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.
There's no situation where a bunch of regular joes and janes with guns would ever be able to fight off a tyranical government. Either they believe another country will invade the U.S. in which case the U.S. military was ineffective, and so they would be crushed, or more commonly they believe this government is out to get them, in which case 1. Move to Mexico asshole. 2. At least 50% of the population voted for whatever and so there are just as many nuts with assault rifles for whatever as against whatever.
Libya, Syria, American Revolution, Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Italian Reunification, Simon Bolivar's Revolutions, Texas Independence, just to name a few. Saying people can't fight off governments is historically inaccurate. Inaccuracy is a pet peeve of mine. :) And if you seriously don't like the way guns are in the US, move to Britain or France. I bet they have the kind of socialism you like to. I sure as hell ain't moving.
Texas isn't independent. I know, don't tell Texans that.
But none of those scenarios were individuals with guns by themselves. It requires outside force and some faction of that government itself to be in on the revolution. It requires a movement. A movement requires some valid complaint against those in power.
There is no movement going on. There are no inalienable rights being violated. If anything the last several decades have been the most free in the history of humanity.
When gun nuts have an actual complaint based in reality I'll completely support it.
I find though that those most desperately in love with their guns are the same that want others not like them to have less freedoms, not more. From my observation they are the ones who would need to be defended against, if you are gay, or not religious, or happen to not care for guns particularly for example.
Best to get those guns out of their hands now. Avoid the whole mess before it starts.
I bet they have the kind of socialism you like to. I sure as hell ain't moving.
Neither Britain nor France are socialist. The only areas of their government which are more "socialized" than ours is healthcare, and their healthcare is like way better and way cheaper for everyone so not such a bad thing.
I'd rather try to talk logic to people who live in this country, and be part of slowly continuing this country's progress to a "more perfect union." I find that more rewarding. Thanks though.
France isn't Socialist? Hollande ran under the socialist party. Texas had no outside help, Mexico was not in revolution at the time. They were independent for a few years. So that's one example. Hey your welcome, no problem. Have a nice day
France is not socialist at all. They are a democracy and their means of trade is capitalist.
Texas has lots of outside help, and the only reason they are ranked 9 in terms of contribution to federal funding (1 of on 4 red states in the top 20 and the only in the top ten) is because the federal government uses Texas for a lot of their military bases and other programs they could put anywhere really if they wanted to. Texas is not as independent as they like to pretend.
And the point about Mexico remains the same. It required outside help and will within the current government and valid complaints against those in power.
You've shown nothing with this response, but revealed you've no concept of socialism and have fallen for the Texas hype no one but Texans take seriously.
I was talking about History. You know, the stuff that happened before us? In the 1830's-1840's, Texas was its own country. They gained independence by themselves. The only outside people that really helped them was Davy Crocket and Jim Bowie. But they died at the Alamo. At the time Mexico was ruled by General Santa Anna, who led the expedition himself. No outside factors nor internal struggle.
You've proven my point for like the third time. Texas had a militia, which was regulated. A regulated militia before they even were annexed. And they were annexed as a result of the Mexican-American war.
Could Texas be its own state? Sure, and they'd suck a little less then Mexico maybe. But this is way off subject. The point is the purpose of assault rifles. There is nothing compelling about any of the revolutions mentioned which anyone could reason were an excuse to allow whoever whatever gun they want. There is no case where any group similar to current gun nuts, did any good to any society they have ever dwelled within.
No, your twisting it to try to avoid being proven wrong.
1.The militia was created into an army.
2.Texas actually requested for statehood, but they were refused at first because of their debt.
3.Annexation was not a result of the Mexican-American War. Texas became independent before that War, so please read a history book. You can't even get your own country's history right.
4.You can thank the gun-owner over history for retaining our independence. No one has ever, nor wanted to, invade the United States. So the justification is right there. It is a good protector and preventer.
