Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!

The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!

Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?

You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?

I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?

A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.

You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.

You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.

You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!

IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.

Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.

Side: Uhhh, YES
TheNotorious(8) Disputed
0 points

IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON.

The same person can do a lot more damage with a pistol than a pencil sharpener. Ignoring that fact and screaming at people just reveals precisely how much of an imbecile you are.

Side: Right wingers say NO
TheNotorious(8) Disputed
0 points

Do gang members have a right to buy alcohol?

Why are you comparing something people drink to have a good time with the ultimate weapon for homicidal maniacs? It's the most ridiculously stupid comparison imaginable. Are combat troops armed with alcohol, you goddamned imbecile? Do you know why not? Because it is shit at killing your enemies with.

Side: Right wingers say NO
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

I was comparing it to drunk driving you complete deceptive FOOL!

It's not the gun or alcohol that kills people, it's what people choose to do with it that kills!

IGNORE!

Side: Uhhh, YES
2 points

The second amendment reads: "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".

Criminal gangs are an obvious threat to the security of a free State, so the answer to your question is no.

Side: Right wingers say NO
Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

While “gang member” implies criminality, it does not necessitate it. Essentially all biker gangs have a little “mc” patch standing for “motorcycle club”. Some of them are literally clubs, but they are indistinguishable in their appearance from criminal biker gangs.

-

It is highly unlikely that any individual in a criminal gang has not already forfeited their gun rights. But we cannot argue against guns rights of groups of people. So if some individual who is a criminal gang member has never done anything to loose their gun rights, they retain them. And the Constitution protects them.

Side: Uhhh, YES
1 point

I'm pretty sure criminals have forfeited that right. I would wager most gang members have at one point committed a crime, even if it's just aiding another members criminal actions, therefore it could quite easily be argued that they do not have a constitutional right per their own illegal actions.

Side: Right wingers say NO
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

I'm pretty sure criminals have forfeited that right. I would wager most gang members have at one point committed a crime, even if it's just aiding another members criminal actions, therefore it could quite easily be argued that they do not have a constitutional right per their own illegal actions.

Well now you Little Jewel of the Left how is it criminals have guns ?????????

Side: Uhhh, YES
excon(14603) Clarified
0 points

I'm pretty sure criminals have forfeited that right

Hello again, Mint:

What causes a felon to lose his rights?? A criminal ACT, or a CONVICTION for that act? In other words, should all those marijuana smokers out there, who've never been convicted, turn in their guns?

excon

Side: Uhhh, YES
Mint_tea(4353) Clarified
1 point

That's where we tiptoe around legalities. Obviously with no conviction on record it's hard to prove any illegal activity, but gang members...usually...by default are in a "career" that involves illegal activity. It's absolutely painting a group of people with a broad brush but that's the choice they make when they join a gang.

In terms of marijuana smokers, I'm a full supporter of pot being made legal. I think it's ridiculous that we have marijuana users in jail for years while rapists apparently have a revolving door.

Side: Uhhh, YES
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

What a DUMB ASS you truly are !!!!!!!!! Check with the Demorat Eric Swallowell on gun control you UNINFORMED IDIOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Uhhh, YES
Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

In principle, the act itself forfeits the right. In practice we have to rely on convictions.

It is already a federal crime to be a drug user in possession of a firearm.

Side: Uhhh, YES
0 points

It is a rare gang member who hasn’t already forfeited their gun rights through their own actions. So no, most gang members no longer have that right. But for the one guy out there who hasn’t disqualified himself, yeah his right is Constitutionally protected.

Side: Right wingers say NO