Posted: 4/21/2013 4:57:07 AM EDT
| Hey guys I'm in a logic and debate class at school and I have a debate coming up on why I believe that citizens should have to right to own Ar-15/AK-47 style weapons. I have a pretty good layout for my argument which im not going to go into right now. I was wondering if anyone could provide any additional information on this topic or give me a link to any good arguments. Sorry if this seems kind of broad. Any help would be appreciated. |
|
Hard for it to be ADDITIONAL info if you havent given us the primary info. But make sure you put together a really good argument; you dont want to look stupid in front of a bunch of liberals. I saw a kid try this in my Lit class last semester and the teacher plus a few students teamed up on him spewing ludicrous "facts" about "machine gun AR-15s".
And remember....Liberals dont understand logic/reason/facts/stats. |
|
Quoted:
Hey guys I'm in a logic and debate class at school and I have a debate coming up on why I believe that citizens should have to right to own Ar-15/AK-47 style weapons. I have a pretty good layout for my argument which im not going to go into right now. I was wondering if anyone could provide any additional information on this topic or give me a link to any good arguments. Sorry if this seems kind of broad. Any help would be appreciated. Make sure they know how they operate vs a real assault weapon and that there are bb guns that look the same. Stop the lies |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey guys I'm in a logic and debate class at school and I have a debate coming up on why I believe that citizens should have to right to own Ar-15/AK-47 style weapons. I have a pretty good layout for my argument which im not going to go into right now. I was wondering if anyone could provide any additional information on this topic or give me a link to any good arguments. Sorry if this seems kind of broad. Any help would be appreciated. Make sure they know how they operate vs a real assault weapon and that there are bb guns that look the same. Stop the lies You need to pay more attention in class. Your post is not logical. |
| Morally speaking, you have the right to do anything that doesn't violate another's rights. The question to ask the (gun) control freaks is "do they have the right/moral authority to deny people, who have not proven themselves to be violent, the right to legitimately own and use sport utility rifles (and magazines) such as the AR?" The answer is "no." |
|
It is also known that ballistics testing shows how 5.56 will be less deadly after passing through a wall than conventional pistols rounds making rifles/carbines/SBRs chambered for this round a better choice for indoor use.
See the link below. http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/select_556indoor.html Here is another link with 5.56 penetration testing information. http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26 How ever you will probably want to do more research and get the exact studies so you can cite them during your debate. |
| Something many of the Antis claim is that the Second was meant for Black Powder Muzzle loaders and not for modern Military waepons, but what they don't understand is that the Minute Men/Militia was packing the most modern Rifle of time. The Continental Army and the Red Coats were shooting a smooth bore Musket also known as the Brown Bess which were not as acurate as the Minute Mens rifled Muskets. |
|
There are a lot of good articles on reason.com. Search and you'll find many supporting articles.
Edit, link fail. http://reason.com/ |
|
Make yourself familiar with Supreme court cases, Being able to rattle off Court cases makes your point sound allot more solid do not say "i feel" or "I believe" your personal opinion doesn't matter say as the Supreme court ruled in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 ,Th 2a applies to firearms in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. Read all the statistics on Brady bunch/ Mayors against guns website this is where your opposition is gonna do there research nraila.org has most arguments against there BS destroying any point they made is your best bet since most will be shallow. They will bring up Newtown, and Aurora, you bring up Virginia tech 32 dead only handguns. They say 2a not limitless mention NFA. GCA. Brady act etc, ask what test makes the ar-15. ak-47 semi auto unusual or dangerous.
You need to prove that nothing distinguishes and ar-15 or semi auto ak-47 from the first semi-auto rifles that have been around since the 1880s. Bring up that Colt has sold semi auto ar-15s since 1963. It will be easy enough since just like the asshats that write assault weapon bans there is no definition that can distinguish these two firearms from all other magazine fed gas operated semi automatic rifles. If they try to claim they can be converted to full auto agree that yes they can be with enough gunsmithing knowledge and access to a machine shop and knowledge of milling machines. Go on to explain a block of aluminum can also be converted to a full auto machine gun that they are simply mechanical devices and any person with enough intelligence can build one. explain the popularity of the ar-15 ie. it modularity, users ability to customize all components and themselves. Explain its use for "sporting Purposes' but mention that the 2a does not include a "sporting purpose" requirement avoid straw man arguments and comparisons they will try to make comparisons exact. Ie. you say an ar-15 looks like a machine gun just like a sports car looks like a race car they will say well you have to register all cars. |
|
Deny the premise for the alleged need for gun control. Gun related deaths are not an epidemic in this country, and fall below a lot of other causes. Mass shootings that bring up these debates are an anomaly, not the norm. With the number of guns in the hands of American citizens today, if guns were truly a problem, we would have blood on every street every day. We don't.