5.Once you understand and get our history right, then I'll talk. Showing your ignorance in our own history is a bad image for you. If you don't know that, why should I listen to the ignorance your spewing? Not to mention propaganda modern society has happened to throw on you. I believe I am attacked because I am. You justify it under the guise of the common good, saving lives, and ridding violence from the world. News Flash. It won't work. It will still go on, even if you disarm me. Violence is in human nature. Disarming the good wont stop the bad. It will only cover it up for a while. It will come back stronger, and with vengeance.
The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out. ~Chinese Proverb
You have struck first.
All violence is the result of people tricking themselves into believing that their pain derives from other people and that consequently those people deserve to be punished. ~Marshall Rosenberg
Why Am I being punished? I did nothing wrong! The psycho did. Fix the psychos. Not the innocent bystander. Punishing me is like executing someone for a murder he didn't commit. Stop punishing me so you can get the false sense of security a gun ban will bring.
Oh, and please read a history book. Inaccuracy is a pet peeve of mine. :)
3. I know. They were independent for a time. Then as a result, one of the results, of the Mexican American war, they became a state.
So far so good.
4. Uh... no. You can thank the U.S. military, early in the country the help of France and Spain. Now, it was people with guns who fought of the English, but they were trained, they became a militia. They weren't even allowed to take the firearms home in most instances. Most states decided against that. It certainly was not dudes in cabins defending their personal property against the red coats which are to thank. It is not today's equivalent of gun nuts, it was regular people.
5. Paranoid much? And you are back to arguing strawmen. No one ever said gun control would end all violence. The argument is there will be less violence and all you need to do to curb the amount of violence is a little smart regulation.
The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out. ~Chinese Proverb
You have struck first.
Cute. Provably false though. Watch, "Hey idiot! 1+1=2" Yell that to any random person. Strike first and you will remain correct no matter the come back.
All violence is the result of people tricking themselves into believing that their pain derives from other people and that consequently those people deserve to be punished. ~Marshall Rosenberg
And there aren't many things that hurt worse than a gun so... ?
You have a tendency to support my points brilliantly.
Why Am I being punished? I did nothing wrong! The psycho did. Fix the psychos. Not the innocent bystander. Punishing me is like executing someone for a murder he didn't commit. Stop punishing me so you can get the false sense of security a gun ban will bring.
Gun control is punishment? Wait... I thought you needed those guns to protect from rogue nations... You mean all of this is for a fucking hobby? What if my hobby is setting shit on fire? Should I have to pay just because now and then someone gets burned to death?
What are we talking about here?
No one is trying to punish you or anyone that likes guns.
You want a gun? Fine, cool, knock yourself out. You can still get a lot of really cool guns so long as you pass a background check, which shouldn't be a problem for you... though this gun debate does have me wondering.
Hell. Want even more fire power? Okay, weird, but whatever I'm for that too. How about if you are a police officer or have military experience and pass regular paid-for-by-gun-makers psyche exams, you get to buy all the crazy shit you want. In exchange lift the ban on suing gun makers if they do end up selling a psycho an arsenal that kills a bunch of random people...
Now we are letting the market decide! And we're holding people responsible! And we're addressing the psycho issue! And you get a super special treat if you're military of law enforcement!
As long as we keep the last part, I'd be fine with passing a background check. But what the new legislation is saying is a lot of my guns now would all of the sudden be illegal. I don't want that to happen. Suing a company because someone misused their product is kinda stupid. It comes with warning labels, the customer just didn't follow their advice. They have no legal responsibility. Psych tests. I'm still debating that one. All we really need to do is update our background check system with mental health patients. Keeping that list would keep almost all psychos from owning guns. I don't know what to think on that legislation. Yeah, but other than that I'm cool.
you live in a civilized country. you should not have a lot of guns in the first place. The zombies aren't coming, so ditch the arsenal. Like really, a 9 mill. for personal defense, maybe. I may not like it, but I can see it. Having an M16 in your umbrella stand and an AK on the wall, an RPG in the oven and a minigun on top of the van is goddamned ridiculous.
