Question: Should Individuals Be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns?

Adults who do not have a history of violent felonies should have the right to carry a concealed weapon.

As of 2013, carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states, with Illinois being the last to enact concealed carry legislation. While some states require permits for concealed carry, others have "unrestricted carry" policies that do not necessitate permits. Advocates of concealed carry argue that criminals are less likely to attack individuals they believe are armed. They often reference the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms," and assert that the majority of adults who legally carry concealed firearms are law-abiding citizens who do not misuse their weapons. Critics of concealed carry contend that higher gun ownership correlates with increased gun crime and accidental injuries. They argue that concealed handguns escalate the likelihood of disputes turning deadly and maintain that society would be safer with fewer firearms in circulation. Notably, the only state/district in the USA that banned carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) had a violent crime rate more than double the highest in the US. This statistic excludes American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. Sources: http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...

Thanks for the debate, Pro. =Neg case=I. Ban PistolsPro makes no good responses here. His only arguments rely upon the idea that robbers would carry around easily visible long guns before committing crimes. This is untrue because, contrary to Pro's claims, criminals do not prefer handguns because they are cheaper. They aren't cheaper than many long guns (military surplus Mosin Nagants run at around $100 each, far less than the cost of an average pistol). Criminals prefer handguns because they are easy to carry and conceal. If gun control works, we would be heavily damaging the power criminals have by preventing them from obtaining their favored weapon. If it does not work, there's no reason to affirm the resolution anyway. Pro's position is just self evidently absurd. He wants to ban the weapons that are hardly ever used in crimes, even bolt action rifles and muskets, while wanting to permit the ones that are commonly used by criminals. He has literally no warrant for why people couldn't have long guns in their places of business for defense (they do in the status quo) if we ban handguns so his self defense advantge falls apart. Again, if you buy that gun control works vote Con because gun control advocates should use their political capital to push for a handgun ban, not a ban on long guns. If you don't buy that gun control works, the resolution is negated for obvious reasons. Pro attempts to salvage his concession on the hunting argument by arguing that people going out into the woods to shoot squirrels or deer somehow count as a professional group tantamount to the military and should not be viewed as civilians. I think this illustrates the mental gymnastics one would have to do to vote Pro at this point--Pro conceded that people should be sold long guns to hunt in some circumstances, so he loses the debate. It's as simple as that. Pro's only response is that civilians should run should an invasion occur. What he's failed to negate is that, historically, an armed popualce *deters* invasion. Disarming the citizenry has no benefit to the federal government. Pro's position is quite frankly ridiculous. He wants to ban guns that he admits have literally no negative utility, such as muskets, simply due to their barrel length. Hardly a basis for sound policy. II. Second amendment Pro totally dropped my legitimacy argument throughout the entire debate. This point vastly outweighs *everything* else in the debate by several orders of magnitude. Affirming the resolution would more or less destroy the federal government. Pro makes literally no response. You can stop reading and vote Con right here. Pro accuses me of being inconsistent but, as the negative, I don't have to be consistent. I just have to show that the resolution is false. My case shows that if gun control works you negate, and if it doesn't work you negate. My case is consistent in that it highlights the inherent absurdity of the resolution. Pro concedes that gun control doesn't work. Once again, you can stop reading and sign the ballot. His only argument is that long guns increase the potential threat of a person "exponentially", and yet, statistically, the vast majority of gun deaths occur due to handguns. Pro just has no ground here. Pro drops the point that democide is about 20x more common than homicide from fellow civilians. Even if you grant him limited homicide mitigation, the reduced risk of democide outweighs this. Pro characterizes the idea of an armed population deterring genocide as "naive". Kates and Polsby note[1]:"..not one of the principal genocides of the 20th century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenceless." It's simply logical that an armed population is going to be a tougher nut to crack for oppressive governments than an unarmed one. This is why the Nazi's did all in their power to disarm the populace. As Hitler noted[2]: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."III. Guns and crime Pro tries to make excuses for his lack of empirical evidence by stating he is not American, but this is just a cop out. At the end of the day, his nationality has no effect on his affirmation of the resolution. Granting him any leniency here would be discrimination, you have to judge the debate based on who did better, not by giving one side a blank check to spout opinions without the backing of statistics or sources. Pro realizes he's lost the debate on the practical front so he attempts to shift the goal posts by now arguing for an ideal. He made no response to my critique of idealism that if we're arguing for an ideal society, there would be no crime. Don't let him get away with having the debate judged on an idealistic plane--the resolution is a matter of policy. Even if you buy that he can make idealistic arguments, since all of his points rely on practicality as well you can ignore this paradigm. Since he's conceded that gun control wouldn't work because the populace is "stubborn" you can vote Con. Pro says he wants a society where the more lethal weapons are harder to get. Since pistols are about seven times more lethal in terms of death toll than long guns you can negate the resolution under my first contention. Pro argues that my statistics are useless because they don't address long guns specifically, but this is just absurd. He's given no reason, no reason at all, to think that more handguns would lead to less crime but more long guns would not. I don't know what else to say here--this point certainly stands. More guns means less crime, so banning the weapon kinds that constitute the majority of civilian owned arms is a terrible idea. The resolution has been negated several times. =Aff case=False dichotomyPro tries to shift the goal posts again. As I noted in my last round, he heavily implied in round 4 that these types of guns could still be sold to civilians as long as they had some kind of liscensing. As it stands, the fact that Pro wants to ban guns that he admits have no negative utility just because he wants a "clear" law is beyond asinine. If there's no reason to ban something, we shouldn't ban it and we should negate the resolution for being too broad. Easier for criminals Pro's argument lays in shambles because criminals simply do not buy weapons from stores. At this point given that he's already conceded gun control doesn't work, he gains no advantage from this or any other contention. Pro makes some strange responses to my argument about the Koreans defending their stores with long guns, but at the end of the day all that matters is his response here: "and in this sole case Koreans have used the assault weapons in the only correct way that exists". Thus he concedes that assault weapons (let alone all long guns) have some practical application in civilian hands. Therefore I've won the debate. Easier to solveAt long last, we come to the final point of contention. Pro once again tries to frame the resolution as an ethical question when it is quite clearly a matter of policy. Neither the resolution nor Pro's opening round make any mention of ethics or ideals, but rather a statement of policy that long guns should not be sold to citizens. This is pretty much all Pro says to this point but remember, even if you buy that this debate should be one of ideals since we've both argued pragmatism you have to vote on that. The judge is, after all, bound to the arguments the debaters make in round. Vote Con. Sources:1. http://www.theguardian.com...2. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com...

