Is gun ownership, a right?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 11 votes and with 44 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I assume the burden of proof.
I hate guns, but I hate a lot of things, so that doesn't mean they should be banned. The Second Amendment was written to protect the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun. It makes not sense to me, when the left supports the death of a six month baby in the womb, but people cannot use force to protect their bodies, and their homes. The left in my opinion is a little inconsistant on bodily liberty when unborn babies, have no legal rights, but my mentally stable, and law abiding mother can't protect herself with a gun. I will never own a gun due to being mentally disabled, but my mother is neurotypical, law abiding. If she wants a gun, as long as I'm not involved, it's her choice. Now before you call me a right winger, I am center-right, not far right. I just wanted to go on the record as pointing out my problem with the far left on bodily liberty, and self defense rights.
I hate guns, but I hate a lot of things, so that doesn't mean they should be banned.
Actually hating something is sufficient reason for it to be banned, such as pedophilia where the younger says they wanted it, homosexuality and gambling in Sharia nations, children and prisoners voting in most nations and quite a few other things. For instance, why is it illegal to be naked in public or to turn up stinky to work? You wouldn't be allowed to say 'don't turn up feminine to work' even to men in the current LGBT friendly era we live in and definitely wouldn't be allowed to say 'please, don't act black around here'. There's a lot about rights that's rooted in what people hate and feel disgust towards, including why violence is outlawed but people like you don't want to outlaw the speech that also involuntarily angers and triggers the violent people.
The Second Amendment was written to protect the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun.
The second amendment was there to appease the masses at a time where the very founders of the nation had just pillaged and inhumanely torn to shreds the entire culture of the previous inhabitants. They realised people would fear the same happening to them so they said 'you are entitled to be arm to fight us, the government' but think about it for a second... If the government and their machine-gun wielding capacity, combined with the ability to control the News and raise children in schools to snitch on parents etc, were to take over in a tyrannical manner then how would the ordinary folk having semi-automatic guns help? There'd only be more bloodshed before the inevitable victory over the people. The defence against such regimes is supposed to be the spreading of accurate information, so that people aren't conned into believing they want in charge that which they should abhor. Then, the steps taken to tear the government apart from within are 0% to do with guns and 100% to do with intellect and speech-and-political-strings-based manoeuvring.
. It makes not sense to me, when the left supports the death of a six month baby in the womb, but people cannot use force to protect their bodies, and their homes.
You are not six months old when in the womb, otherwise the average baby would be 1 year old on official age after being out of the womb for three months. Also, it does actually make sense that the same wing who support one would support the other. If they were the tyrannical masterminds that you think they are, then why wouldn't they support the latter along with the former?
Let me now explain the real lapse in judgement made in associating one with the other in this way. One is about fighting against poverty more so than anything (having many children is the surest way to keep a family and neighbourhood in poverty as it spreads the wealth generation after generation and usu sally they lack the information or ease financially to purchase sufficient contraception). The other is about avoiding school-shootings and making a culture where nearly no-one at all needs a gun because they've been caught and destroyed by inside-men, double agent sting operations etc.
In western Europe, Japan and South Korea this has successfully been done. Want me to prove it? You can't say it isn't feasible, it's literally been done.
The left in my opinion is a little inconsistent on bodily liberty when unborn babies, have no legal rights, but my mentally stable, and law abiding mother can't protect herself with a gun. I will never own a gun due to being mentally disabled, but my mother is neurotypical, law abiding.
The left wing isn't the one who supports bodily liberty over bodily safety. This always will be the right-wing. The example of abortion is about fighting suffering of the children in a broken foster care system or them growing up unwanted in an impoverished ghetto scenario. They say 'pro-choice' because pro-life is an even catchier term that the opposition use. Neither gives a shit about the pro-thing they are, the right wing doesn't care about life and the left wing doesn't care about choice. The right wing supports brutal, merciless competition and the left wing supports balanced harmony. That may clear up the confusion for you.
In Right-Wing societies, someone with your mental issues wouldn't have had the therapy or medication to help you in life. Let alone the welfare cheques. You'd be rotting homeless on the side of a street unless your family were merciful enough to you. So, darling, considering your implied status of mental health and lifestyle, I wouldn't be so proud to support the Right more than the Left.
If she wants a gun, as long as I'm not involved, it's her choice. Now before you call me a right winger, I am centre-right, not far right.
No, you're not. You are actually a left-winger living off of solely left-wing inspired disability welfare cheques and coped as a child, teen and young adult up to what you are now due to the left wing in your society helping there be such measures for you. The Right Wing would call you a retarded waste of resources and let you rot. This isn't just me talking, this is literally their mentality; freedom at the cost of harmony or pleasure of the rotten poor and disabled.
I just wanted to go on the record as pointing out my problem with the far left on bodily liberty, and self defence rights.
I hope I have cleared this up. Bodily liberty isn't more important than bodily safety and societal harmony under the left-wing ethos.
Blam blam? ;)
End of the fucking line.