Argue the other side.

I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.

The pro-2nd amendment side have two (often co-existing) arguments for gun ownership.

The first is that regardless of how much we regulate guns, the number of them already in circulation means that even in a gun ban, black-markets will provide violent criminals with guns, which means private citizens will be less capable of resisting them if they are unarmed. Therefor, the gun ownership proponents argue that private gun ownership will provide citizens a more even playing field against would-be thugs.

There are many gun ownership advocates that also see private gun ownership as a means to defend the US against the installment of a violent police state.

I have genuinely held both sides of the position at various points in my life.

Kal'Stang said:

I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.

Click to expand...

[I am anti-guns all over the place]

It is the constutional right of every citizen of the USA, and should be the right of all hunams, to be armed so that those in power fear us. That is the best defence of our freedoms.

[How did I do?]

Guns are icky and scare me. I don't want anyone to have one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Every adult American that is trained, law abiding and sane and can prove it to the satisfaction of the government should have the right to own whatever gun they want but not anywhere they want or any time they want

reverse position

1) being a big government worshipper, I believe the government should have a monopoly on force and thus support a gun ban

2) those who legally own guns work against increased collectivism. Trying to ban guns keeps them fighting for turf they have already won and prevents them from rolling back other big government programs or opposing newly proposed big government programs

3) banning guns will make honest citizens fearful due to a real or perceived inability to defend against violent criminal attacks. Fearful people are easier to convince to give up their rights in favor of increased government safety and control

4) Criminals are victims of an unjust society. Its not right that citizens have the power to wound or kill people who cannot help the fact that economic and social injustice caused them to be criminals

5) gun control allows the politicians I favor to convince many voters that these politicians are trying to stop gun violence without actually harming criminals or increasing our costs of incarcerating criminals

6) those who own guns -especially for hunting or self defense-are culturally deficient and need to be punished for the anti-social views and life styles

I will take the extreme pro gun side:


I believe all gun laws should be abolished. My right to own guns over rides your love of your children and family. I don't care if every child in America dies of gun violence as long as I can have my guns. Everyone should be able to shoot it out wherever they want. Freedom baby

Kal'Stang said:

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

Click to expand...

I sometimes do that and its a good exercise but the problem is other people on the pro-2A side don't like it and they often think Im a pro gun control spy.

MovingPictures said:

The first is that regardless of how much we regulate guns, the number of them already in circulation means that even in a gun ban, black-markets will provide violent criminals with guns, which means private citizens will be less capable of resisting them if they are unarmed. Therefor, the gun ownership proponents argue that private gun ownership will provide citizens a more even playing field against would-be thugs.

Click to expand...

We could seize all the guns in circulation and throw them in the blast furnace, problem solved. That's me taking the pro gun control side.

DebateChallenge said:

I sometimes do that and its a good exercise but the problem is other people on the pro-2A side don't like it and they often think Im a pro gun control spy.

Click to expand...

To be frank I was hoping for more than what this thread has produced. I was looking for actual attempts and not just regurgitations that have been used to describe the other side.

Kal'Stang said:

To be frank I was hoping for more than what this thread has produced. I was looking for actual attempts and not just regurgitations that have been used to describe the other side.

Click to expand...

See my post #10

DebateChallenge said:

See my post #10

Click to expand...

Post #6

MovingPictures said:

There are many gun ownership advocates that also see private gun ownership as a means to defend the US against the installment of a violent police state.

Click to expand...

That's not going to happen. We elect our government. We have checks and balances. If we think a particular government official is corrupt we can just vote for somebody else. We've got to trust the police, they were put in place for our protection by our government that we elected. Again, me taking the gun control side.

vegas giants said:

Every adult American that is trained, law abiding and sane and can prove it to the satisfaction of the government should have the right to own whatever gun they want but not anywhere they want or any time they want

Click to expand...

Prove it to the satisfaction of the government? The government can throw in any standard they want to make it impossible to meet their satisfaction if you want to leave it to the government to decide the standards. As for not being able to possess any gun you want in any place or at any time that already is in place. You need to be more specific.

Kal'Stang said:

To be frank I was hoping for more than what this thread has produced. I was looking for actual attempts and not just regurgitations that have been used to describe the other side.

Click to expand...

I knew this would be a goatscrew.

Funny thing about that is you are ok with stripping constitutional rights because it has to do with the right to keep bears in arms. However, yet the Democrats don’t want anything to do with the constitution until they feel like that they have been attacked and whatever. I would like to mention what debatechallenge said “

DebateChallenge said:

We've got to trust the police, they were put in place for our protection by our government that we elected. Again, me taking the gun control side.

Click to expand...