This is about pursuing an agenda to disarm the population. Senator Diane Feinstein said herself that if she had the 51 votes in 1994 she would have taken them all in the first AWB. And following the sunset of the AWB in 2004, she said she would await her next opportunity. The discussion we are having today is because in the deaths of those children in Connecticut, she found her opportunity. The proof that this is nothing more than her (and like-minded people) using a tragedy to further an already existing agenda is in the fact that absolutely nothing they have proposed would have stopped that shooting. Gun control, at it's heart, has never been about guns. It's about control. |
|
I have 2 good examples...a rancher on the mexican border doesn't just have a right to but actually needs a decent rifle just to work his land due to the illegal immigration and drug trafficing he may stumble upon.
The other is that these libs want control over the 2a by basing it on misguided opinion and polls of the masses. It's akin to asking the masses to regulate golf. Most people don't play gold, watch golf and prob think it is a rich man's game. So they would have no problem helping to regulate golf out of existence. Just like gun control laws up in Mass can be attributed to the decline of legal gun ownership (prob handguns) from over 1 mill owners to around 200k today. The laws they want to pass are simply designed to harrass gun owners in to giving up. They powers that be have no intention of actually targetting the criminals and locking them up. That would be racist and an attack on democratic voters. |
|
Explain the circumstance and intent of the Founders when they wrote the Second Amendment, specifically, their fear of Centralized power and their intent of putting the military power in the hands of the citizen as opposed to a centralized government and a standing Army.
Cite the words of the Founders concerning their intent, then connect it to examples of modern governments commiting wholesale slaughter of their unarmed citizens. Second Amendment related quotes from the Founders Reasoned argument Why Liberals should love the second Amendment Second Amendment Scolar on why you cannot ban assault weapons Bill Wittle puts it in perspective |
| Because there is no way to know what level of threat you will encounter. If a bumbling fool tries to get in your house and at you a revolver may work, but if it's six guys in a car pulling up to do a home invasion you will need to have appropriate protection, ie. a higher capacity magazine. |
|
Read them the constitution and skip over the second amendment.
Tell them as the new leader you are getting rid of the other amendments and your troops will start today by moving into their houses. Anything the troops want, they can confiscate and use, to include money. Now ask them is there anything they can do to prevent this from taking place if they did not keep the government in check by having firearms like Ar15/AK47s. |
|
Quoted:
Read them the constitution and skip over the second amendment. Tell them as the new leader you are getting rid of the other amendments and your troops will start today by moving into their houses. Anything the troops want, they can confiscate and use, to include money. Now ask them is there anything they can do to prevent this from taking place if they did not keep the government in check by having firearms like Ar15/AK47s. +1 You ask them first: "How many do you guys want to restrict or give up free speech?" then ask "How are you going to defend free speech once it is surpressed." |
|
FBI crime statistics show that fewer than 300 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011.
Good discussions of the data: http://arizona-firearms.com/please-read-fbi-crime-statistics-for-yourself http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state |
|
USSC United States v. Miller: paragraph 6
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. According to US v Miller, the short barrel shotgun tax stamp is legal because short barrel shotguns are not useful to a militia. An AR15 is definitively useful for a militia. |
|
The veneer of civilization, especially now, is very thin. Major disruption of "just in time" supply chains of food, fuel, medicine, water, etc is possible via: *natural disasters : hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, etc. See: Kartina/New Orleans, or Hurricane Andrew/Homestead FL *economic disasters: haven't really seen this yet here, but see Greece, Cyprus, etc for possible scenarios. . Use your imagination: large scale bank breakdown, no money available at banks "for the time being", etc. . *civil disturbances: could be tied to the above circumstances. Doesn't take much to unleash the savageness inside many people when they believe there are no consequences to their actions, see: Yugoslavian civil war, Rodeny King riots, etc. *Outbreak of war with Iran/North Korea/Mexican cartels/China, etc. . leading to cyber attacks, terrorist attacks, economic distress, etc. More and more people are concerned about the above, and NOT just the usual suspects of basement dwelling, tin-foil wearing loners, but professional people in all sectors of society. . . Any or all of the above are certainly within the realm of possibility. . . WILL they happen? Who knows? But if they do, should not the citizens of this country be allowed the tools to be able to effectively defend themselves, their families and neighbors with the tools that would be most suitable? There are two basic philosophies at war in this country---those that look at things per the above, and wish to be able to stand on their own---to a certain extent---and those who dismiss such thoughts as "fearful", "far-fetched", etc. . and espouse the idea that guns are best left to the "experts"---military and law enforcement, who will be brought in to handle any of the above situations and do so in a safer, more organized and professional manner. . . You have to make the case for the individual being allowed to take their defense into their own hands, when the authorities are not able to do so. |
|
Just read this. Write down the numbers and sources.