Ever heard of an undiagnosed psychotic going rampant? Yeah, that shit never happens, right? Oh... wait... yeah, it does.
Finally, i know you people are out there, but to those who think that assault rifles are necessary to prevent the oppression of the governemnt.
All i have to say is F-35 JSF. go ahead, see what those 5.56 rounds do to that thing while you get eaten by a missile.
Face it. you'll never overthrow your government if they go rogue anyway. and who do you have to blame? Yourselves for your weapon obsessed culture. Your military is one of the most powerful in the world, if not the most. Your military is commanded by your government. If you decide to revolt, you're taking a hike up "just got fucked in the ass by a hellfire" river.
5.56? Who said anything about a 5.56? Wimpy little cartridge. You seem to believe that we would fight them in a straight up war. Ever hear of guerrilla war? Pain in the ass for any government. If are so helpless, then why have the afghanis defended against the US for so long? We haven't won yet, and never will. Greeks tried, Britain tried, Russia, now us. And they have less men and worse weapons.
Well, if you're just going to use guerilla tactics, why have guns? bombs can be made from basic household cleaners and they kill just as well with the added shockvalue that bombings have on the governmental state of mind anyway. No guns necessary. Actually, i'd think a backpack is a little less conspicuous than an AK-47. And you can leave the bag there, detonate the bomb and obliterate nearly all the evidence you were there in the first place.
There you go, 7.62 instead. you can go all the way up to .70 cal, if you want. Naval guns, even, it doesn't change that the most effective way to wage any kind of war on your government, should you choose to do so, will be without firearms.
Well, AK-47s are a great weapon, and fighting a war without a gun is kinda pointless. Bombs work though, but it's not like we're going to have suicide bombers and terrorists.
Texas had a militia, which was regulated... The point is the purpose of assault rifles. There is nothing compelling about any of the revolutions mentioned which anyone could reason were an excuse to allow whoever whatever gun they want.
Were the militias armed by the State (our country, lol) of Texas? Or were the guns the brought mainly the guns they owned before the fighting? Did James Bowie bring a box of a hundred muskets and pass them out before the last stand at the Alamo, or did individual soldiers mainly supply their own weapons and equipment beforehand?
It was as combination of both. A lot of people did have guns, but hundreds and hundreds were provided by the state in addition to this, and everyone who had a gun was first trained. The point is A: they weren't a bunch of paranoid hillbillies with trust issues, they were regular people with a firearm maybe used for hunting because they didn't have a grocery store on every corner, and in rare rare instances self-protection because they didn't have police departments in every town. B: They were a regulated militia trained in lieu of a standing militia which at the time was practically non-existent.
Anti-gun-regulation (what they really are, not pro gun, no one is "taking guns away") proponents make dozens of completely false correlations concerning this time period, along with the many many strawmen they feel a pressing need to argue against no matter the actual debate.
One of the false correlations is the old-time pioneer or the U.S. revolutionary to themselves. They are neither. Pioneers did not have guns for the joy of gun collecting and because they were scared of shadows, they had them to hunt and because they lived in areas that were for all purposes often lawless.
Well you're allowed to hunt all you want in the U.S. so long as it's not to the extinction of a species, it's even encouraged where certain species begin to overpopulate. And you can use firepower that is 100x better than what any pioneer had.
So they have that right plus some.
You are also allowed guns for self-protection, several in fact. You are allowed firepower that is 100x better than what any pioneer had to protect themselves.
So they still have that right plus some.
Even though there is 0 threat, 0 none zilch, a complete absence of threat from either a foreign power or a domestic power comparable to anything during the time they dream they are still in, even though we have in place armies and police that they are perfectly free to fucking join if they want to handle all of that for them, we still say "okay paranoid weirdo, you can have X amount of firepower to satisfy your fantasy"
So they still have that right plus some.
Still, they insist that some right which was granted at the founding of the country is being denied them.
