CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gun debate is a distraction. Guns arent important...
The gun debate in america is a water mark issue in individual vs the state. The problem is, as I understand it as a Brit, the right is to bear arms is the provision and guns are simply the interpretation of this rule. Now hundreds of years ago, that meant literaly arming yourself with a gun, to protect yourself against potential state invasion or encroachment onto you, your property and your rights.
FF to 2014 and the whole debate is a distraction flirting with irrelavency.
The key issue here isnt whether guns are a rightous moral instrument against state oppression. The problem is that they arent effective at all. If the state ever wanted to crush the individual, it has more than enough power to feasibly do so. The real interpretation of the ammendment isnt concerning guns, but instead is a continuation of the spirit of the rule, which means the individuals ability to hold insurance against the state. Those who are pro gun or anti gun can maintain their stances. What Im saying is someone needs to reinterpret the morals and spirit of this ammendment and use it to incorporate civil right to resistance, against things such as the patriot act and the wiretapping revelations.
Americans need to protect themselves against 2014 encroachments of the state, and not just arm themselves ineffectively for a civil war that will probably never come.
These days, arming yourself against the state, means holding some kind of insurance against wire-tapping, the patriot act and a president with a kill list.
Guns arent going to cut it. A far more useful interpretation of the rule would be to have some kind of provisions that embolden and protect the position of the free individual in this new society and against these new forms of threat.
You are probably right with what you say, but the interpretation that guns aren't important seems strange. I agree that we need better protection from the government, but it sounds like you are saying we should get rid of guns before we get the extra protection from the government. I personally would like to keep my guns until we get those protections.
I also seriously doubt that civilian firearm ownership presents even a minor buffer against state oppression, or even protection in case a civil war would somehow happen. That being said, I feel that the right to bear arms is important, but bearing any type of arms (automatics and grenade launchers for example) is over-interpreting this amendment. I also feel that registration training, and arguably even background checks violate this amendment, and are resemble a case in which the defendant is presumed guilty.
Although I also doubt that regulations on magazine size, and the number of magazine purchases that can be made in one trip would have a strong enough impact on shootings to outweigh the minor cost of civil liberties, I see no harm in such regulations either, and do not find it in violation of the 2nd amedment.
I also seriously doubt that civilian firearm ownership presents even a minor buffer against state oppression, or even protection in case a civil war would somehow happen.
How has the Taliban having guns not made it harder for ground troops to go into the Iraq and Afghanistan? Firearm ownership definitely provides at least a minor buffer.
That being said, I feel that the right to bear arms is important, but bearing any type of arms (automatics and grenade launchers for example) is over-interpreting this amendment.
This justification is used to ban non automatics and non grenade launchers though.
I also feel that registration training, and arguably even background checks violate this amendment, and are resemble a case in which the defendant is presumed guilty.
Although I also doubt that regulations on magazine size, and the number of magazine purchases that can be made in one trip would have a strong enough impact on shootings to outweigh the minor cost of civil liberties, I see no harm in such regulations either, and do not find it in violation of the 2nd amedment.
It is kind of weird to think that qualifying for gun ownership is a violation of the second amendment, but banning the parts required for gun ownership is not. That is a little confusing.
How has the Taliban having guns not made it harder for ground troops to go into the Iraq and Afghanistan? Firearm ownership definitely provides at least a minor buffer.
The Taliban have automatics, formal training in combat, have better means of communication, and more importantly, are far better organized. Civilians are by and large incapable of indirect strikes.
Another problem with the Taliban analogy is that the fighting that civilians will not be capable of handling anything but the gov't sending boots on the grounds.
I'm pretty sure that civilians would be sitting ducks, of course that depends on your definition of "minor".
This justification is used to ban non automatics and non grenade launchers though.
And that's okay.
It is kind of weird to think that qualifying for gun ownership is a violation of the second amendment, but banning the parts required for gun ownership is not. That is a little confusing.
I don't consider that to be "banning" the parts required, as it's not really even placing a maximum on the quantity of rounds (or number of magazines) that can be purchased by an individual.
I'm not saying that I necessarily espouse this regulation either, just that it is not a violation of the 2nd.
The Taliban have automatics, formal training in combat, have better means of communication, and more importantly, are far better organized. Civilians are by and large incapable of indirect strikes.
Another problem with the Taliban analogy is that the fighting that civilians will not be capable of handling anything but the gov't sending boots on the grounds.
I'm pretty sure that civilians would be sitting ducks, of course that depends on your definition of "minor".
It is incredibly idiotic to think that the Taliban is equipped to handle the US government better than the civilians in America. Plus it is extremely dumb to think the US government would happily wipe out US citizens is a good excuse to make the citizens unarmed. Armed American civilians are just as much sitting ducks as the Taliban, the analogy fits perfectly.
