The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

We have a right to own guns

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
throckmorton has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 123205
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




We all have an inherent right to protect ourselves and family. This is protected even under the second amendment. This includes the use of handguns, Rifles, Shotguns ect.
A couple talking points maybe:

This right is being infringed upon which is wrong.

By taking our ability to protect ourselves away you weaken further the weak people in society.

Once we lose our rights we will not get them back.


The USA produces 34% of the world's firearms. The small firearms survey concluded that USA has more than 1 gun/citizen, Accounting for 46% of the world's civilian held firearms. These are impressive numbers, Considering the lack of basic government and civilian oversight measures.
The global demand for firearms has been slowing since the end of the cold war. I speculate that the American firearms industry could have a hand in instigating local skirmishes and wars to ensure a demand for its products. The gulf wars come primarily to mind. However, The global demand would eventually prove unable to sustain a profitable demand, And thus, The industry eyed the civilian markets. A conservative estimate states that the gun industry has donated around 40 Million US$ to the NRA since 2005. While it is entirely legal to do so, I wished to point out the corporate origins of the second amendment propaganda hysteria.
While combating the oft-stated response of "What if the government violates our rights? We need guns to fight back", There is the question of "What if gun owners violate our rights? " Imagine this scenario: Gun owners plan a secret attack among themselves, And kill every gun control advocate in America, Including members of the government. This is every bit as possible as a rogue government fighting its citizens. Thus, Using that argument against gun control is void.
On the question of the second amendment, It is to be pointed out that the fundamental rights are not inherent in human biology, They are a social phenomenon. Everyone, At the time of the 2nd amendment, Agreed that the right to bear arms is central to civil liberty. The situations of that time might have dictated those considerations. If, However, Everyone does not agree to the 2nd amendment today, It should very much be subject to a plebiscite. We must remember that it was not the benevolence of the majority that got fundamental rights into the constitution, It was the fear of minority revolution. Thus, If people believe that the 2nd amendment is invalid in today's context, They have every right to abolish it, Or modify it.
To put things into perspective, The abolition of slavery violated the fundamental right to owning property. Yet, It was abolished. Gun control may infringe on the 2nd amendment rights, But if a democracy deems it wrong, The it is justified in implementing it.
On the point about the weak people in the society, One can only highlight that it is the socially and economically backward people among us that bear the brunt of gun violence. If the rich were to prey on the weak, It would be through an institutional and convoluted process where guns would be hilariously obsolete. Presently, We have an entire judicial system that prevents the exploitation of the weak through due process.
Once you lose your rights through a due democratic process, You can still get them back. India, For example, Elected Indira Gandhi, A dictatorial prime minister, Who implemented an emergency and violated the right to free speech. However, Indians revolted against her, Displaced her from government, And reestablished their rights.
It is thus that I believe that the Right to own guns is not absolute. We, The people, Have every right to implement strict controls on gun ownership.
Debate Round No. 1


The number of firearms the US produces is by in large irrelevant to the argument at hand but this would be intuitive as many large manufacturing countries have strict gun law already in place. Your second paragraph is as you said speculation and a leading statement. You are assigning a motive an organization, The NRA, Designed to protect the second amendment. Ill ask where you think the NRA gets its money? It doesn"t make guns or sell products. It receives donations in the form of memberships from people across the country who want to preserve these rights. In sense the NRA gives a voice to gun rights advocates. You mention 40M given by the NRA over 15 years. These are peanuts compared to the progressive agenda being driven on the other side. A quick albeit informal search showed 1. 2 billion given for gun control advocacy, So I don"t think the NRA has as much of a hand as some people may believe.
In regards to government resistance or whatever may very well be an irrelevant topic. The military is so far beyond the scope of common citizens we could never resist if we wanted to without special circumstances intervening. We could discuss more if you want.
If we could amend one part of the constitution, Would you be agreeable to changing its entirety. The tremendous progress, Success and quality of life have been framed on the countries founding documents. Just as much as we should protect the other parts, We should protect the second amendment.
When speaking of the weak, I was not referring of the destitute or disenfranchised. I meant literally weaker people of society; grandparents, Those who are sick, Some cases men or women. They call firearms a force equalizer since a larger stronger individual would have no advantage over a petite female with a firearm. I believe you would embolden criminals, Encourage home break ins and store front robbery.
Part of the problem with firearms is that it is difficult to measure a near miss, A fight that never happened or rape that never occurred. Show me those numbers. The news continues to show the rare instance of improper use of a firearm bringing it to the forefront of our mind, Believing this is a common occurrence.
We may agree that gun rights are not absolute but it"s a right we should protect. As a side note, You mention strict gun controls, We all agree on gun control. I suppose you should define how strict.


I think I should summarize my stance for you to understand:
We, As people, Presently have a constitutional right to own guns. However, This right is not immutable. This right, At any time, Is subject to revision and reanalysis. If the current democratic opinion were to indicate that owning a gun is less important to security than the assurance that nobody else does, Then the right to own guns would cease to exist, And rightly so.
Thus, Your initial claim that owning guns is an inherent right is incorrect, Since it can be infringed upon, Legally.
The statistics I presented on American Gun ownership are not irrelevant, Since they establish a motive, And evidence, For corporate promotion of an agenda. Gun sellers are to benefit from gun buyers. However, The I cannot discern a clear industrial motive behind the 1. 2 Billion dollars donated to gun control. Who is to benefit from people not buying guns? Knife sellers perhaps?
The actual weak, As you point out, Do require some protection. But, As we progress toward a more civilized society, The role of personal protection grows irrelevant as we depend on a social protection system. Thus, Eventually, That reason for gun ownership too might grow redundant. (Though it certainly is not now)
Personally, I have not owned a gun, Ever, And have not yet faced a very significant disadvantage on that front. If someone does feel the need to own a gun, Presently he can do so, And I cannot forbid him to. If, In the year to come, More than half of all Americans were to decide that they were uncomfortable with someone within civil society owning a gun, They could agree on disallowing gun ownership, Rendering your stance illegal. Hence, Gun ownership is not an irrefutable right.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
there is no right to own a gun states were given the permission to have state militias thats all, Owning a gun is a privilege to be earned
Posted by John_C_1812_II 2 years ago
People have a constitutional right not bear the weight of lethal force, Or at acknowledge risk to their own safety decline that right as burden, Democratically that weight of lethal force is most popularly shared with militia in the form of armory a united made with the purchase and storage of a firearm publicly and privately. The basic principle in constitutional argument is not to have taken, Nor lose personal property by use of Ex Post facto law. A gun privately owned must be retrieved with fare compensation of all cost placed on them.
Posted by FreeDragon 2 years ago
@Malayvardhan Indira Gandhi was not a dictatorial prime minister.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
people should be allowed to own guns but it should not be a right it should be a privilege
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.