I concur that a teacher does not have the authority to hold a gun in their possession while in a pubic teach facility. Although, everyone has the right to the second amendment, it is unlawful for someone, that does not have authority to hold a gun, to take a gun to school. Therefore, my argument is that police should be the ones to carry any sort of firearm and teach should be given pepper spray. Just last week another school shooting happened in Pittsburgh. The school shootings have been happening more and more frequently across the country. There need to be some sort of protecting in or around the school to keep the students protected.

I thank Mongoose for posing this debate challenge and would like to respond to his argument as follows: Guns don't protect people; they threaten, injure and kill people. Not so long ago, in America, because firearms are commonplace and easily obtainable (legally or illegally) in that country, a young man who was disillusioned with the result of a recent election in Arizona walked into a meet-and-greet between the winning candidate and her constituents at a local supermarket and opened fire. As a result of this obscene attack on democracy, a freely-elected politician was severely injured and one of her staff members, three retirees, a federal judge and a young girl born on September 11th 2001 were killed. [1] Supporters of public gun-ownership often claim that ‘guns don't kill people, people do' but we have to ask ourselves: ‘In this case, how successful would this frothing nut-job in Tucson have been if he hadn't had easy access to a firearm?' Clearly, if he had walked into that supermarket unarmed and shouted "Rat-a-tat-a-tat" or "Bang-bang! You're dead" it is unlikely that the consequences would have been fatal! My opponent then goes to claim that easy access to lethal weapons leads to lower crime rates, and quotes criminologist Gary Kleck who concluded that "'handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes.'" If what Kleck claims is true, it means guns are used in a truly alarming 400,000 crimes per year. Now, let's compare the US to Japan and Great Britain, countries where private gun ownership is strictly regulated. In Japan, guns only kill 6 people in every 10,000,000 whereas in England and Wales the figure is 38 in every 10,000,000. Meanwhile, in the USA where citizens have a constitutional right to "bear arms" a whopping 1026 people in every 10,000,000 are killed by guns – that's 27 times more than in England and Wales and a staggering 171 times more than in Japan. Of course, determined criminals in Britain and Japan can, and do, obtain firearms, but they are only the most hard-core, well-connected of villains: the average burglars and muggers do not routinely carry firearms and, most certainly, young people with mental health issues are not able to access guns and use them to massacre innocent people in schools, colleges and other public places as seems to happen on such a depressingly regular basis in the United States. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm a great admirer of America – in many ways it is a wonderful country with much to be proud of – but one of the few issues that is widely supported in the United States, mainly for historical reasons, but which I cannot support, is the right of ordinary American citizens to routinely arm themselves with guns. Thank you. [1] http://topics.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.gun-control-network.org...

My opponent has stated he is making "the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms." I as Con fully intend to refute this claim that "the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms."DEFINITIONS:RIGHT:"legal entitlement to have or do something[1]"ARMS:"Weapons and ammunition; armaments[2]"[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...PREMISES:(A)Legally Americans don't have the right to bear arms in the sense that most people think of. The "right to bear arms" related to strictly militias. I will explain why thoroughly below.ARGUMENTS:(1)The origins of the "right to bear arms" is based on the lack of a military industrial complex. Often in modern America, we forget that the idea of a professional military in the United States is little over a century old. Traditionally in the United States, the federal government drafted citizens when the United States needed to fight a war[2]. It wasn't until the periods of after World War I that the idea of maintaining a professional military was thought. The period after World War II, the Cold War, cemented the idea of the United States maintaining a professional military. [2]http://www.history.com...Previously, before World War I, states had their own irregular militias which would be called on for service by the federal government first before a draft was initiated. These militias would eventually be what we term in today's time, the National Guard. But in the early days of the United States and during the period when the British governed the colonies, the militias were of great value for the defense of towns. Some states when so far as to require the citizenry to carry firearms. An example of this would be in Maryland how every able man under law was required to carry a gun on his person[4]. The law existed because there was no professional military or large National Guard existent at the time. Citizens were organized themselves into militias to defend their towns. They did not wear uniforms in most cases and were not trained that well at all. [4]http://www.neverbluefarm.com...These militias would be the base of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the base of the army during the War of 1812. This is why the Continental Army lost majority of the battles during the American Revolution because these militias were intended for a limited defense of a town not a prolonged war. The "right to bear arms" specifically is related to these poorly equipped and poorly trained militias. This is very clear by what the second amendment 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.[5]"[5]http://constitutionus.com...(2) I have no intention of arguing for gun control or anything similar stating guns aren't safe or Americans shouldn't be wielding firearms. I am here to argue that the idea that Americans have the "right to bear arms" for private use is not true and certainly is not a right. The "right to bear arms" related to the public usage of firearms in order to defend the United States via militias which were irregular and unprofessional military forces. This can easily be seen in English Common Law:"The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace[4]"Knowing that the "right to bear arms" related to militias and the public usage of firearms, this refutes the claim that the "right to bear arms" applies to most Americans because they are not part of an irregular military force such as a militia.

