Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Need help for gun debate

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Need help for gun debate

    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?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Can you tell us what you have prepared already?

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    Can you tell us what you have prepared already?
    Nothing....just got notice of this last night.....

    Was thinking if I can get a bunch of Ideas I'll make an outline this this weekend....


    My approach may be how other prohibitions have a poor history of working.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 03-08-2013 at 09:23 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The debate question is based on a false premise.

    Substitute "gun" for car, or radio, or lawnmower, or hair dryer. All of which can be misused to commit a crime.

    Liberals own one or more of the items I have listed. If you can force your opponent to admit that the government has a duty to regulate any item that can be misused in a crime then the liberal has lost the debate.

    You have lost the debate before the debate has begun.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member conandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    248
    The best thing to do is use the truth and facts. They can't argue facts. Know the constitution and don't let them use the emotional tactics. Be confident and speak clearly and calmly. You should have no trouble with this debate. If you speak the same way you post comments on here you will have it made. You seem to me to be quite knowledgeable on the issue's and can articulate your points very well. Good luck and let me know how it goes..

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?
    No. The Constitution is very clear and has been incorporated into the states. Then I would break down the Second Amendment, show how the "well regulated militia" actually relates to the amendment (how "well regulated" at the time of writing meant "well trained," how practically all able-bodied males were/are a part of the unorganized militia, and how the "militia" is simply part of the justification for this right and the need to not have it infringed upon), and then define what "infringe" means and how regulating the "sales and ownership" is an infringement and why it doesn't pass strict scrutiny.

    Then there's gun cases, here's a few good ones from US vs Miller (taken from the wiki):

    "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."

    and

    "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    Obviously I disagree with the end ruling of the case, but one can use these quotes to directly show the flaw in the final ruling. The first shows how weapons that would have a use for a militia can't be regulated (issue with the case was one of "no evidence") and the second quote reaffirms via court case what was discussed in the first bit about militia service and how militiamen have to be able to supply their own weapons.

    For a third and final point I would show how prohibition hasn't worked. Whether it's the Eighteenth Amendment, the "War on Drugs," or the various gun bans around the world (great place to show how around the world crime in general has gone up with gun bans), prohibition doesn't work. Can also show how issues have gone down when the bans were lifted (prohibition crime, Portugal drug issues, and overall crime in DC since I'm not sure what's up with Chicago).


    Then I would be prepared to deal with things like how many "kids" are injured/killed per year (includes kid gang-members and typically the numbers include those up to either 19 or 24 depending on source), the gunshow "loophole," assault weapons (and how it's a made-up term), GFZs (and how they don't work), and some other standard hoplophobe standard arguements/misinformation. Probably won't use all of these, but better to be prepared for it in case the other person uses them than to be blindsided by at least the common arguements.

    The bigger issue is trying to cram such a large subject into only five minutes for the debate. Oh and gunfacts.info is a great site for a bunch of information in a consolidated place.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    [COLOR=#333333]SNIP

    The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?
    More precisely, are they asking if it's the duty of ANY government or is it the duty of the government as defined by the US Constitution?

    If it is the latter, then it is easy to show that the government has no authority unless the constitution is amended. It removes their silly argument about nuclear weapons in private hands. We have an amendment process and it's reasonable to believe that an amendment giving the government power to regulate nukes would pass the rigorous course of the amendment process. Point out that the amendment process is difficult on purpose to keep the simple majority from trampling rights.

    Simply put, it is the duty of our government to stay within the confines of the constitution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Shall not be infringed.

    No right to police protect/no duty for police to protect you.

    Police are armed with X because they might run into Y situation. A citizen could run into the same Y situation and so should be as well (min) armed as X.

    Regulated free speech how you get the message out there. Lack of constitutionally GRANTED authority to regulate firearm ownership.

    Just ideas to think about.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Oh another good one, how the fedgov recently called AR15s "PDWs" (personal defense weapons) when buying 7,000 of them.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would just read part of the US DOJ brief in the US v. Miller case .... then watch people go "what????" cause they have been brainwashed ...

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    No. The Constitution is very clear and has been incorporated into the states. Then I would break down the Second Amendment, show how the "well regulated militia" actually relates to the amendment (how "well regulated" at the time of writing meant "well trained," how practically all able-bodied males were/are a part of the unorganized militia, and how the "militia" is simply part of the justification for this right and the need to not have it infringed upon), and then define what "infringe" means and how regulating the "sales and ownership" is an infringement and why it doesn't pass strict scrutiny.