Ask your opponent to explain why he supports actions that don't work. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html You just proved they don't. MA's murder rate went up, while the rest of the country was stable or going down-- even as gun ownership was reduced by 80 percent in MA. Most important tho-- be ready for their stock arguments. They are ALL easily dismissed. Suicide rates in countries with strict gun control are often much higher than the US. John Lott: More guns, less Crime. On the Brink. Download and read as fast as possible. EVERY pro control argument is destroyed. |
|
Make sure you stress that threatening to kidnap or kill someone who has done nothing wrong (owning a gun) is barbaric and draconian.
Most people don't see the gun at the end of every law. Show them the gun. Show them that threatening to use violence is not the right way to get what they want. |
|
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible" -- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960 "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form" -- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988 "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" -- John F. Kennedy |
|
Quoted:
Something many of the Antis claim is that the Second was meant for Black Powder Muzzle loaders and not for modern Military waepons, but what they don't understand is that the Minute Men/Militia was packing the most modern Rifle of time. The Continental Army and the Red Coats were shooting a smooth bore Musket also known as the Brown Bess which were not as acurate as the Minute Mens rifled Muskets. also note that 9 years before the bill of rights was drafted there was a rifle maker that had developed a "high capacity" musket that could fire 12 shots without reloading I can't remember the name of it or anything about it, but the guy tried to sell it to the newly formed American government and then the British. It was far more advanced than anything that was in use on either sides. something kind of like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU-W8SS_tmI so when they say that the founding fathers "would have no idea of what kind of weapons would be developed today" you can prove them wrong with |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Something many of the Antis claim is that the Second was meant for Black Powder Muzzle loaders and not for modern Military waepons, but what they don't understand is that the Minute Men/Militia was packing the most modern Rifle of time. The Continental Army and the Red Coats were shooting a smooth bore Musket also known as the Brown Bess which were not as acurate as the Minute Mens rifled Muskets. also note that 9 years before the bill of rights was drafted there was a rifle maker that had developed a "high capacity" musket that could fire 12 shots without reloading I can't remember the name of it or anything about it, but the guy tried to sell it to the newly formed American government and then the British. It was far more advanced than anything that was in use on either sides. something kind of like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU-W8SS_tmI so when they say that the founding fathers "would have no idea of what kind of weapons would be developed today" you can prove them wrong with The Belton Flintlock. Not only did he try to sell it, Congress ordered 100 of them in 1777. |
|
Quoted: Explain the circumstance and intent of the Founders when they wrote the Second Amendment, specifically, their fear of Centralized power and their intent of putting the military power in the hands of the citizen as opposed to a centralized government and a standing Army. Cite the words of the Founders concerning their intent, then connect it to examples of modern governments commiting wholesale slaughter of their unarmed citizens. Second Amendment related quotes from the Founders Reasoned argument Why Liberals should love the second Amendment Second Amendment Scolar on why you cannot ban assault weapons Bill Wittle puts it in perspective This. All great resources. Go back to the original intent of the founders, and put yourself in their frame of mind after they'd just won a protracted bloody war for their own freedom. Why do you think they put the 2nd Amendment there after all the bloodshed and loss? |
|
One final analogy that I like---and it's from someone here, but I can't remember who-- is this: Gun control (as proposed/practiced by our enemies) is like having a 30mph speed limit in a small town. . . then when people are found to be speeding excessively, the solution proposed is to lower the limit to 15mph. . . |
|
Ultimately the argument is going to end up as an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and the only thing the anti-gun Liberals have is the reference to a "...well regulated militia..."