I make the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms. I also clarify that I do not assert the right to military grade weapons. Now to the structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Main Argument (no rebuttal) 3. Rebuttal (no new information) 4. Conclusion/Rebuttal(Include any last information) If you accept this debate, you accept the outline. Breaking this outline or trolling in any way results in your immediate forfeiture. I hope for a good debate :)

I would like to accept. First, allow me to help clarify the terms. 1. "Gun control" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms. 2. The resolution can be rephrased as "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".BoP should be shared.I will be arguing for "The right of the people to bear arms should be limited."My main arguments:I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.III. The NRA is not closer to the "solution" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today. Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.Thanks.

Now, as the affirmation on this argument, i normally would be fighting the uphill battle against the current laws and precedents set by the courts of the United States of America. The Second amendment, is quite possibly the most controversial guaranteed privilege in the entirety of the Constitution. It's exact wording, is as follows,"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. " However, as we are debating whether or not to ban guns, rather than the more common, whether or not banning guns is legal, I am freed of any arguments on the legal side, i therefore may shift this debate to philosophy and morals, rather than a debate centralized on judicial precedent, and legal wording. Now, what is a gun? A gun as defined by Webster's dictionary is: "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells. " Well, how do we define a weapon then? A weapon is defined as follows, "something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. " We suddenly can derive a very clear picture from a philosophical vantage point. A gun is either a weapon that we would use to attack someone, which is bad to do, or as a tool to defend ourselves. Now, any gun advocate or supporter would tell you the merits possessing a gun in a defensive situation, yet, the opposite appears to be true. A study conducted by the CDC found that with gun usage, simply possessing a firearm would increase the risk of death three-fold and the risk of accidental death, and or suicide by a tenfold increase. Any increase in death, is certainly not good and as guns seem to increase the chance of death of the actual owner, does gun ownership really keep responsible people safe? Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with. And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times. To conclude, we simply do not live in a society that requires everyone on the street to be armed, and the truth is, as long as people have access to dangerous weapons such as guns, no-one is safe. Armed or not. Thank-you con for the opportunity to debate, and i wish good luck in the next round Sources: . http://www.pri.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://wellness.gwinnettmedicalcenter.org...

"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership," said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost ï¿½ of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, "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." This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Alrighty then. Let's get started. First of all, I'm going to ask a question. What is a gun? Well, it is a weapon. Technically speaking the very discharge of a firearm is a violent act, even if no living organism is harmed In the process. But, guns can be used for purposes which either harm an organism or do not harm an organism. Guns can, thus, be thought of as a physical manifestation of power. The idea behind gun control is that human beings, who have violent tendencies, should not be entrusted with this power, which can be used to hurt or kill one another. While human beings are violent, we can be restrained through factors such as the development of a sense of morality, religious belief, fear of legal repercussion, the fear of the other guy shooting back, etc. Thus, the statement that humans are violent isn't necessarily true under all circumstances. Likewise, this power can be used to protect ourselves and others from those who seek to harm us. In this way, power is a double-edged sword, one that need not be feared in the hands of the majority as long as the majority of people are "good". Also, removing this power from the populace is problematic, because the Government that put such a restriction in place still possesses guns, and more sophisticated weaponry. What results is a power imbalance; the Government has power and the populace does not. As long as the Government is benevolent, this is okay. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if, after 2,000 years of being a "good" Government it suddenly corrupts and turns on the populace? What then? Because Governments also have a potential for evil which cannot be wholly eliminated, there is no logical reason to trust solely the Government with power. It makes about as much sense as the U.S. Federal Government eliminating its own checks and balances so that power may be concentrated in the hands of one branch. Because neither the populace nor the Government can be trusted entirely, there should be a system of check-and-balance between the populace and the Government. That is, the Government would be powerful enough to handle a minority, but not the majority. The majority will remain good as long as that which society endorses, values, expects, teaches, and enforces is good. In a moral society the majority will be moral. If the majority of people are good, then a minority group of "bad" people will be few in number whenever attempting something bad. Being few in number, bad people can be suppressed by the Government. Likewise, when the Government turns bad, the majority will turn on the Government. Since the Government would not have the power to defeat the majority, it would be defeated and the majority could re-establish a good Government in the place of the corrupted one. However, the populace's power would rely upon them possessing not only weaponry, but every instrument used by militaries to increase power. This includes logistics, communications, mobility, and the likes. Thus, I argue that not only do gun laws need to be weakened, but that civilians should have access to much more powerful weaponry than they do. Civilians should have access to assault rifles, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, tanks, fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, advanced communication, armed drones, secure bunkers, advanced early warning systems, and the likes. An important balance must be preserved between the populace and the Government, with the populace having the upper hand at all times. It is the democratization of power, and it is good. Thank you.