    Then there's gun cases, here's a few good ones from US vs Miller (taken from the wiki):

    "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."

    and

    "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

    Obviously I disagree with the end ruling of the case, but one can use these quotes to directly show the flaw in the final ruling. The first shows how weapons that would have a use for a militia can't be regulated (issue with the case was one of "no evidence") and the second quote reaffirms via court case what was discussed in the first bit about militia service and how militiamen have to be able to supply their own weapons.

    For a third and final point I would show how prohibition hasn't worked. Whether it's the Eighteenth Amendment, the "War on Drugs," or the various gun bans around the world (great place to show how around the world crime in general has gone up with gun bans), prohibition doesn't work. Can also show how issues have gone down when the bans were lifted (prohibition crime, Portugal drug issues, and overall crime in DC since I'm not sure what's up with Chicago).


    Then I would be prepared to deal with things like how many "kids" are injured/killed per year (includes kid gang-members and typically the numbers include those up to either 19 or 24 depending on source), the gunshow "loophole," assault weapons (and how it's a made-up term), GFZs (and how they don't work), and some other standard hoplophobe standard arguements/misinformation. Probably won't use all of these, but better to be prepared for it in case the other person uses them than to be blindsided by at least the common arguements.

    The bigger issue is trying to cram such a large subject into only five minutes for the debate. Oh and gunfacts.info is a great site for a bunch of information in a consolidated place.
    "well regulated" meant, "to keep and make regular" at the time the document was written.*


    *source: Judge Andrew Napolitano
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50
    If you have time to read through Publius-Huldah's Blog it may help with the foundation, http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
    First watch this one.
    Next watch the video in the most recent blog. (or here on youtube.)
    Then read the next two articles she has written. Here and Here. These 2 articles will give the background for all of the above.
    Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.
    Louis Dembitz Brandeis

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Thanks for the replies guys! Keep them coming .....please.....

    The question is a poorly framed one I agree on that, but I know the moderator and she is pro gun, runs the WWU Libertarian group. So I think she will be more fair than if a progressive moderator was running it. And she said the question is a general one for government in General, fortunately for me my state has a strong constitution for individual rights and bearing arms.

    I appreciate the good suggestions.....keep them coming ....please....

    As suggested I will try to reframe the question to one of constitutionality and logic.

    Statistics don't = cause....guns are not the root of the problem...

    True meaning of the 2A,

    How do minorities protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority, (if they believe majority rule, then I'll mention he must think the judge who struck down California's Prop 8 was bad),
    Also along this bring out the Battle of Hays Pond

    Use OC's suggestion of restricting all the other things that can be used in a crime or are dangerous.

    Break down the fallacy of "certain type of weapons" to basically they want to outlaw the looks of a weapon.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Went Well!

    The debate went well, despite my short time of prep and not ever having debated formally before. I fully expected to be on the short end of the debate, yet the exact opposite happened.

    Several of the points and suggestions you guys made helped tremendously.

    I redirected the conversation right from the beginning away from emotives, and took away his ability to use statistics, but at the same time was able to use statistics to make my point!

    I took more of a tac of educating on what the 2A means, and basically quoted the Virginia Consitution, because the explanation is including in it.

    Showed how prohibition is the most major contribution to homicide and not guns. Statistics from around the world show there are no co-relation to homicide and private gun ownership.

    Asked him as suggested by OC For me, in a rebuttal to his first part, because he set himself up for it, if he would impose restrictions on, everyday items that are used to assault people.

    He mentioned my view of 2A wasn't realistic and that the government wouldn't be dragging us out of our houses too.....I pointed out that recent history doesn't show that, and how can he trust a government that says it's Ok to kill Americans with drones on American soil? I mentioned the growing use of SWAT teams and the carnage created by them.

    He thought people having guns escalates SWAT breaking into your home, I countered the easy solution is get rid of "No Knock Warrants".....


    I could go on it lasted twice as long as it was supposed to mostly because of the intrigue of the students..........

    It was loads of fun!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    113
    Any link to a video, or audio from the debate?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pocono Mountains of PA
    Posts
    138
    I have been asked to debate a very progressive gun control advocate, Monday....this is my first debate.... The question the debate will center around: Is it the duty of the Government to regulate the sales and ownership of certain firearms?
    What did YOU learn from this debate?

    tyc

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Need help for gun debate

    The writings of St. George Tucker are great resources.