And that's okay.
That's even dumber to say. If you think something is bad, why would it be ok to ban something that is different. That's like banning smoking because you think DUIs are bad.
I don't consider that to be "banning" the parts required, as it's not really even placing a maximum on the quantity of rounds (or number of magazines) that can be purchased by an individual.
I'm not saying that I necessarily espouse this regulation either, just that it is not a violation of the 2nd.
I thought you were talking about regulations on magazines we don't have now. I thought your post was talking about limiting magazines. I guess you didn't say anything at all then.
It is incredibly idiotic to think that the Taliban is equipped to handle the US government better than the civilians in America.
Why?
Plus it is extremely dumb to think the US government would happily wipe out US citizens is a good excuse to make the citizens unarmed.
It is. Plus I never claimed that.
Armed American civilians are just as much sitting ducks as the Taliban, the analogy fits perfectly.
Really? You're just saying the opposite of what I'm saying without elaborating.
That's even dumber to say. If you think something is bad, why would it be ok to ban something that is different. That's like banning smoking because you think DUIs are bad.
I'm saying that it's wrong for different reasons, not that it entirely justifies it. It's okay within the context of the 2nd.
I thought you were talking about regulations on magazines we don't have now. I thought your post was talking about limiting magazines. I guess you didn't say anything at all then.
My point was that, again, in the context of the 2nd amendment, they are alright.
The Taliban isn't known for their organization skills. The NRA has way better communication skills than the Taliban.
It is. Plus I never claimed that.
What are you claiming then? Because you are saying that Americans don't need guns because they will be vaporized by the government.
Really? You're just saying the opposite of what I'm saying without elaborating.
You never elaborated at how the Taliban wasn't sitting ducks. How can you attack the armed American citizens without killing all of the unarmed citizens. Plus, American cities are way more populated than Afghanistan. Your idea that the US government could easily wipe out armed Americans when they don't wipe out the Taliban is ridiculous.
I'm saying that it's wrong for different reasons, not that it entirely justifies it. It's okay within the context of the 2nd.
You are just saying dumb things I guess.
My point was that, again, in the context of the 2nd amendment, they are alright.
I don't see how banning guns doesn't violate the second amendment, but requiring you to not be a criminal does. Could you elaborate?
What are you claiming then? Because you are saying that Americans don't need guns because they will be vaporized by the government.
You're right. It is idiotic to claim that we ought to disarm citizens because they would be crushed by the gov't in a war. My point was that the current arming of citizens would be negligible in impact if some sort of red dawn style gov't uprising were to occur.
I believe that we need to preserve the right to bear arms for other reasons.
The Taliban isn't known for their organization skills. The NRA has way better communication skills than the Taliban.
Yes, but we're still talking about 100's of millions of citizens dispersed across our country.
You never elaborated at how the Taliban wasn't sitting ducks. Plus, American cities are way more populated than Afghanistan. Your idea that the US government could easily wipe out armed Americans when they don't wipe out the Taliban is ridiculous.
If they were to engage in an actual war, that might be comparable. The Taliban would also lose badly in this sort of situation, they're just not as helpless as US citizens. As of now, taliban members can rather easily move to and from adjacent countries. For US citizens, the borders would be sealed off quickly, and although citizens have enough food in the country to feed themselves, they're not guaranteed to be able to supply it amongst each other. Although, I suppose it depends on whether or not citizens will have stocked up on non perishables.
How can you attack the armed American citizens without killing all of the unarmed citizens?
You can't. Did I claim that you could?
I don't see how banning guns doesn't violate the second amendment, but requiring you to not be a criminal does. Could you elaborate?
Do I really have to explain again? It's not banning all guns, it's banning certain types of guns. Whether or not someone is a criminal is relevant if they're behind bars, the second amendment is still afforded to them.
My point was that the current arming of citizens would be negligible in impact if some sort of red dawn style gov't uprising were to occur.
And I demonstrated how you were wrong.
Yes, but we're still talking about 100's of millions of citizens dispersed across our country.
So American citizens are in larger numbers, have better communication skills, and over a wider area. How does that make them an easier target?
If they were to engage in an actual war, that might be comparable. The Taliban would also lose badly in this sort of situation, they're just not as helpless as US citizens. As of now, taliban members can rather easily move to and from adjacent countries. For US citizens, the borders would be sealed off quickly, and although citizens have enough food in the country to feed themselves, they're not guaranteed to be able to supply it amongst each other. Although, I suppose it depends on whether or not citizens will have stocked up on non perishables.
I am glad that the people who threaten gun owners with vaporizing don't actually think things through. The countries that you speak of are not as big a land mass as America itself. You don't need to flee the country, just the state, and you can't close down state borders. Plus, you have to protect the American citizens who aren't armed.