Con argues that 680 deaths are meaningless. I would like you to tell that one to the family members of those who died as a result. Next I accept that both alcohol and tobacco should also be banned therefore his argument holds no ground. Con also chose to ignore that people could protect themselves by other means than firearms. He conceited this argument. Con restated an argument that I already proved to be worthless "Guns protect us from tyrants." Since Con bears the burden of proof here and I he has not presented any logical argument why Americans should have the right to bear arms you should vote pro. Also, I have given at least one reason why guns should be banned.


Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns?

Gun Control and the Right to Bear Arms

Please bear with me as I'm using my phone due to my laptop's malfunction. I will argue that American courts have consistently upheld the individual's right to keep and bear arms, which should be seen as an extension of the Second Amendment. Here are some relevant cases:

- Presser v. State of Illinois (1886): "The states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security."
- Miller v. United States (1939): Defines militia as all males capable of acting in concert for the common defense and supports private civilian ownership of modern firearms.
- Heller v. District of Columbia (2008): Protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
- Peruta v. City of San Diego (2013): The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for self-defense.

In rebuttal, the argument that an AK-47 in a typical American household is excessive is invalid. Modern sporting rifles are in one out of every ten homes, making them "in common use." According to FBI statistics, only 323 murders were committed using rifles in 2011, while an average of 77 people choke to death on hot dogs annually. An assault rifle is only four times more likely to kill you than a hot dog.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential because not all Americans are law-abiding. Studies show that citizens with concealed carry permits commit a disproportionately low amount of crime. Nearly half of MSR owners are present or former military/LE. Gun control should not restrict any firearm from civilians while permitting police officers to have them.

Regarding the oversimplified equation of more guns equaling more deaths, a Harvard study found no correlation when comparing a large number of nations. In response to the claim that gun control proponents want to take guns away, look at what is happening in New York and Connecticut. Connecticut MSR owners have overwhelmingly ignored the mandated registration, leaving gun control proponents in a difficult situation. To the gun owners of Connecticut: stand strong and Molon Labe.

Absolutely no one on any side is trying to fight for there right to bear nuclear weapons. As you said, its hardly plausible. Your argument that the definition of "arms" has expanded is really missing the point at hand. While technology has advanced significantly...the purpose of owning a gun has not. And if you want to make the argument that, "if this is a good thing we wouldn't be arguing it 200 years later", is absolutely ridiculous. There are so many congressmen who come up with absolutely terrible ideas. Thats what congressmen do...they argue about things. So to say that since were arguing about it, means that its wrong. Really lacks, well, anything. There are federal laws that have already draw the line between nuclear weapons and handguns. What I'm against is that people want to pass more laws, and more restrictions, which are truly pointless. Also a national handgun ban would be a huge step in stripping citizens of there individual rights.

Con says it's the parents' fault. How does he plan to solve for this? Does he offer a counter-proposal? I don't see one. He even admits that "parents with unstable or misbehaving children should nit have gun ownership," something that would require the gun control he so vehemently disagrees with. And, once again, I'm not taking away the right to wield guns, at least not that of anyone who can pass a background check. But more on that later.It is the parent's fault I am not saying homicide should be legal I am saying and defending the point of guns that if a child is not a normal child do not have a arsenal nearby. Gun control is not needed in order for that it is responsibilty that counts. Backround checks are made by the government and it is like stop and frisk. Backround checks have nothing to do with striter gun laws. Con mishandles this argument. First off, you'll note that suicide rates are higher in homes with guns than those without, he never responds to that. Second, note that states with background checks and higher restrictions on gun rights also have lower suicide and homicide rates on the whole. That's with these deadly "house knives." Third, I didn't claim that I'm solving for all of suicide. I don't see why I would have to in order to yield benefits in reducing the amount of suicide. Fourth, knives and hammers are still a whole lot less effective when committing suicide than guns. It normally only takes a single trigger pull, versus multiple attempts at slashing or pounding. The damage caused by these two items is often treatable as well.I never said that guns dont increase sucide your saying that since we have guns it is easy to kill eachother. And so? If the person wants to die let him be. In certain cases their nees to be sucide which are during- school shootings.And knives dont even take a minute and you can still kill yourself should we take control of knives. Also people kill themselves with cars should we have stricter laws People can steal guns." This is a common argument, but it doesn't hold much water. First off, as I stated, more guns are likely to be locked up and kept that much further from the hands of intruders. Second, this still requires an extra step, forcing these criminals to break into houses known to contain guns without their own to start with. That means fewer are likely to do it, since the risk of injury or death dramatically increases, and the payoff is just getting back to where they are now. Third, even you buy this wholesale, it's not a reason to do nothing. People break the law. That doesn't mean that the law is no good, it just means enforcement needs to be improved. As for gangs and mafias, again, we can't solve for every kind of criminal getting any guns. These groups will have a harder time of it, but I don't doubt that they will sometimes manage to get guns. That just puts us back in status quo, which is what Con is arguing for. I don't doubt that some criminals "can be smart," but fewer will be able to acquire guns, and next to none of them will be able to do so legally. I didn't say that all criminals were poor, and no, that was not an assertion, it was sourced from Maurice Ward, a Juvenile Justice Program Administrator for Washington State (my [8]). If my opponent would care to provide a competing link, he may do so. I realize that handguns are destructive (though, I would say that Con's only hurting his case by stating this), and background checks and registries would still solve for this. They are not as destructive as assault or semi-automatic rifles (my [9] and [10]).Hnadguns are destructive and I am not hurting my case. You said that guns should have a stricter purpose. Hand guns are very accurate and can kill and people need them in their households. Criminals do not obey laws they can still find a way to break through doors. People could send and make bots and break open the door with heavy explosive bombs. And what if those criminals robbed a bank with 1,0000000000 in it they would be able to afford bombs. "...states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."[2]I have nothing o refute withI think I was a poor represenative and I feel like I might go back to my old self defending gun control

