Need help for gun debate

sudden valley gunner · Mar 8, 2013

I have been asked to debate a very progressive gun control advocate, Monday....this is my first debate.

The debate format is....

Introduction....(tell who you are) 5 min..

10 min for the rest ( 5 for cross examination)

1st for constructive

cross examination

2nd for constructive

cross examination

2nd against constructive

cross examination

for reubttal

questions from the audience

The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?

gogodawgs · Mar 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
<snip>

The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?

This is a bad question in my opinion. Because there is a long standing history of the government regulating certain firearms and there is little disagreement that they can and do regulate such firearms. These include full auto firearms and 'sawed off' shotguns (i.e. SBR/AOW), nuclear arms, missiles, etc...

I think you will need to re-frame such a broad question. Is it the duty of the government to regulate the sales/ownership of common modern sporting rifles? You will need to spend your time in your intro periods to redefine....

jt59 · Mar 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I have been asked to debate a very progressive gun control advocate, Monday....this is my first debate.

The debate format is....

Introduction....(tell who you are) 5 min..

10 min for the rest ( 5 for cross examination)

1st for constructive

cross examination

2nd for constructive

cross examination

2nd against constructive

cross examination

for reubttal

questions from the audience

The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?

To me, the question, although aimed at "certain firearms", can be re-focused on the front end of the statement....if you characterize the "duty of Gov't"...outside of firearms, what "duty" does the gov't have to regulate anything?

Historically, in the last 100 years, what have been the key events that have triggered not only gun regulation, but really, any regulation...wasn't the first regulation of fully automatic weapons rationalized out of the mob's, Chicago and the Capone era?and then the Cosa Nostra...it started out about crime that couldn't be stopped to the tools of crime that could be (supposedly) managed to have an impact. The next big thing was the Kennedy assassination and Johnson's sweeping gun control laws....

When did the gov't lose focus on its "duty" and become the puppet of political will and wind....the Brady bunch was formed after Reagan assassination attempt and now have a mission..

The mission statement of the Brady Campaign is "to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence."[3] The Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a 501(c)(4) organization.

...prior to that... In 1976,[] then chairman Nelson "Pete" Shields stated:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal

Gun advocates maintain a 1 vote lead as a last resort in SCOTUS...but even that may change...

Perhaps another way to reframe the debate is to ask..."Is the Gov't regulation of anything effective"....look at the tax code, Obama care, the generational theft of Social Security to fund a war in 1967...

Here is an interesting piece...

http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/racist_roots_of_gun_control.htm

So, is the current national debate a recognition of "gov't duty" or is it just the basic debate on the constitution as Rights vs being a "living document that reflects the times and society".... and lines from the President post catastrophy like this; "Its up to us, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it".

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/

anyway, it should be interesting...your a pretty smart guy, you'll do well.

Who is the debate sponsor? What if any will be the media outlet and use of the debate outcomes?

In a debate, when your not on offense, your on defense...

oneeyeross · Mar 8, 2013

Read US v Miller (1939). Especially focus on the part where the government focused on why it could regulate short barreled shotguns...

"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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

The logical implication from this is that any weapon which can be shown to bear a reasonable relationship to militia service can't be regulated.....and since, as we all know, (10 USC 311) we ARE the militia - well, we SHOULD have an M4...

Alpine · Mar 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I have been asked to debate a very progressive gun control advocate, Monday....this is my first debate.

The debate format is....

Introduction....(tell who you are) 5 min..

10 min for the rest ( 5 for cross examination)

1st for constructive

cross examination

2nd for constructive

cross examination

2nd against constructive

cross examination

for reubttal

questions from the audience

The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?

That format reminds me of Policy/Cross-ex/Oxford style debate from highschool/college. Only that was usually just silly because people would be speed-reading evidence cards as fast as they could.

As far as justification goes in terms of social theory, even Thomas Hobbes, the noted authoritarian, admitted that rebellion was acceptable if the leviathan (government) ever came directly for you. That would be turning one of the Statists' favorite authors against them preemptively.