It is the steady and predictable scenario of confusing the addition of rights within a society which would have been unimaginable at that time, decried as some horrid and unjust trampling of freedoms.
Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.
To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
Why do we need a car? You can mow down so many people with it. More people are killed in car accidents in a year than guns. Knives kill more people than guns each year. Why don't we ban those? If we ever had to go to war (and I hope we never do) I want to have the same weapon the enemy has. So it's harder to get the upper hand. The second amendment was designed to keep a people free and a government good. Now some argue that they never imagined assault rifles (which are already banned anyway). They didn't, but kinda did at the same time. The idea was that the people have the same kind of arms the government has. Both sides had muskets and cannons. We have modern weaponry. Disarming a population makes it very easy for the government to get the upper hand. Now that was about governments. Which according to many would crush a revolt. So lets talk about defense against another. Many people have defended themselves and others with these kind of weapons. I believe there was a man who defended his home against a mob in LA with an AR-15. This was a couple of decades ago. It is a deterrent against foreign invasion. It is a deterrent against criminals. It is a deterrent against those who want to oppress. Did you know the US Communist party actually sent a letter to Obama saying banning guns is the right thing to do to advance their agenda? Communists are pretty radical guys. History can attest to that. Any gun is lethal. Even a little .22 calibre. The problem is not the tool, but who uses it. It's like banning airplanes after 9/11. Nobody thought of that. They wanted to catch the men who did it. A man walks in with a weapon and kills 20 children. They want to ban the gun he used. They don't even consider the people or factors that caused this sick man to do what he did. It had to be brought up before they said, "Oh, yeah. The mental health should be looked at too. Or poverty." I think targeting the nerve centers of these is what should happen. Chicago's and Detroit's poverty should be tackled. Doing that would reduce gang violence. Increasing mental health care and including those records into the background checks would prevent a ton of psychos from handling weapons.
So, I gave you some reasons, why, and what I think should happen. But you say you have never seen a valid reason. The problem is you might have different beliefs to show you what is valid, while I might see it differently. We both have different views on what is valid. So if you think this isn't valid, it might not be to you or many others, but it is valid for me and many others.
Assaultrifles are not necesary. However only the military or people with special permits are allowed to have access to assualt rifles. AR does not stand for assault rifle it stands for ArmaLite which is the comapany that designed it. An assault rifle has either a fully automatic fire selector switch or a three round burst switch. No regular civilian will be able to buy one of those. What you see the shootings done with are gun that are styled like assault rifles but in are NOT actually assault rifles.
Your right. Cilivians technically can buy them but i know a lot of gun nuts and dont know one that owns a true assault rifle. Its just plain not worth it. I mean you can easily spend 10 to 20 thousand on one gun by the time you pay for the gun and all the fees. No average civilian is gonna be able to buy one of those and a criminal that can afford it will have the money to get it no matter what laws are out there.
Yes, it is. We wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from our own or foreign governments with just assault rifles; they have high grade explosives, tanks, unmanned drones, and heavy weapons like grenade launchers and Gatling guns. Therefore, so we actually can properly defend ourselves in a situation like this, I propose that it be made legal for civilians to purchase and own things like high grade explosives, tanks, unmanned drones, and heavy weapons like grenade launchers and Gatling guns. An assault rifle might allow you to kill a few of the tyrants men; all the other weaponry will allow you to take the fight to the tyrant himself.
Yeah, great. Let's have children go to school with grenades in their backpacks. Seems legit, oh look teacher, i brought in my daddy's grenade and if i pull this ou- oh fuck, now it's not just the sick ones, it's the curious ones we've got to worry about.
As i've said before. Guns are a symbol of a human desire to KILL efficiently. It's, at it's base purpose, not a defensive item. If you want to defend yourself, get a shield.
Sure, it can be used as a weapon, but at least, you can say with conviction that it was created with the intent to defend. You can not defend a gun the same way.