I will now refute my opponent's arguments. (Good arguments by the way) Of course citizens have rights to private property such as houses. If a citizen doesn't want to allow people with guns into his house, that's his own business, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, I am mainly referring to business property and other places where a great majority of people will be allowed into. In such situations, it is no longer the property owner's life at risk; it's everyone's. The property owner should not be allowed to make decisions that potentially put others' lives in danger just because he owns the property. Because people other than himself are in the situation, he no longer has a right to make whatever rules he wants. Also, your right to simply choose not to go in is irrelevant. Your decision to go elsewhere doesn't change the fact that people are going to get killed in gun free zones. The fact that you personally did not enter might save your life, but not anyone else's. The hiring of a security guard would still prevent the loss of lives in the event of a crime. I should also note that the government has already infringed on our "right to private property." Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope, muder us murder, whether on your property or not. Just because you own property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it. You still must abide by the local laws. In my opponent's second point, he claims that the government can't afford to hire security guards for places like schools. Aside from the fact that he gives no real evidence that they can't, this entire point is irrelevant. I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it. Although I personally think this would be a good idea, this isn't what we are arguing about. It's a separate issue. Your logic isn't consistent; one point doesn't bring you to the next. Regardless, your first and second points fail because the government can make rules for what you can do on property. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.

But if the students do not know the teachers have a weapon how would they get it? they wouldn't! if the teachers have a concealed weapon( even maybe just a knife) they could help prevent deaths. Now im not saying things could go wrong, because well they surely could. That is why i think it would be important for people interested in being a teacher they must get a mental test done to make sure they are mentally right for a teaching job.

So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as "weak" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.

Now, as the affirmation on this argument, i normally would be fighting the uphill battle against the current laws and precedents set by the courts of the United States of America. The Second amendment, is quite possibly the most controversial guaranteed privilege in the entirety of the Constitution. It's exact wording, is as follows,"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. " However, as we are debating whether or not to ban guns, rather than the more common, whether or not banning guns is legal, I am freed of any arguments on the legal side, i therefore may shift this debate to philosophy and morals, rather than a debate centralized on judicial precedent, and legal wording. Now, what is a gun? A gun as defined by Webster's dictionary is: "a weapon that shoots bullets or shells. " Well, how do we define a weapon then? A weapon is defined as follows, "something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. " We suddenly can derive a very clear picture from a philosophical vantage point. A gun is either a weapon that we would use to attack someone, which is bad to do, or as a tool to defend ourselves. Now, any gun advocate or supporter would tell you the merits possessing a gun in a defensive situation, yet, the opposite appears to be true. A study conducted by the CDC found that with gun usage, simply possessing a firearm would increase the risk of death three-fold and the risk of accidental death, and or suicide by a tenfold increase. Any increase in death, is certainly not good and as guns seem to increase the chance of death of the actual owner, does gun ownership really keep responsible people safe? Furthermore, if hypothetically we could were to remove every gun off of the street, we would not need a gun to defend ourselves with. And this would drastically drop the risk of homicide as a disturbing study revealed that one in ten people with sever anger issue has access to a gun, and up to 20% of those people, are armed at all times. To conclude, we simply do not live in a society that requires everyone on the street to be armed, and the truth is, as long as people have access to dangerous weapons such as guns, no-one is safe. Armed or not. Thank-you con for the opportunity to debate, and i wish good luck in the next round Sources: . http://www.pri.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://wellness.gwinnettmedicalcenter.org...

Your statements, though well thought out and very well put, have a lot of holes. A Militia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.”. The last time I checked, the people in America are ordinary citizens. How is what I said distorting the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? Just curious. Secondly you discuss the Brady Bill. How again does the Brady Bill make people safer? 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked since 1993. So what? The fact of the matter is people get denied by the Brady Bill for stupid reasons. The “Mental Issues” you talk about can be as simple as being prescribed Prozac once in your past. Why can’t felon’s get fire arms legally? Think about it. They go to prison for their crime, they pay their debt to society, and we still treat them like criminals? Our prison system is set up so you do your time, get out on probation, complete your probation, then you begin life anew as a regular citizen again. At the very least we would know they have the guns! I would rather a ex-con have a gun and I know about it rather than not knowing. The violent criminals that get denied a gun, you think that will stop them from killing somebody, or even getting a gun? I have never seen a Crypt or a blood standing in line at Sports Man’s Warehouse. Drugs are illegal, yet it is easier for me to buy drugs than to renew my driver’s license. I am a citizen in good standing with the law and I can probably buy a gun cheaper and easier illegally than legally! I know you have heard the old saying: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” It rings true today. The Brady Bill stops people from owning guns that are being judged by the worst thing they have done in their life. What is the point of the justice system if we don’t rehabilitate anyone? Every felony should result in the death penalty if you think that way? If you believe in the American justice system then you are against the Brady Bill, bottom line. Do you want to be like Germany in the 1930s? How about Russia under Stalin? Firearm bans are one of the steps to a totalitarian state under governmental (military) rule. Private ownership of firearms tends to keep government in check. Denying anyone a gun is criminal. Gun control laws protect governments, not people. Boston put a 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm in 2006, stabbings jumped up 10 percent. Shootings declined 12%, but the number of violent attacks didn’t drop. That didn’t work. Murderers and violent criminals will find a way. Rather than restrict guns, we need harsher punishments for violent crimes. But the same people who don’t want you to own a gun, don’t want to kill killers. We shouldn’t have people on death row for over a decade, we shouldn’t have them on death row for over a month! How is the death penalty a deterrent? It isn’t anymore. Rather than keep guns from private citizens we should look to prevent the crime in the first place!