Just remember this: A Militia is mi·li·tia /məˈliSHə/ Noun A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. A military force that engages in rebel activities. The "National Guard" is NOT A MOTHERFUCKING MILITIA!!!! If you say it is, I'll punch you in the fucking mouth! I was in the National Guard for 6 years, and I'm pretty goddamn sure I swore the same goddamn oath to the President that all the other Active-Duty fucks swore in MEPS in Lansing. While we primarily belonged to the Governor of Michigan (being Title 32 forces), we were still part of the United States Army. The National Guard is NOT a "military force of civilians". They are a STANDING ARMY. Furthermore, 2A does not guarantee armies the right to own weapons, that's pretty well guarandamntied by the fact that armies are controlled by the ruling body (State/Federal Government). The only reason it mentions militia is because it is saying that a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state, and THEREFORE the right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED! While the State is allowed to have a standing army, the state's freedom is ONLY guarantied by a militia (well-regulated is not necessarily required, 2A just points that out because only a well-regulated militia stands a fighting chance against tyranny). In order to maintain said militia, CITIZENS must bear arms in order to drill, thus allowing for said regulation. When I was in the National Guard, it was made VERY clear to me that I could NOT be a member of the Michigan Militia at the same time as serving in the MI National Guard, as this would conflict with my obligations to the United States Army. If I was found to be associating with the Michigan Militia, I would be subject to legal action per the UCMJ (and not just because the Michigan Militia is full of racists, but also because they're a, you know, MILITIA!). TL;DR version: If a free citizen wants to protect their free state, that free citizen should own arms and be willing and ready to join a civilian militia, should the need arise. The Reserve Components of the US Army are NOT militias. A responsible citizen owns and maintains weapons. |
|
Quoted:
One final analogy that I like---and it's from someone here, but I can't remember who-- is this: Gun control (as proposed/practiced by our enemies) is like having a 30mph speed limit in a small town. . . then when people are found to be speeding excessively, the solution proposed is to lower the limit to 15mph. . . Lower it to 10 and 7 in some areas |
|
Quoted:
Something many of the Antis claim is that the Second was meant for Black Powder Muzzle loaders and not for modern Military waepons, but what they don't understand is that the Minute Men/Militia was packing the most modern Rifle of time. The Continental Army and the Red Coats were shooting a smooth bore Musket also known as the Brown Bess which were not as acurate as the Minute Mens rifled Muskets. That's actually a good point... in the case of the Revolution the citizen Militia infantryman was actually better armed than their Regular/adversary counterparts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Something many of the Antis claim is that the Second was meant for Black Powder Muzzle loaders and not for modern Military waepons, but what they don't understand is that the Minute Men/Militia was packing the most modern Rifle of time. The Continental Army and the Red Coats were shooting a smooth bore Musket also known as the Brown Bess which were not as acurate as the Minute Mens rifled Muskets. That's actually a good point... in the case of the Revolution the citizen Militia infantryman was actually better armed than their Regular/adversary counterparts. Another good point is: If we can only apply the Constitution to concepts realized at the time, then: If the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets and simple weapons then....
The 1st only applies to printed and spoken word. Not TV, internet, or cell phones. The 3rd only applies to the military. If the cops want to come chill in your house, eat your Cheetos and rape your daughter, they can. The 4th and 5th does not apply to NDAA or GITMO. Electronic devices are open for search and seizure. The 6th amendment will not apply to identity theft, bank theft, Intellectual property theft, and hacking......because they did not happen to you locally. They can only prosecute where it happened when it happened. The 8th does not apply to water boarding or shock therapy. Those things haven't been invented yet. This was posted by another forum member a while ago, can't remember his name but this shouldn't be forgotten. |
|
Quoted:
Explain the circumstance and intent of the Founders when they wrote the Second Amendment, specifically, their fear of Centralized power and their intent of putting the military power in the hands of the citizen as opposed to a centralized government and a standing Army. Cite the words of the Founders concerning their intent, then connect it to examples of modern governments commiting wholesale slaughter of their unarmed citizens. Second Amendment related quotes from the Founders Reasoned argument Why Liberals should love the second Amendment Second Amendment Scolar on why you cannot ban assault weapons Bill Wittle puts it in perspective Don't forget Federalist 29 You will have a better understanding on the 2nd amendment and the reasons behind it. |