Why do you think that captain america's shield was his most well known tool? He was a symbol of the DEFENSE of america. If guns were equal to defense, he's have had a Browning .30 cal instead. But no, we know him as the guy with a SHIELD.
If our government ever gets hijacked by someone who wants to be a dictator we need to be able to take our country back that's the main reason we have the second amendment
Since our military is funded by a different branch than is in charge of what the military does, it would require a military/representative coupe.
Since representatives and our executive depend on votes it would require an over-50%-of-people-who-vote coupe along with a military coupe, and an executive branch coupe, and a representative coupe.
At that point, why not just vote for the shit that has you so upset it's worth a revolution... oh wait what if you lose? So again, you are back to the only situation in this country where there is a reason for random whoever to have an arsenal, is not self-protection but to impose a minority will on a majority.
---
Do you know why the second amendment said "State" militia instead of "federal"?
Southern states wanted to be sure they had the right to form militias to keep any slaves in line who might want to revolt. They knew the federal government, influenced by majority not minority slave owners, would not lend a hand should that happen. May be in their minds, hoping it would happen.
If one believes in a democratic state and the people's ability to choose right from wrong, they have no need of guns in the hands of every man woman and child,
It is when one lives in unfounded fear of the people's ability to choose right from wrong, or when they wish to impose their beliefs on others, when they feel the need to be so armed.
A coup isn't a vote. All you need are some rogue generals and the military to follow them. Cutting off funding or voting for the right people won't prevent one. I really don't know how that makes else to you.
Also, the second amendment doesn't mention the states. It talks about THE State. The country. It can be applied to individual states, but it was necessary to the security of the country. And slavery may have been an influence, but it wasn't a major reason. Just looking at quotes from the founding fathers would disprove that. And the right to bear arms is meant for protection, not oppression. Guns have been satanized by the modern media that it means war, murder, oppression, carnage, and destruction. They do not cause those. Men do. We have the right to bear arms to protect against the natural oppressiveness of man. What we need to fix is what causes these men to do what they do. Poverty and mental health are a good place to start. Why not fix those before we ban guns?
A coup isn't a vote. All you need are some rogue generals and the military to follow them. Cutting off funding or voting for the right people won't prevent one. I really don't know how that makes else to you.
A rogue general and some people and troops who follow that general or generals is not ousting a voted-for representative, and it is also not the least bit possible. And still, again, you've not described how armed individuals would be any more effective than the military in place. Why do you refuse to address that?
Also, the second amendment doesn't mention the states.
As in that particular state. So individual states. Are you disagreeing with the intent of the amendment? Or are you misunderstanding it again?
And slavery may have been an influence, but it wasn't a major reason.
And the right to bear arms is meant for protection, not oppression.
No, a regulated militia is meant for protection and that is all the amendment ever meant, whether that be white slave owners protected from slaves or roving bands of cattle rustlers or whatever. However, police are far more effective in this area and we see clearly that not limiting the fire power of individuals who are not part of some sort of regulated militia directly correlates to how many innocent people are shot with those guns.
Guns have been satanized by the modern media that it means war, murder, oppression, carnage, and destruction. They do not cause those. Men do.
No, men with guns can cause those things. Men without them cannot. More to the point though, those trained are better at preventing those things and as we see, those who are not are more likely to shoot people on accident or go on killing sprees.
We have the right to bear arms to protect against the natural oppressiveness of man.
Humans are not naturally oppressive. It is a rare thing actually. It just so happens that those who would oppress are the same who also have a higher likelihood to pursue power for power's sake.
That aside... still. If those people don't have guns they are less likely to succeed. Unless it is a government. In which case citizens with guns still don't help.
The problem is the scenarios which would make unlimited fire power available to all are all ridiculous. It is out of touch with reality and requires a degree of paranoia and delusion.
What we need to fix is what causes these men to do what they do. Poverty and mental health are a good place to start. Why not fix those before we ban guns?
Why not fix them all at the same time?