I'd focus on the fact that the only way to preserve a free society and our government as laid out in the constitution is by having the government not regulate firearms or as little as possible to prevent the violent cycling we've seen in every society that didn't follow this guideline.

oneeyeross · Mar 8, 2013

Another thing to think about: If they want a fee or license requirement...

"This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

Whitney · Mar 8, 2013

Intentional misdirection / emotional plea

Numbers and statistics are BS, both sides argue numbers and statistics that support their argument.

December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

~Whitney

tombrewster421 · Mar 8, 2013

I would also make a point to redefine regulate for them in the way that it was used when written. But I'm sure you already thought of that.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 9, 2013

Thanks for the input guys! The person/moderator putting on this event is a member of WWU libertarians and is pro gun, I think she'll be more fair than if it was put on by a progressive group. I am going to attempt to OC too, being a non student.

I agree it's a bad question, I'll do my best to reframe it.

And yep original definition of "regulate" will be one of my focuses.

I think too he will bring out countries with more gun control that have lower rates. I will point out that historically these countries rates were always different, and many had lower crime rates before gun control. And that Russia, Mexico and Brazil have stronger gun control rates but worse homicide rates, So this means guns are not the root of the problem.

Also historically our crime rates are dropping and guns have been more prolific than ever, despite the claims that more gun= more crime.

I will also focus on how prohibition of any sort has a higher failure rate and causes more harm than good.

I think I'll dig out my old essay...that showed being killed by abuse or neglect by your parents is far more likely than being killed by again, ( assuming here he takes the "its for the children" tactic)

Keep the ideas coming......please......

Superlite27 · Mar 9, 2013

I'm not sure if any of my input might help. For me, I have a tendency to attempt to cover all points in a debate, and when dealing with time constraints, it's easy to throw so much you want to say into a discussion, that it all unravels because no single point gets the time required to thouroughly "drive it home". So, while offering many ideas may help, it could also serve as "information overload". Therefore, I'll offer my input, but feel free to discard it as it may lead to digression from any solid point you wish to reinforce.

What is meant by "government regulation"? Is this "government regulation" considered to be laws passed by congress, or the current method of government by fiat imposed by the BATFE? Because there is, and never has been, any "law" against various specific firearms passed in a recognized method to "regulate" civilian possession. What has happened is the BATFE has been empowered to rule by fiat and memo.

For instance: I thought shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches are considered "destructive devices", therefore, illegal. Doesn't a Taurus Judge fire a .410 shotgun shell? Wouldn't that be illegal? No. Know why? Because the BATFE has considered this, and decided that a Judge is a pistol. Therefore, why can't I take my double barrel .410 and saw the barrel off until it's the same length as a Taurus Judge? NOPE! The BATFE considers that to be a "destructive device". How does it do this? How does a Federal Bureau decide what is, and what is not against the law? Hmmmmmm. Good question. I was under the impression that CONGRESS was the body that created law. If congress, and the process of proposing bills, ratification, and passage is the method in which the United States of America makes law.........

.....where does a Federal Bureau get the Authority to circumvent this entire process, and simply rule by fiat? Hmmmmm. I'm the BATFE, and I have decided that firearms that fire more than one bullet with the single pull of the trigger are now NFA items, and are illegal. You will now go to jail if you have one of these items I have decided to classify as illegal. No proposal before congress. No vote. No legislative process. Just KAPOW! I wrote a memo, and it is now law.

Isn't the BATFE empowered through the commerce clause?

Wasn't the justification for the creation of the BATFE to regulate alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives because these things were sold interstate, therefore, "interstate commerce"?

Where's the Bureau of Tennis Rackets, Toilet Seats, and Door Knobs?

After all, aren't these things also sold interstate?

We do need government bureaus to regulate things sold interstate, right?

Man, I could go off into the weeds on this. Hope I don't drag you with me and ruin the focus you need for a good debate. I'm simply not very knowledgeable about how the BATFE gets its authority, and have always wondered how they can write a memo and POOF!....It is now federal law. Maybe, if you know more about this process than I, it might be helpful in your debate. Feel free to toss it aside if you feel it would only provide a means of distraction, or irrellevancy for the target of your debate.

sudden valley gunner · Mar 9, 2013

Thanks Superlight that's good points to cover. And more ammo on our knowledge of the original intent of "regulate".