con's main point is the government might pose a threat some day. well, we can protect state militia rights, if needed. everyone doesn't need a gun. but at any rate, con is worried about far fetched theoretical take overs when there is a murder epidemic happening right now, a present concrete reality. con gave at best anecdotal evidence of georgiea that doesn't negate the tons of links i showed in the comments that show more guns mean more homicide and there is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of crime. plus he needs a better link or source for his information so it can be more easily inspected.

"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." -The Constitution of the United States Because a clear reading of the Constitution forbids such, I affirm the the resolution no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms.

My position is that people should have the right to bear arms. Whoever disagrees with me can present their case. Let the debate begin.


Question: Should Individuals be Granted the Right to Carry Concealed Firearms?

We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed. Guns save more lives than they take, and prevent more injuries than they inflict. Every year, guns are used 2.5 million times for self-defense, with law-abiding citizens using them to defend themselves against criminals as many as 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used over 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves annually, the majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America," a study authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Armed citizens kill more criminals than the police do. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year. Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense, with citizens using them to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.

Concealed carry laws help reduce crime. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robbery by 3%. If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

Vermont, where citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission, paying a fee, or going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period, has remained one of the top-five safest states in the

Okay, for those confused, here is the 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."For those who don't know, here are a few definitions: Regulate:a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country> 2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits> 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Militia: 1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service Infringe: 1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent> 2: obsolete : defeat, frustrate (Every definition is from Merriam-webster.com) Basically the 2nd amendment protects that state's rights to hold a personal militia, and it holds personal right to own a gun. Well, it's all debated, in reality few actually know the true meaning, we can only guess.Anyway, back to the debate!"It says in the constitution in the second amendment that we have the right to own guns. Gun control does not protect the citizens from being shot, the government wont step in to help. You don't have a gun to protect your self you won't live long."1. I don't own a gun, and don't intend to. I'm alive. My mother is alive, she owns no firearms. The same situation applies with my father and both of his parents. All of us are alive.2. Definition of gun control: efforts to regulate or control sales of guns. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)So gun control doesn't stop gun sales, it only regulates (that word looks familiar) the sales of them. "Look at Washington D.C, they banned guns. The crime rate is really high. But this is only one of the cities. Why United States right now has less crime rate than other communist countries is because we can defend ourselves."1. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... How many of those cities banned guns? D.C. is number 46, so I'm going to need you to prove that those 45 other cities have strict gun control.2. Please give names and statistics from at least 2010 showing that the majority of Communist countries have a higher crime rate than the U.S."You can't really fight a criminal with your fist, you won't win against a gun. The government wants to be in control, it wants people to rely on them for everything, protection and other stuff. The guns are also not the problem. It's the person who pulls the trigger. The government is storing lots of ammunition so that people cant get to it. An example is that every time every store gets 22 rifle/pistol ammunition it is all gone in about an hour of arrival."1. http://www.mrconservative.com...From the article: "A Florida high school student and his friends discovered the truth of the cynical adage that “no good deed goes unpunished” when he was suspended for disarming a fellow student on the school bus. The teens, all students at Cypress Lake High School in Fort Myers, Florida, were on a school bus when two students got into a heated argument. One of them then pulled a loaded .22 caliber revolver on the other, and aimed it at his head." 2. I'm going to need evidence for your statement about the government wanting people to need them for everything.3. Yes, the person who pulls the trigger is the problem. It's why we want better background checks. We need to know how psychologically sound a would-be gun owner is.4. And again, I need evidence for your statement about government officials buying all 22 rifle/pistol ammunition in every store every time they restock the ammunition."There has been many protests, the government is starting to get scared so they decided if they take away the ammunition nobody will be able to threaten them. The government can care less about the people. The way the founding fathers wanted this country to run is that the states should have the power and the government is there just to make sure nothing gets out of control."1. Few can threaten the government anyway. I don't know many people that own fully automatic weapons to begin with (I personally know 2), and I certainly don't know anyone that owns tanks, fighter planes, or even a grenade. How are they, the Average Joes, that much of a threat?2. If the government didn't care about the people, welfare, minimum wage, and goverment given medical aid wouldn't exist. "But right now it's totally opposite. the states depend on the government, and they feel if the government goes down they will be in despair and wouldn't know what to do. Every year the government take more power than what it was intended to have. This government we have now should back down and give the states control."1. This debate is about gun control, not government power vs. state power. They can go hand in hand, but you have yet to truly make the two connected.

I believe in the basic right to self-defense. Present your arguments in round one.

