|
Assault Weapon Debate and Poll |
|
PRO |
Where Your Ideas can change Minds |
CON |
Debates and Polls
Magazines of Interest
For Debates and Polls On All Topics
Suggestions & Criticisms
|
PRO 1
the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:
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.
PRO 2
THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED THE POPULATION TO BE WELL ARMED SO THAT THE GOVERNED WOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN ASSAULT ON ITS LIBERTY, WHETHER ITS FROM AN INVADING GOVERNMENT OR OUR OWN.
PRO 2.1
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT MEAN JUST SPORT GUNS, THEY MEANT GUNS THAT COULD DEFEND OUR LIBERTIES.
CON 2.2
SHOULD WE ARM OURSELVES WITH TANKS FIGHTER JETS AND CRUSE MISSILES TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. THERE HAS TO BE A LINE DRAWN SOMEWHERE, THE DEBATE IS WHERE?
CON 3
HOW MANY KIDS IN A SCHOOL COULD SOMEONE KILL WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE, NOW HOW MANY COULD HE KILL WITH A KNIFE?
PRO 4
"Only Sporting arms are protected by the Second Amendment" False, as the Supreme Court determined in the United States v. Miller (1939) the type of weapon protected is one capable of being used as a Militia weapon and of the type in common use at the time. Therefore, the very weapons, that the Federal and State Governments are trying to ban, Military Type Weapons, Assault Weapons are the ones specifically protected according to the Miller case.
Click Here to add Your Thoughts to these Debates