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.
Would you (violently) defend your right to bear arms?
I understand this may seem like an absurd debate to some, but in all seriousness, if there ever came a time when the government demanded that you surrender your firearms, would you uphold your second ammendment right with gunfire, or would it even bother you?
The second amendment makes all the other ones possible.
Since Mister Guy seems to think that voting yes makes us paranoid nut jobs, I will point out clearly that I do NOT believe that the government will be taking away our second amendment rights anytime soon.
But that's not what this debate is asking. It's asking "Would you violently defend your right to bear arms". Yes, I would. If the government ever decided to eliminate our second amendment rights, I will be part of the uprising.
"Well, a bunch of farmers with homemade muskets were able to take out an entire Empire."
LOL...that is a ridiculous overstatement of "facts" about the American Revolution. There were plenty of professional soldiers from the Colonies & from abroad (from France in particular) that were able to make the American rebellion into a more professional affair with better weapons & tactics. Also, I think the French Navy had a whole lot to do with some of the final British capitulations as well.
"I think members of the NRA (and military and police forces, since many of them are big gun advocates) can take on the government."
Whatever man...
"As Thomas Jefferson said 'The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants'.
A quote like this is an example of the importance of the second amendment."
Oh my, when you talk like this, you are unfortunately allying yourself with wackos like that guy in NH that showed up to an Obama health care rally with a gun:
LOL...Jefferson is dead, and his words are being twisted by those on the extreme edge of the violent Right-wing these days. Wake up & smell the coffee...
His words are his words. Jefferson was a major hater of big government and knew that it was very easy to create a big one.
Quote after quote of his shows that he feared that government would not remain small. And hell, look at us now (New Deal, Patriot Act, FCC regulations, vice laws, etc.)
the only reason why we haven't found the need to fight back yet is because it was a slow occurrence. Over the course of a couple of centuries and we just get used to no longer have any freedom.
Eventually though, the government may slip up. Trust me, guns will never go. Not just because the government isn't stupid enough to try, but because the citizens will not let it happen. It is the only thing that gives us any power at all.
"Quote after quote of his shows that he feared that government would not remain small. And hell, look at us now (New Deal, Patriot Act, FCC regulations, vice laws, etc.)"
LOL...yea, the New Deal was certainly "bad" for America...give it up man...you are a LOT more radical than you try & portray yourself here.
"It is the only thing that gives us any power at all."
LOL...once again, if you really, really think that govt. is living in fear of a bunch of wing-nuts with a few pea-shooters, you are sadly mistaken.
Well, he was a part of the Anti-Federalist Party which was against a Federalized government (in the view of what Federalized government was back then.)
whether he knew what Centralized government could do is unknown, but never the less, he was against a big government. He was a major advocate for State's rights (which is why he was an anti-federalist). That's some pretty big proof for being against big government. And funny thing is, he wrote the fuckin' Declaration of Independence. the document that is the basis of our Nation. It is what we BASE our fuckin' country and ideals on... but none of this shit matters really, cause all I am to you is a right-wing kook. I mean, despite all the left-wing beliefs he has, of course.
"he wrote the fuckin' Declaration of Independence. the document that is the basis of our Nation."
Wrong again wing-nut. The U.S. Constitution is the basis for our form of govt., period. BTW, whenever so-called "states' rights" has come up in our history (slavery, Civil Rights, income taxation, etc.) that side always loses in the end...so good luck with that link of failed thinking...
The Constitution is the RULES of our Nation... duh.
Basis is the Declaration of Independence. It was, well, a declaration, of... well, independence. get it?
Slavery was finally deemed unconstitutional, and it goes against the declaration (all men are created equal and shit like that).
States have the ability to structure their laws any way they want, as long as they abide by the rules of the Constitution. Well, that's how it should be. The rules of the Constitution SHOULD be enforced by the Federal Government. unfortunately, FG has only been used to create a stronger Empire than actually a more free country.
"Basis is the Declaration of Independence. It was, well, a declaration, of... well, independence. get it?"
No, the Declaration of Independence was basically just a letter to England to tell them to take a hike, period. It is an important historical document, but it is NOT the basis for our system of govt. in the USA, period.