I love that those who are pro guns are all for paying ridiculous amounts of money to arm and train teachers (whether they want it or not) are the same who don't want to pay a penny in taxes to help the mentally ill.
So, let's compromise. One side agrees to not go ape-shit if the people decide certain guns and certain amounts of ammo are not necessary and background checks required for everyone with a gun, and we can put exactly equal effort into fixing the poverty and mental illness which leads to the use of guns in all of these deaths.
btw, that's been what gun control has advocated from the beginning. But hopefully we've dispelled the usual strawmen pro-gun advocates waste their breath arguing against at this point.
You really think that civilians with assault rifles will be able to take back their government, which would hypothetically possess and implement powerful weapons such as tanks, missiles, and heavily-armed soldiers to control the public? This isn't some fantasized situation from the movies, where the civilians are able to outmaneuver and take back their government. The United States has one of the strongest militaristic systems in the world. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of civilians fighting back against the government, the masses would lose. Using the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore. It was drafted in the 1700s, where technology was limited to basic handguns and rifles, along with the occasional cannon. Times are different. I shouldn't have to explain the numerous advances in militaristic technology. The ability to kill is significantly higher. Does this mean that we should just abandon the Second Amendment? Absolutely not, but there should be restrictions on what civilians should be able to possess, otherwise, if you really want to completely follow the amendment, why not just let everyone have whatever firearm they want? I can guarantee that, if everyone possessed a weapon to "protect themselves", the mortality rate will rise. One disagreement that gets out of hand can lead to a standoff. Do you really want everyone to have to ability to possess high-capacity magazines with their assault rifles? It's just bound to get out-of-hand, no matter how much regulation is done. We are only human, and people make mistakes all the time. Unless there is a way to prevent every single human being from developing even the slightest feeling of anger, I will never back up the argument that assault rifles should be allowed for possession among civilians.
Why do you assume that all humans are ticking time bombs who would kill everyone if only they had a gun. Trust me if some one wanted to kill gun laws would not stand in their way.if everyone had a gun it would make bad guys think twice before pulling theirs. And I don't think most of our solders would turn on us. They are Americans just like us. Trust me most solders joined the military to defend there friends and family and fellow citizens NOT the government. The solders would be on our side and most cops too remember law enforcement and military are some of the most conservative carrier fields around.
200 years ago maybe, but now days, you can kiss you ass good-by, no hillbilly with a gun is going to stop a dam thing vs drones, tanks, bio weapons, nukes ect. the argument for needing a gun to protect against tyranny is a joke now days, if our government wanted to take us over they can do it without any effort at all 1 virus and "Bam" millions dead.
Gun nuts just want guns for there own selfish reasons now days and use this tyranny argument as an excuse.
Well as the saying goes I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Just make a stand don't ever back down and we'll see how many US solders would shoot at there own citizens just because they were told to.
LOL, here's how it works, okay? this is kind of a "How to" guide for ushering in an age of tyranny.
First, fund and reward the people in charge of your military.
Second, after gaining the trust of the military personnel, plant evidence of a growing faction of terrorists in your country, hellbent on the destruction of our way of life.
Third, convince your constituents that though you "feel horrible for doing this" martial law is necessary for the public good. Tell them that it is their duty as patriots to realize this. Most of your "gun nuts" are already on the same side as that tyrannic ruler, by this point. I mean, what self respecting gun nut isn't a patriot? And how would it look if a patriot refused the call to patriotism? We can't have that, now can we. Gun nuts are now on the side of the government.
So, as a recap, in three easy steps, you've got a tyrannical government in charge of your country with the support of the patriots who claim to have the second amendment at heart.
And lastly, if step three doesn't go according to plan and the gun nuts don't follow their government, you wanted to know why a soldier would shoot at a civilian?
"Gun nuts" as you call them don't trust Obama we would expect him to lie and know he was talking about us we aren't dumb you know and nether are our solders many of whom are them selves "gun nuts"