Whitney · Mar 9, 2013

Commerce Clause and regulation

Superlite27 said:
I'm not sure if any of my input might help. For me, I have a tendency to attempt to cover all points in a debate, and when dealing with time constraints, it's easy to throw so much you want to say into a discussion, that it all unravels because no single point gets the time required to thouroughly "drive it home". So, while offering many ideas may help, it could also serve as "information overload". Therefore, I'll offer my input, but feel free to discard it as it may lead to digression from any solid point you wish to reinforce.

What is meant by "government regulation"? Is this "government regulation" considered to be laws passed by congress, or the current method of government by fiat imposed by the BATFE? Because there is, and never has been, any "law" against various specific firearms passed in a recognized method to "regulate" civilian possession. What has happened is the BATFE has been empowered to rule by fiat and memo.

For instance: I thought shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches are considered "destructive devices", therefore, illegal. Doesn't a Taurus Judge fire a .410 shotgun shell? Wouldn't that be illegal? No. Know why? Because the BATFE has considered this, and decided that a Judge is a pistol. Therefore, why can't I take my double barrel .410 and saw the barrel off until it's the same length as a Taurus Judge? NOPE! The BATFE considers that to be a "destructive device". How does it do this? How does a Federal Bureau decide what is, and what is not against the law? Hmmmmmm. Good question. I was under the impression that CONGRESS was the body that created law. If congress, and the process of proposing bills, ratification, and passage is the method in which the United States of America makes law.........

.....where does a Federal Bureau get the Authority to circumvent this entire process, and simply rule by fiat? Hmmmmm. I'm the BATFE, and I have decided that firearms that fire more than one bullet with the single pull of the trigger are now NFA items, and are illegal. You will now go to jail if you have one of these items I have decided to classify as illegal. No proposal before congress. No vote. No legislative process. Just KAPOW! I wrote a memo, and it is now law.

Isn't the BATFE empowered through the commerce clause?

Wasn't the justification for the creation of the BATFE to regulate alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives because these things were sold interstate, therefore, "interstate commerce"?

Where's the Bureau of Tennis Rackets, Toilet Seats, and Door Knobs?

After all, aren't these things also sold interstate?

We do need government bureaus to regulate things sold interstate, right?

Man, I could go off into the weeds on this. Hope I don't drag you with me and ruin the focus you need for a good debate. I'm simply not very knowledgeable about how the BATFE gets its authority, and have always wondered how they can write a memo and POOF!....It is now federal law. Maybe, if you know more about this process than I, it might be helpful in your debate. Feel free to toss it aside if you feel it would only provide a means of distraction, or irrellevancy for the target of your debate.

+ ∞
On the commerce clause with regard to regulation the Feds have Zero authority to regulate firearms outside a federal enclave.
See the attached for reference to US code and how it has been twisted.

~Whitney

davidmcbeth · Mar 9, 2013

oneeyeross said:
Read US v Miller (1939). Especially focus on the part where the government focused on why it could regulate short barreled shotguns...

"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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

The logical implication from this is that any weapon which can be shown to bear a reasonable relationship to militia service can't be regulated.....and since, as we all know, (10 USC 311) we ARE the militia - well, we SHOULD have an M4...

+1 also read the US Government brief ... it says military arms are covered ... duh...what more do they want

sudden valley gunner · Mar 12, 2013

Thank You!

The debate went well for my first debate, thank you for your input folks, I appreciate, it. I was able to incorporate a few of the ideas you guys helped keep fresh in my mind.

I was able to successfully destroy, the emotive aspect right away, It wasn't on purpose, I had written opposing constructives that ended up beating his points and taking the wind out of his sails for his pro constructives before he could make them.....he kept saying "Darn I was going to bring that up". I redirected the conversation to one of prohibition doesn't work, and was able to lead the audience into putting no faith into his statistics, yet pointing out violence has dropped drastically despite gun ownership and popularity being on the rise.