"States have the ability to structure their laws any way they want, as long as they abide by the rules of the Constitution."
Wrong again...federal law has ALWAYS superseded state law, period.
I agree that our forefathers rose up and defeated a mighty military to give birth to this nation. However, the Brits, of course, didn't possess the technology we have today. For example, thermal imaging. Can you imagine an AC-130 turned loose on a bunch of farmers with street howitzers and 1/4 sticks?? Utter devastation. Next, are country is filling to the brim with a bunch of liberal leftist teet suckers that seriously diminishes our standing militia. Furthermore, unlike Mister Guy, I own a pile of guns, know how to use them, and the ammo to support them. Sad but true...most people own guns and very little ammunition. I don't think our 2nd amendment rights will go away anytime soon but it's not a stretch to say that our goverment increasingly make it harder to obtain guns and ammo. Or choose what type of weapon you are allowed to possess. A 30-30 is no match for an AR in a close firefight. The second amendment was not only put in place to protect this nation from foreign enemies but domestic ones as well. How do you do that with any type of conventional semi-automatic weapon? I do think the goverment would lose the majority support of our military and that my friend would be their demise. On topic with the question, you bet I would defend my right to bear arms...by whatever means at my disposal.
That is the most true thing I have ever heard. In another one of my discussions, I suggested that Obama put normal people in Congress because they know what they are talking about. You are a prime example.
As to the topic, I have two points to make:
1. I would fight along with you. I'm only 14, so I can't yet own a weapon, but I do hunt and go to shooting ranges. It says in the constitution that the people have the right to unseat the government if they feel it is wrong.
I would lock and load one twenty round clip, set the selector switch to rock-and-roll and go to town on anyone trying to take my guns away. They will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. Of course I have to buy some guns and ammo first but that's besides the point ;)
Really? Every single time? Is that why some coups are successful? Seriously, how old are you? Because if you're a teen I'll go a lot easier on you. Currently I'm treating you like a mentally retarded adult. ;)
LOL...you mean all those MILITARY coups?? The ones where all the guys with the govt. hardware (read that as guns, tanks, planes, explosives, etc.) take over a country?? LOL...
Seriously, do you have any knowledge whatsoever of history?? BTW, I'm apparently older than you are kiddo...
Did it ever occur to you that the government gets all their firepower from people in the military and those people who are involved in the military are actually normal people who also believe in the right to bare arms?
Once upon a time there were these 13 colonies that felt that they should not be forced to pay taxes seeing as they were not represented in Parliament. What they ended up doing was that they came together to form their own resistance group and they overthrew their government so that they could start a new government that supported their own views. Ever since then they have been calling themselves the United States of America.
That's what you call history, perhaps you should try learning some.
It's unfair to say that the government would always win such a fight. It depends on how many Americans decide to fight them. If half the population rises up against the government, they're not going to win. And if the government was facing even a tenth of the American population threatening a gunfight, I think they would reconsider their decision. That's an awful lot of people.
"It's unfair to say that the government would always win such a fight. It depends on how many Americans decide to fight them. If half the population rises up against the government, they're not going to win. And if the government was facing even a tenth of the American population threatening a gunfight"
Well, it's a "good thing" for the govt. that a half, a tenth, or ANY significant amount of people would never seriously think of taking up arms against their own govt....sheesh...you people are living a wild fantasy world.
You have no way of knowing that a significant amount of people wouldn't take up arms against the government if they tried to confiscate our guns. Give a FACT. Not your own delusional opinion.
"You have no way of knowing that a significant amount of people wouldn't take up arms against the government if they tried to confiscate our guns."
Sure I do. When it comes right down to it, a whole lot of people spew a lot of hot air on this issue of people "rising up in armed rebellion against the USA", but very, very few people (and only those at the extreme fringes) ever try & do it.
And oh, BTW, once again, NO ONE is out to "confiscate your guns"!
