CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:57
Arguments:83
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Taking away assault weapons. (44)

Debate Creator

kazimakie(39) pic



Taking away assault weapons.

The bill thats trying to take them. what are your views?
Add New Argument
3 points

The constitution, says We have the right to bear arms. you may say "its fine to own a gun, just not a fucking AR-15" or something like that. The constitution also states.... 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, taking the assault weapons is taking away our well armed militia. therefore it is against the conswtitution.

John_C_1812(277) Disputed
1 point

I agree but reserve my right to dispute on Constitutional grounds.

First I will start by saying the right to own a fire-arm comes directly from the United States Constitution as granted by introduction of fact in the preamble. Fire-arms are a common defense to the general welfare. The Second amendment though ratified by states, none of those states has ever set any fact to argue that one piont.

Second we are not simply securing a freedom we are mandated by constitution to set forth liberty along a path of happiness. Freedom describes both a lack of self-value and cost and is applied only to word as state, this which are a line of meaning by argument made between two points.

Third taking away a fire-arm is not against the United States Constitution. To be clear it is a threat made to take away personal property without just, or fair compensation that is at question, and illegal by law. As it is being described as a punishment to provide safety, while in fact it was the lack of common defense which was proven to be the cause of death to those who file grievance against United States Constitution.

We will look closely at history. China moved to outlaw martial arts. It failed.

Japan moved to outlaw swards. It failed.

United States moved to outlaw fire=arms. It failed.

The common basic principle here is that each of these things is a cultures common defense. While law may be describe as a common defense to the general welfare. The complexity of some crimes over others to prove inside an impartial court of law, may falsely drive the public into legislation of laws that are criminal for taxation is collect with the hopes of spending in other areas and not complex and hard to establish cases of judicial separation.

2 points

Just so you're aware, actual assault rifles- which have a standard, clear definition as determined by the Department of Defense- are already illegal. 'Assault weapons' are a made up term by politicians looking to manipulate you into thinking a particular rifle is more dangerous than it actually is by making it sound scary. None of them can even agree on what it even means, besides all AR15s.

First, come to a definition of the term 'assault weapon' that everyone agrees on, that isn't based on what Hollywood tells you is dangerous, and that doesn't simply equate to 'all of the guns with the features I subjectively and arbitrarily think look scary'. Standardize your definition, and then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

2 points

No one in their right mind would want to own an assault ''TYPE'' rifle.

If we follow the lunatic logic of those who claim that the constitution protects their right to own such weapons to its natural conclusion then the average citizen would have a right to own rocket propelled grenade launchers, heavy machine guns and heat seeking missiles.

Target shooting or hunting doesn't require assault ''TYPE'' rifles, nor does personal protection.

The law needs to be clearly defined so the shitheads cannot walk through the loopholes with their boots on.

Amarel(5556) Clarified
1 point

No one in their right mind would want to own an assault ''TYPE'' rifle.

What makes a rifle “assault TYPE”?

Antrim(1286) Clarified
2 points

Didn't you know there's a whole world of knowledge on Google's search Engine?

When you've carried out your own research on the difference between the two classifications of weaponry you could start on an amazing voyage of learning.

Do you want to be spoon fed?

2 points

What the fuck do you need an assault weapon for ?

Americans whining about it being a “ right “ to own such a weapon are just being ridiculous and embracing herd mentality

HighFalutin(3268) Clarified
3 points

I don't need one, I want one. So, I got one, because I can.

Amarel(5556) Clarified
2 points

Not only are assault weapons already banned, but rifles account for a small minority of gun crimes.

Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

Thanks for clearing that up , the person who posted this up seems oblivious to this

2 points

Define "assault weapon".

embracing herd mentality

2nd 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."

Dermot(5736) Disputed
2 points

Google hasn’t reached the U S yet ?

"A well regulated Militia,

Is the “average” American part of a “militia” ?

outlaw60(15368) Clarified
2 points

Dermot no offense meant but what is a Assault Weapon ? Shotguns and Pistols ?

Dermot(5736) Clarified
2 points

No offence taken Outlaw , Amarel a fellow American said assault weapons are banned in the U S , what does the American government deem an assault wespon

I think a few restrictions on guns wont hurt...........................................................

1 point

If only someone can take all the terrorist, citizens, police, government's firearms and throw all of it in the acid then gun deaths will be zero but yeah, restrictions may do.

You could consider anything an assault weapon. I could take a pencil and stab you you with it. That would make it an assault weapon.

Dermot(5736) Disputed
2 points

You could consider anything an assault weapon.

So “arm “ the army with pencils

I could take a pencil and stab you you with it.

Yes and you could take part in a drive by “ pencilling “ stabbing people rapidly as you sped along

That would make it an assault weapon.

No , it wouldn’t , it just demonstrates beautifully how idiotic a sizable amount of Americans are when it comes to gun related issues

1 point

Well how would you define an assault weapon. In your own words. Not from the internet

Cocopops(347) Clarified
1 point

Why don't gangsters and muggers use pencils instead of guns?

Bank robbery scene;- Hand over the loot or I'll scribble all over your nice clean white shirt, just think what your wife will say when you get home.

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. Your 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.

1 point

basically any automatic weapon is considered an assault weapon, if we are attacked my a strong army, what the hell are pistols and rifles gonna do to them? huh? very little. So all you cry babies who think we don't have the right to assault weapons? lets see what you say when you need to defend yourself against a heavily armed assailant. Gonna cry and beg for mercy? probably.

Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.

Yep you can bet Barack Obama's security force have non fatal rounds LMMFAO

1 point

Yep you can bet Barack Obama's security force have non fatal rounds LMMFAO

I'm sure they need a fatal one for you.

Amarel(5556) Clarified
1 point

Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”. Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.

For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.

beastforever(558) Clarified
1 point

Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”.

That is my suggestion, make guns which are specifically for self defense and not fatal. I mean, bit of manipulation of tech could restrict guns from firing fatal ammo.

Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.

when the objective is self defense, you don't have to kill anyone. 2-3 shots should easily put anyone on the floor. I mean, such rounds are made for that very specific purpose, it doesn't make sense to call it less effective.

For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.

It should for the law which is why they should make one such. Cause by giving people fatal guns you literally are giving the person the ability to use it to kill someone and possibly add complications to determining the actual position and state of the event.