” First of all by trusting the police do you mean if they are unarmed? I don’t really understand gun control because it never worked

TheRepublican said:

Funny thing about that is you are ok with stripping constitutional rights because it has to do with the right to keep bears in arms. However, yet the Democrats don’t want anything to do with the constitution until they feel like that they have been attacked and whatever. I would like to mention what debatechallenge said “” First of all by trusting the police do you mean if they are unarmed? I don’t really understand gun control because it never worked

Click to expand...

Clearly you have not read the OP. LOL

vegas giants said:

I will take the extreme pro gun side:


I believe all gun laws should be abolished. My right to own guns over rides your love of your children and family. I don't care if every child in America dies of gun violence as long as I can have my guns. Everyone should be able to shoot it out wherever they want. Freedom baby

Click to expand...

Said no pro-Constitution person, ever.

apdst said:

Said no pro-Constitution person, ever.

Click to expand...

You must be new here

vegas giants said:

You must be new here

Click to expand...

No one has ever said you don't have the right to protect your family. If you choose not to do so, that's on you. Don't blame other for your choice.

apdst said:

No one has ever said you don't have the right to protect your family. If you choose not to do so, that's on you. Don't blame other for your choice.

Click to expand...

You can have guns and gun control. It's not an either or situation

Kal'Stang said:

To be frank I was hoping for more than what this thread has produced. I was looking for actual attempts and not just regurgitations that have been used to describe the other side.

Click to expand...

Kal, to be honest, we have several hundred gun threads on this site alone. Most if not all positions have been stated, regurgitated, and restated, then regurgitated. I doubt you are going to find anything new.

I'll give you my opinion. Shall not be infringed are the clearest 4 words in the Constitution.

To be honest gun control is an issue that I tend to sway back and forth on so I'll give what I consider to be a solid reason for both sides.

Gun Crowd

- Creating more restrictive gun laws will create a black market which only serves to continue to arm criminals, ratchet up the level of violence, and remove options for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Gun Control Crowd

- The right to bear arms does not guarantee the right to bear all arms. In the interest of public safety the government should be allowed to put restrictions in place beyond current restrictions.

I am not American and I support reasonable legal regulation which protects society as much as possible without trampling on the property and privacy rights of legal and lawful gun owners. I do not think that gun ownership or possession is an absolute right and I oppose the ability of gun owners to amass private arsenals of firearms. I also believe that too many modern-day firearms are too powerful for widespread use in the population and that such powerful weapons should be restricted to only specially qualified and licensed private citizens.

My contrary argument in support of a near absolute right to own and bear firearms is as follows:

1) There is an inherent and inalienable human right to self-defence which was handed down from British legal tradition to Americans and that right has standing over and above the desire of some or even many citizens and the state to limit that right. That inalienable right is endangered if the state attempts to disarm the people or to control access of the people to firearms and therefore the state must not be permitted to limit or extinguish that right.

2) America is a revolutionary country and its formative revolution was only possible because the population was far better armed and more proficient with firearms than most European populations of the same time period. No widespread availability of firearm, no successful revolution and no America.

3) America was a frontier nation from its birth in the 1770's until about 1900. That frontier could only be defended and forcefully expanded by armed civilians who were self-reliant and able to defend themselves as the frontier was too distant or too sparsely populated with American citizens for effective and timely collective defence by the territorial, state or federal governments.

4) The same political forces which arose to make Britain an intolerable usurper of American rights can happen again domestically, so it is necessary to maintain an armed population which is proficient with firearms in order to act as a countervailing force to any potential emergent domestic tyranny. All governments are potential leviathans and are thus dangerous to liberty.

5) The US Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to make any laws which abridge the rights of American citizens to possess, own and publicly bear firearms and through amendments and jurisprudence that prohibition against abridgement has been extended to the governments of the states for the most part.

6) American gun culture is older and more established than even the United States itself and therefore has a strong legal right to exist based on four centuries of New World custom and usage. Courts and governments must respect and abide by that legal tradition or they become instruments of tyranny and are thus illegitimate in the eyes of American political and cultural tradition.

7) As the vast number of deaths caused by firearms in America today are either self-inflicted, inflicted on others by illegally armed criminals or done legitimately by duly appointed agents of the state, it makes no sense to abridge the rights of legal and lawful gun owners in order to prevent abuses by the mentally deranged who are tragically bent on self-destruction, the criminally driven who scoff at the laws anyway and would thus not abide by gun control laws; also such controls will only inhibit the ability of lawfully operating agents of the state from deputising competent and armed citizens as an aid to the civil power in times of need.

8) While America is predominantly urbanised now, millions of Americans still live throughout rural America where firearms are still vitally necessary tools for self-defence from man or beast, for pest control, for property protection and for hunting. Firearms are also tools for sports shooting and for competition and thus fill an important social role too.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.