By keeping the sale of firearms open to all, it provides a massive deterrent against would-be violent criminals. By taking the example of nuclear warfare, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) comes to mind. The comedian who comes in thinking "All right, I've got a gun. Time to start shooting people in a crowded area!" may get to shoot someone, but is now facing so much firepower from the crowd that he's dead within seconds. Background checks are needless and should be removed. You should be able to buy firearms as long as you provide ID. Tell the kids in Connecticut that they should have been armed. That would have put down more than one mad dog. Your pathetic attempt at linking the use of firearms on unarmed crowds to the use of firearms in an armed society is insulting to the memory of said kids. I see lots of complaints about the usage of guns on unarmed people, and he pledged himself to ISIS whilst calling 911. Also, the degenerates present were there to get hot loads on/in them anyway, so... By banning the sale of firearms, we are restricting guns to criminals, as the law-abiding citizens now have no means of having ranged equalizers, while smugglers will do a brisk trade in the underground. People are inherently violent, so if they're as violent as Pro says, they need to take into account that everyone has an itchy trigger finger, and if they do anything, said itchy trigger fingers would have the moral high ground, as now there is a reasonable fear for one's life. Unless Fictionland has literally perfect border police interdicting every single bit of contraband, in which case, presumably every other branch of government is so super-efficient that every single citizen could walk down the streets loaded for bear and it wouldn't raise concern because the police are so good at their jobs, there will be contraband guns readily available anyway. Thank you. References: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...

Thank you LR4N6FTW4EVA for hosting this debate on this interesting topic. Overview: One of my main problems with the Aff's contentions is that they deal mainly with Framer's intent, which is problematic with the idea that the Constitution is "living". Furthermore, current conditions in the United States are far different than those in the 1780s, thus, the original intent of the Constitutional's Framers are no longer applicable. This question is in the sole jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch (in fact, there is a case pending in the Supreme Court that will answer this question). I will, however, debate my opponent's contentions. Contention 1: Grammer i)If the Framer's intent was for all individuals to own firearms, why did they include the first phrase dealing with Militias? The inclusion of the first phrase clearly signifies that the Framer's did intend for some sort of connection between the right to firearms and a citizen militias. Thus, it is not too far of a stretch to assume that the firearms are to be used solely for a citizen militia. ii) I don't totally get your Latin Construction argument, but I'll try my best to argue against it. You say that "Latin construction that prefaces the main clause of a sentence by stating the time, condition, or circumstances of an action being described in the main clause of the sentence ". Since the Latin construction states "the time and CONDITION" of the action described. The condition is clearly described in the first clause/phrase which states that the Condition is for a "well regulated militia". Furthermore, the Latin ablative case is often used to signify the condition by which some action should be done (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Clearly, the presence of the preceding phrase clearly shows that the preconditions for the second phrase. iii) The first draft of the second amendment clearly suggests that the right to firearms should be only given to only state militias: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (http://en.wikipedia.org..., citation 33) The phrase after the second semi-colon clearly emphasizes the fact people carrying firearms should be compelled to render military service. Furthermore, this construction flips the Latin construction found in the final second amendment. In this case, the "right to bear arms" is an ablative clause (correct me if I'm wrong) to the second phrase, which shows that the precondition to bear arms is for a well armed and well regulated militia. This version clearly shows Framer's intent better than the final draft, since it is the original version. Contention 2 Although it says the right cannot be infringed, the clear intention of the amendment is for the militia, as shown by the preceding sentence which clarifies the intention of WHO should be given the right to carry arms. Contention 3: i)Historical situation has changed, thus making this argument null and void. Framer's intent, although important, is only a part of what should be in consideration when considering conditions today. My opponent should be arguing that the historical situation still is in occurrence today in order to make this argument extendable to today's world. ii)"Lexington and Concord" – This argument does not support your point, it merely supports the fact that guns should be given to only militias, as shown by your last statement: "In the founders' time, militias were just groups of people that got together to defend themselves. The founders felt that the right to actually have weapons is necessary to form a militia.". This SHOWS NOTHING about why EVERYONE should be given the right to bear arms exclusive of the purpose of formation of militias. In fact, this supports my position that guns are necessary for militias more than the general right to bear arms. iii)"Pioneers" – one singular person supporting a specific agenda (pioneers) does not demonstrate the intention of all framers to expand right to everyone. Furthermore, the pioneers may be considered militias, since they're defending themselves against a foreign enemy. Secondly, this situation no longer applies today, so this argument cannot be used to support the right to own guns in today's world. Contention 4: i)If you're going to argue Framer's intent, I think you need citations from actual writers of the constitution instead of "commentators". Experts such as the "first commentator" or "british Jurist" shows nothing about either 1) the framer's intent or 2) the application of the second amendment today. ii) Unless these commentators can magically read minds of long dead writers, I doubt their arguments should be considered as the whole truth. iii) Just because the founding fathers admired someone did not mean they agreed with him or her in everything. Just like how the Founding Fathers admired the Locke, they changed his basic phrase "life and liberty and property" to something else. They DREW ideas from him, but did not agree IN WHOLE with everything he said. iv) An individual opinion does not show the collective intent of all the writer's of the constitution v) Did every single writer admire Blackstone? I doubt it. My opponent's emphasis on the ORIGINAL wording or FRAMER's INTENT, I feel, is not the correct way to demonstrate that the right to bear arms still existed today. I feel that the parameters clearly signify that the debate is about to right to carry ARMS TODAY, not 220 years ago. Thus, I feel that my opponent needs to demonstrate that the original wording is still APPLICABLE in today's world and give specific examples of how it is.