You can't. Did I claim that you could?
You haven't explained at all how the Taliban has an easier time defending themselves than armed American citizens. Everything I have pointed out that is similar to the Taliban you have agreed is true.
Do I really have to explain again? It's not banning all guns, it's banning certain types of guns. Whether or not someone is a criminal is relevant if they're behind bars, the second amendment is still afforded to them.
No, you have to explain for the first time. Not again. You are the only person in the country who actually believes that someones criminal record doesn't matter once they are out of jail.
Yes, strawmanning my arguments and calling them dumb has done the trick.
No, you have to explain for the first time. Not again. You are the only person in the country who actually believes that someones criminal record doesn't matter once they are out of jail.
I never said that it doesn't matter at all, just that they should still be entitled to their second amendment rights.
I am glad that the people who threaten gun owners with vaporizing don't actually think things through. The countries that you speak of are not as big a land mass as America itself. You don't need to flee the country, just the state, and you can't close down state borders. Plus, you have to protect the American citizens who aren't armed.
The scenario that I've been referring to was one where all members of the most powerful military in the world, and the remaining citizens were to go toe to toe.
You haven't explained at all how the Taliban has an easier time defending themselves than armed American citizens. Everything I have pointed out that is similar to the Taliban you have agreed is true.
I did
"The Taliban have automatics, formal training in combat, have better means of communication, and more importantly, are far better organized. Civilians are by and large incapable of indirect strikes.
Another problem with the Taliban analogy is that the fighting that civilians will not be capable of handling anything but the gov't sending boots on the grounds."
Instead of handling it directly, you've stated that thinking xyz is dumb, sometimes without explaining how thinking xyz is related to my claim
No, you have to explain for the first time. Not again.
No, I just explained, the argument that you're replying to is an actual explanation of banning certain guns doesn't violate the 2nd, but limiting citizens from obtaining guns based on crimes that they've already been punished for does.
You are the only person in the country who actually believes that someones criminal record doesn't matter once they are out of jail.
I would be if I claimed that I did. I've only said that it shouldn't bar them from gun ownership, not that it doesn't matter at all.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Taliban is a much weaker force than the citizens of America. Your whole argument is ridiculous because of this.
The scenario that I've been referring to was one where all members of the most powerful military in the world, and the remaining citizens were to go toe to toe.
This scenario is ridiculous. There is still going to be collateral damage. There is no way to guarantee that the government forces would only be able to target the armed civilians.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Taliban is a much weaker force than the citizens of America. Your whole argument is ridiculous because of this.
Great. More strawmen.
I'm not talking about the taliban going toe to toe with the US, what I'm referring to is how the taliban have fared in conflict at this point. The US gov't has not devoted nearly as much resources to fighting the taliban as forces they would in a conflict with all of their citizens. The taliban have fared in the current devotion that the US has made is greater than the amount that would be made if the US gov't were to engage in a total war with its citizens.
This scenario is ridiculous. There is still going to be collateral damage. There is no way to guarantee that the government forces would only be able to target the armed civilians.
The point isn't to establish if it's plausible, just the logistics of it.
It is you who brought up the concept of the Taliban being a stronger force so anything they have accomplished is not comparable to what US citizens would accomplish. You are the one who has created the strawman argument.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the American government would devote more effort to wiping out its own citizens than to fighting known enemies.
If your scenario isn't plausible then any conclusion drawn from it is worthless.
It is you who brought up the concept of the Taliban being a stronger force so anything they have accomplished is not comparable to what US citizens would accomplish. You are the one who has created the strawman argument.
I claimed that they're better equipped to handle the US gov't in their current conflict than what the US gov't would in a war against its citizens.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the American government would devote more effort to wiping out its own citizens than to fighting known enemies.
If your scenario isn't plausible then any conclusion drawn from it is worthless.
In the same sense that being on this website and debating doesn't generate any "worth". Whether or not we're going over a plausible scenario isn't going to change much about that :P
I claimed that they're better equipped to handle the US gov't in their current conflict than what the US gov't would in a war against its citizens.
That is a strawman argument. We were discussing whether having guns would help fend off the US government even on a minor scale. You changing the subject to the Taliban being better equipped didn't address what I said.
In the same sense that being on this website and debating doesn't generate any "worth". Whether or not we're going over a plausible scenario isn't going to change much about that :P
If you play by your rules you lose, because I will just say the scenario we should consider is an unarmed military and the armed citizens have their small weapons against the heads of the military and are ready to fire. Clearly in that scenario the US citizens would win and you are wrong.
That is a strawman argument. We were discussing whether having guns would help fend off the US government even on a minor scale. You changing the subject to the Taliban being better equipped didn't address what I said.