The only reason people have never tried to do it is because a gun confiscation has never happened. If the government did try such a thing I can assure you it would be more than "the extreme fringes" fighting them. I am aware that the government is not going to confiscate my guns. The point of this debate is hypothetical. "if they WERE to confiscate guns". No need to get upset over a technicallity.l
Kudos to JoeCalvary and Misterguy for a very cool topic. Misterguy, I appreciate your position, but...the second ammendment is the call that prevents nihilistic views from capturing the main stream. Our identity depends on the ability to keep a strong front. An armed populace, dedicated to its own survival, keeps many nefarious bands away.
"An armed populace, dedicated to its own survival, keeps many nefarious bands away."
Once again, if you believe that the govt. is "afraid" of its own people just because a few of them are armed with what amounts to pea-shooters, you are living in a fantasy world. If the govt. ever comes calling (and if you stay out of trouble, they won't), you will be crushed...make no mistake about it.
I also have little to no interest in debating what the 2nd Amendment says or what others feel like it says.
Misterguy, I'm honored that you would respond to my posting. I'm sure we will agree and disagree on many points. I look forward to future debates. As for this one...
I find it amazing that you equate gun control with a fantasy world. Reality, in human rights, means, to me, that before I am to exercise my right to form a well regulated militia I need to have proof that my inalienable rights are being infringed upon. When I am told that my views are against state views, I will pull my gun. When I am told that I have no right to seek my own happiness, I will pull my gun. I guess that is a fantasy world. I would never expect that a socialistic government headed by Obama would want me to disagree with its views. For instance, I wouldn't expect a government to demand that I accept junk science to dictate my life through mandates of power consumption and energy/carbon trading...
What that means to me, as a gun owner, is that your reality would rather see a government control of all other rights before gun control. simply put, in the worst case scenario take away the liberal rights of people (speech, religion, assembly, redress).
I'm not worried about the government in the sense that you mentioned. I'm worried about pundits that speak for a "greater good".
I appreciate that you do not care about the constitution. It shows that I might have mis-placed my belief that you are one of the rational, well educated people that I would like to debate. Good day.
"I find it amazing that you equate gun control with a fantasy world."
Gun control, yes...taking away all your guns, no. There IS a difference yanno.
"Reality, in human rights, means, to me, that before I am to exercise my right to form a well regulated militia"
Ugh...now we're getting into inane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. I already told you guys that I won't be going down that path with anyone here.
"When I am told that my views are against state views, I will pull my gun"
...and you will immediately be filled with a couple of dozen holes, period.
"When I am told that I have no right to seek my own happiness, I will pull my gun"
...see above.
"I would never expect that a socialistic government headed by Obama would want me to disagree with its views."
Oh please, yet another person that doesn't understand the simple defintion of socialism...ugh...
"For instance, I wouldn't expect a government to demand that I accept junk science to dictate my life through mandates of power consumption and energy/carbon trading"
No one will be telling you how much power you can or cannot consume. In fact, what many on the Right fail to understand is that once our country is being powered mostly by truly clean, renewable, and infinite sources of energy, how much power you consume will be completely irrelevant, because there will be no end to the power!
"What that means to me, as a gun owner, is that your reality would rather see a government control of all other rights before gun control. simply put, in the worst case scenario take away the liberal rights of people (speech, religion, assembly, redress)."
My goodness...you do live in a VERY fearful world, don't you? Let me say this again...NO ONE is out to take away your guns, your right to speak your mind (within reason...no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), your right to practice whatever religion that you choose (within reason again...no human or animal sacrifices!), your right to assemble or lobby your elected officials period.
"I appreciate that you do not care about the constitution."
LOL...now you really ARE living in a fantasy world! Good day to you too wing-nut...
Yes. I would gladly defend my rights. I'm not saying I would Lone Wolf the government, but if there was to be an uprising, I would Lock n Load and defend my right as an American.
Hopefully there would never be the need for one. If it ever came to a point to where the removed our right to bear arms, then you better believe there would be. Right now, there are more than 4 million NRA members. You take away 4 million peoples right to bear arms........bad things happen.
This is just an example of an idle threat from the far-Right-wing in this country. No one is out to take away anyone's guns that they have already purchased, period! Quit living in a climate of fear...