As the new provision in Georgia allowing guns in the terminals at airports may by unsettling to many, I believe it to be comforting. The government is giving each citizen their right to self-defense and personal protection. This falls under the right to bear arms and if anything they are providing us with the freedom we should have already had. Those who bear arms had to go through the process to license a gun. Therefore, the more trained individuals that obtain guns, the safer everyone will be. "While residents can carry guns inside airport terminals in Georgia, they cannot take their weapons through security to the gates." (1) This is fair, because before security we are still have the right to self defense. After we transport through security towards the gates we are under the security of the airport and government legislation. Airport's are some of the most dangerous places in America and it's important that every individual has the right to protection at all times. 1.Johnson, P. (2014, April 23). Georgia adopts law allowing guns at airports, bars, most other places ( video). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.csmonitor.com...

Alrighty then. Let's get started. First of all, I'm going to ask a question. What is a gun? Well, it is a weapon. Technically speaking the very discharge of a firearm is a violent act, even if no living organism is harmed In the process. But, guns can be used for purposes which either harm an organism or do not harm an organism. Guns can, thus, be thought of as a physical manifestation of power. The idea behind gun control is that human beings, who have violent tendencies, should not be entrusted with this power, which can be used to hurt or kill one another. While human beings are violent, we can be restrained through factors such as the development of a sense of morality, religious belief, fear of legal repercussion, the fear of the other guy shooting back, etc. Thus, the statement that humans are violent isn't necessarily true under all circumstances. Likewise, this power can be used to protect ourselves and others from those who seek to harm us. In this way, power is a double-edged sword, one that need not be feared in the hands of the majority as long as the majority of people are "good". Also, removing this power from the populace is problematic, because the Government that put such a restriction in place still possesses guns, and more sophisticated weaponry. What results is a power imbalance; the Government has power and the populace does not. As long as the Government is benevolent, this is okay. However, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. What if, after 2,000 years of being a "good" Government it suddenly corrupts and turns on the populace? What then? Because Governments also have a potential for evil which cannot be wholly eliminated, there is no logical reason to trust solely the Government with power. It makes about as much sense as the U.S. Federal Government eliminating its own checks and balances so that power may be concentrated in the hands of one branch. Because neither the populace nor the Government can be trusted entirely, there should be a system of check-and-balance between the populace and the Government. That is, the Government would be powerful enough to handle a minority, but not the majority. The majority will remain good as long as that which society endorses, values, expects, teaches, and enforces is good. In a moral society the majority will be moral. If the majority of people are good, then a minority group of "bad" people will be few in number whenever attempting something bad. Being few in number, bad people can be suppressed by the Government. Likewise, when the Government turns bad, the majority will turn on the Government. Since the Government would not have the power to defeat the majority, it would be defeated and the majority could re-establish a good Government in the place of the corrupted one. However, the populace's power would rely upon them possessing not only weaponry, but every instrument used by militaries to increase power. This includes logistics, communications, mobility, and the likes. Thus, I argue that not only do gun laws need to be weakened, but that civilians should have access to much more powerful weaponry than they do. Civilians should have access to assault rifles, rocket launchers, armored vehicles, tanks, fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, advanced communication, armed drones, secure bunkers, advanced early warning systems, and the likes. An important balance must be preserved between the populace and the Government, with the populace having the upper hand at all times. It is the democratization of power, and it is good. Thank you.

"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership," said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost ï¿½ of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, "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." This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

I recognize the rules of this debate and understand what it's about. I've been waiting for a debate a little bit more like this.==Argument==i. Is owning a gun a natural right?Natural being defined as "Rights that people supposedly have under natural law."Natural law being "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature"[http://dictionary.reference.com...][http://dictionary.reference.com...]To be granted something by nature, being defined as "the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities."To sum it up, nature, independent of human activities, one can assume that guns would in fact be granted by natural law since both laws exist to grant but also take away firearms. Since nature is free from human activity, the laws made by humans would NOT apply to natural law since nature is free from human activity.ii. Granted by law made by humansThe U.S.A Constitution is the "supreme law of the U.S.A"[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Taking the quote as said above by Con..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."One can now assume, it is indeed a right granted by a law made by people as well. At the end it even states "shall not be infringed" meaning it will always be a right.==Conclusion for round 1==This is not the full arguments I'll be making,as I have MUCH more to say. This, is a "taste" of my arguments. I will elaborate more on i and ii in round 2 and 3.

I don't think that's such a good idea. Did you miss the Virginia Tech shooting? If everyone had the right to own guns, which we do, there's no stopping anyone from robbing the bank and shooting someone or a teenager's suicidal attempt or school shootings, etc.

"The right to bear arms" is terrible, because it is a vague expression, written over 200 years ago. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution and bill of rights they obviously couldn't predict the future. They didn't know what kinds of arms the second amendment would come to describe. Their definition of arms -muskets and cannons- applied for almost 150 years, until 1945. With the development of nuclear weapons, the term 'arms' was changed forever. Obviously you wouldn't suggest that people have the right to bear nuclear arms; such a scenario isn't even plausible. The topic at hand is whether or not 'the right to bear arms is good.' If it was any good, we wouldn't still be arguing over its meaning 200 years later.