I feel it was a success when most the questions were directed at him to prove, his point and he just couldn't. Lori and John had good hard hitting questions, that left him stumbling. :lol: So did many of the student.

One good point lots of the students liked was that I said a few guns in the hands of pilots could have saved the lives of millions.

It was nice to have lots of students come up to me afterward and want to continue discussing the subject in a positive manner.

Jeff Hayes · Mar 12, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
The debate went well for my first debate, thank you for your input folks, I appreciate, it. I was able to incorporate a few of the ideas you guys helped keep fresh in my mind.

I was able to successfully destroy, the emotive aspect right away, It wasn't on purpose, I had written opposing constructives that ended up beating his points and taking the wind out of his sails for his pro constructives before he could make them.....he kept saying "Darn I was going to bring that up". I redirected the conversation to one of prohibition doesn't work, and was able to lead the audience into putting no faith into his statistics, yet pointing out violence has dropped drastically despite gun ownership and popularity being on the rise.

I feel it was a success when most the questions were directed at him to prove, his point and he just couldn't. Lori and John had good hard hitting questions, that left him stumbling. :lol: So did many of the student.

One good point lots of the students liked was that I said a few guns in the hands of pilots could have saved the lives of millions.

It was nice to have lots of students come up to me afterward and want to continue discussing the subject in a positive manner.

Well done Sir.

OC for ME · Mar 12, 2013

Didn't happen without a Youtube video to prove it happened.

slapmonkay · Mar 12, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I am going to attempt to OC too, being a non student.

sudden valley gunner said:
The debate went well for my first debate, thank you for your input folks, I appreciate, it.

So the question is, Did you OC :question:

carracer · Mar 12, 2013

slapmonkay said:
So the question is, Did you OC :question:

!

marshaul · Mar 12, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I think too he will bring out countries with more gun control that have lower rates. I will point out that historically these countries rates were always different, and many had lower crime rates before gun control. And that Russia, Mexico and Brazil have stronger gun control rates but worse homicide rates, So this means guns are not the root of the problem.

This is why I hate oral debates. You can't really meaningfully address the issues. It's easy to spout a few numbers in 30 seconds; how can one point out the fact that most of America's "gun violence" is already the direct result of prior forms of prohibition and the self-fulfilling prophecies they represent? This is the single, inescapable, and insurmountable fatal flaw of the prohibitionist position – the fact that prohibition will always make things worse. Even in the UK it has done so, where automatic weapons now proliferate in a black market depleted of "civilian" weapons. Russia? Mexico? Brazil? Don't make me laugh (I know they're you're examples, but they're damn good ones).

But how can you convincingly make that point within the duration of a conversational attention span? Much less a debate?

Still, though, sounds like you pwnd anyway. Good job! And, yes, do tell: did you OC?

arentol · Mar 13, 2013

marshaul said:
This is why I hate oral debates. You can't really meaningfully address the issues. It's easy to spout a few numbers in 30 seconds. How can one point out the fact that most of America's "gun violence" is already the direct result of prior forms of prohibition and the self-fulfilling prophecies they represent. This is the single, inescapable, and unsurmountable fatal flaw of the prohibitionist position – the fact that prohibition will always make things worse. Even in the UK it has done so, where automatic weapons now proliferate in a black market depleted of "civilian" weapons. Russia? Mexico? Brazil? Don't make me laugh.

But how can you convincingly make that point within the duration of a conversational attention span? Much less a debate?

Still, though, sounds like you pwnd anyway. Good job! And, yes, do tell: did you OC?

I agree.... The prohibitionists swore up and down that making alcohol illegal would solve all the worlds problems. Instead it changed organized crime in the US from a minor annoyance to a massive problem while doing nothing to stop people from drinking (and even causing extra health problems for some who drank bad hooch). We are still experiencing negative fallout from this stupid act today.
We started a war on drugs that has only helped make drug lords massively rich and driven tons of kids into an inescapable life of crime, while barely impacted drug use at all. We would have been FAR better off with limited legalization and taxation, then spend the taxes and 1/4 of the billions of dollars we spent fighting the war on anti-drug education (Mrs. Reagan proved it could help), and on drug recovery programs.

Need help for gun debate

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member