HAHA. Climate of fear... yea.....you're right. I should stop being so paranoid. -sigh- Ok... just to make this clear. I don't believe it would EVER happen. It's unconstitutional to strip my right to bear arms from me. If I'm not mistaken though, this debate is on a "what if" scenario. So, with that said, I stand by my original statement that, yes, I would defend my right to bear arms.
You know, nevermind... I can see you're the type of person who just likes the sound of your voice....or in this casem, the clicking of your fingers. I just stated that I wasn't afraid because it would never happen, and you still argue like I am. Apparently you don't understand the concept of a "what if" scenario. What if the world ended tomorrow? MisterGuy- "But it's not going to end". Nice debating with you.
when the government tries to take away my right to own guns they are taking my freedom away. i will not allow that to happen once they take away guns in this nation the government can do what ever they want to the general people without fear or worry of repercussion from the people and i would rather die trying to protect what i believe in then have to live my life by someones else's believes and standards.
Hell ya. I mean i live in TN and we use guns all the time....not for killing but we use them for other purposes for like hunting and stuff. We all have a right (says the constitution) to "bear arms" so i would fight anyway i could to keep mine :)
I would defend my second amendement rights till the bitter end because if they took that right away from citizens then only criminals could get fire arms and gun crimes would sky rocket
the perpose of the secound ammendment is to give the people the nessisary items to ressist tyranny so violent oposition to any atempt to limit out rights should be meet with determend violnt opposition from all freedom loveing patriots
Damn straight I would. Hell, I know I wouldn't get very far, but it's the message that's more important. Once we let people start controlling more and more of our lives, we begin to submit ourselves into a sort of slavery. Worse than it is now. Every man has their breaking point, and if they take away my weapons, they've pushed past that point.
Of course, I wouldn't do it so openly. I'd have methods behind the madness and I'd probably organize as best I could, but yes. I'd violently defend my rights. I don't see the rape of the constitution as a good thing, and honestly, I don't really like how it's holding up at current(Patriot Act), so I'm already about to snap.
misterguy regardless if warlin is talking tough or not why do you care your not debating anything by leaving a comment like the one you did does not do anything but lets the rest of the world no you cant debate properly
Yes Warlin i totally agree with you. :) Every man does have their breaking point. And it IS the message that is more important. It is true that if we let other people run our lives we will begin to submit ourselves "into slavery" as you say. Therfore i agree :)
I agree with you. The government has little chance of denying Americans a right that was given to us in the Bill of Rights. But if by some miracle it does happen, you better believe that will violently fight for my 122 year old right. The government is on very, thin ice right now.
The right to bear arms is the second amendment to the United States Constitution. When it was written by the Constitutional Convention in 1887, our founding fathers were in full agreeance when they made the right to bear arms a major component in the Bill of Rights. They obviously felt a strong need to give this right to the people. Owning a weapon is what the United States was founded upon. Besides, if owning a weapon was made against the law, who would own and use weapons. It would be the terrorists, murderers, and criminals who break the law, leaving the innocent defenseless.
I agree that one should have the right to own arms but i do not believe on has to use violence to obtain their wildest gun dreams. if one wants to own a gun i have no qualms with them but if they wish to own guns such as a AK47 and AK74u they should be dealt with in a more civilized manner to protect the people. A hunting rifle is fine, a pistol is fine, an automatic or assault rifle is over doing it specially since the only reason an American needs a gun such as a rifle is for hunting. I am not saying all guns are for hunting a pistol may be used for self defense, But only as a Deterrence to violence.
I don't own any guns. I don't need to own any guns either, as I'm not afraid that the "boogeyman" will be coming to get me tonight or any other night. I also don't feel the need to collect guns, target shoot, or go hunting.
However, I do think that people have a right to own guns to protect themselves & their families, to collect them, and to use them recreationally (like for target shooting & hunting). Does one have a Constitutional right to do all of the above? Well, I won't get into that... :)
Basically though, all of you out there that live in fear of the govt. coming to "take yer guns" need not worry, since that's never going to happen here in the USA. Don't buy into the fear people...