It's one of the several claims that I've made in the course of the discussion. We were also talking about the 2nd amendment.
If you play by your rules you lose, because I will just say the scenario we should consider is an unarmed military and the armed citizens have their small weapons against the heads of the military and are ready to fire. Clearly in that scenario the US citizens would win and you are wrong.
Yes, Cartman, in a scenario where we took away the all of one side's guns, the other side is practically guaranteed a win.
However, I never claimed that any wars between the US and its citizens would break out, or are really even likely, and I've only used these hypotheticals for the sake of discussion.
It's one of the several claims that I've made in the course of the discussion. We were also talking about the 2nd amendment.
You can't accuse me of making the strawmen arguments when it is you who was making them.
Yes, Cartman, in a scenario where we took away the all of one side's guns, the other side is practically guaranteed a win.
Your scenario sounds just as wacky.
However, I never claimed that any wars between the US and its citizens would break out, or are really even likely, and I've only used these hypotheticals for the sake of discussion.
You missed my point entirely. It isn't about the likelihood of a war breaking out. If we assume a war breaks out, then under your scenario the only way you are right is if the US military and the armed citizens of America pick a single city and stand on opposite sides of the city with their guns pointed at each other.
You can't accuse me of making the strawmen arguments when it is you who was making them.
Just to be nit picky, I can indeed accuse you of anything, regardless of whether or not it is correct. I can also correctly accuse you of making strawmen, regardless of whether or not I've committed one five minutes ago, five hours ago, or a year ago.
You missed my point entirely. It isn't about the likelihood of a war breaking out. If we assume a war breaks out, then under your scenario the only way you are right is if the US military and the armed citizens of America pick a single city and stand on opposite sides of the city with their guns pointed at each other.
There are endless scenarios for this sort of war to break out. The one that I was referring to was total war, which would include citizens simply being shelled away into oblivion by indirect fire, and air raids.
In that scenario, we would simply not stand a chance, if we're discussing a more sensible of the already far fetched and unlikely scenarios where there wasn't total war citizens would not be sitting ducks, however that is still not one that I was referring to.
Just to be nit picky, I can indeed accuse you of anything, regardless of whether or not it is correct. I can also correctly accuse you of making strawmen, regardless of whether or not I've committed one five minutes ago, five hours ago, or a year ago.
Ok, you are incorrect in saying that I introduced a strawman argument because the strawman argument was introduced by you.
There are endless scenarios for this sort of war to break out. The one that I was referring to was total war, which would include citizens simply being shelled away into oblivion by indirect fire, and air raids.
And the magic of no unarmed civilians being hurt in any way. Hence, how I came up with my description.
In that scenario, we would simply not stand a chance, if we're discussing a more sensible of the already far fetched and unlikely scenarios where there wasn't total war citizens would not be sitting ducks, however that is still not one that I was referring to.
Right, and your scenario has nothing to do with the likelihood of an actually military attack on America's own citizens, but the likelihood that all warfare strategy will be thrown out the window.
I also seriously doubt that civilian firearm ownership presents even a minor buffer against state oppression, or even protection in case a civil war would somehow happen.
Hmm... Vietnam sounds like a good scenario. A bunch of farmers with pitch forks beat one of the greatest militaries in the world.
but bearing any type of arms (automatics and grenade launchers for example) is over-interpreting this amendment.
Those are illegal unless you are licensed to carry them (grenade launchers are ban anyway).
Hmm... Vietnam sounds like a good scenario. A bunch of farmers with pitch forks beat one of the greatest militaries in the world.
They didn't "beat" america, in the same sense that americans didn't "beat" the brits for independence. Nor were they just a "bunch of farmers with pitchforks".
Those are illegal unless you are licensed to carry them (grenade launchers are ban anyway).
Nope, but you did make it sound like anyone could get them. I was just adding a point.
They didn't "beat" america, in the same sense that americans didn't "beat" the brits for independence. Nor were they just a "bunch of farmers with pitchforks".
Ok, well their tactics were revolutionary. It is true, guerilla warfare is deadly against an army.
The thing about the second ammendment is that an armed populose is significantly harder to oppress. Despite all the power of the state guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the oppressed (a lesson I though we already thought you brits) guns even the playing field.
Guns are dangerous...Guns exist within the mass population.
It's a were damned if we do, damned if we don't kind of scenario. Overall their is nothing we can do, people have guns, people know how to make guns, people will hide their guns if we try to take them, and guns can help you kill people, guns can make you feel more confident than you are in a negative way, and guns can be used by stupid people at the wrong time.
I agree that gun debates are pointless, but the reason is as I said... we're damned if we do anything, damned if we don't. They are here, it is too late.