    Mystraighttalk.com by David Bozarth. I just sat on a forum panel with him. Genius.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy bilt View Post
    Any link to a video, or audio from the debate?
    I don't think so. I saw a few Iphones raised but don't know if there are any available pics or video, I hope not......lol.....hate to see myself on camera and hear my voice....

    Quote Originally Posted by tyc View Post
    What did YOU learn from this debate?

    tyc
    First debate of this sort, I have no "higher education" so that whole experience was a learning experience for me and I learned how that goes, of course it was advertised as an "informal" debate.

    I made mental notes on trying to shorten some of my expanations, and to be a little less redundant. The audience are not dumb they get my points.

    I didn't have time to make an outline like I normally do, that was a mistake because in the heat of the moment words swirl on paper a bit, and i had to pause a few times to find my spot or points I had written down.

    I thought I'd have to cover a lot more hard to cover the anti points than I did. Part of it was I beat him to the punch on many of the points he was going to make, I lucked out on that, so he had to change what he was going to say.

    I learned to be more proactive, in cross, after his first constructive I really had no questions, until the audience questioned, I picked up on this, on was better at that in my next few crosses. Like asking him where these massacres occurred, he listed towns and places, I then asked him what they had in common and made him admit they were in GFZ's. When started going on about voting, I asked if he believed in the rule of "majority" he knew where I was going and responded with a comment about protecting the rights of the minority, to which I countered guns are one way minorities protect themselves from the majority.

    I also learned that debating is fun, and that doing it in front of a group of people really is not much different than doing it one on one, especially if you arm yourself with knowledge.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ...I made mental notes on trying to shorten some of my expanations, and to be a little less redundant. The audience are not dumb they get my points...
    Wisdom. It applies elsewhere, not just in formal debates.

  20. #20
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    On the subject of prohibitions not working - I was watching a TV show (I know, I know!) that was saying that the legalization of gambling in Mississippi was done in an effort to take down the Dixie Mafia, and that it pretty much worked. Of course, seeing as that was a TV show, I don't have any references for you, so I guess it isn't that helpful to share. But, if you thought it was worthwhile, you might be able to find enough infromation and facts about it that it could be used. In my opinion, the act of legalization of something, anything, being used in an effort to take down a crime ring is a pretty significant. It kind of takes their "reduce crime by banning X" thing and flips it on it's head. Reduce crime by legalizing whatever the criminals are monetizing and people will use more legitimate avenues to acquire, reducing crime's cash flow.

    But IMO that isn't really relevant to the debate subject. That only speaks to the effectiveness of prohibitions, not whether or not the government has the authority to TRY to enact one. If the government's authority was based on their effectiveness I think they'd end up with no authority at all. Right? Right?? haha

    Sorry I'm not that helpful but I thought that the legalization of gambling part of the Dixie Mafia show was pretty interesting and also pretty relevant to the topic, even if it couldn't really be used in debate.

  21. #21
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think so. I saw a few Iphones raised but don't know if there are any available pics or video, I hope not......lol.....hate to see myself on camera and hear my voice....
    You mean you didn't have your own recorder running???

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    On the subject of prohibitions not working - I was watching a TV show (I know, I know!) that was saying that the legalization of gambling in Mississippi was done in an effort to take down the Dixie Mafia, and that it pretty much worked. Of course, seeing as that was a TV show, I don't have any references for you, so I guess it isn't that helpful to share. But, if you thought it was worthwhile, you might be able to find enough infromation and facts about it that it could be used. In my opinion, the act of legalization of something, anything, being used in an effort to take down a crime ring is a pretty significant. It kind of takes their "reduce crime by banning X" thing and flips it on it's head. Reduce crime by legalizing whatever the criminals are monetizing and people will use more legitimate avenues to acquire, reducing crime's cash flow.

    But IMO that isn't really relevant to the debate subject. That only speaks to the effectiveness of prohibitions, not whether or not the government has the authority to TRY to enact one. If the government's authority was based on their effectiveness I think they'd end up with no authority at all. Right? Right?? haha

    Sorry I'm not that helpful but I thought that the legalization of gambling part of the Dixie Mafia show was pretty interesting and also pretty relevant to the topic, even if it couldn't really be used in debate.
    This is pretty much the same as when they repealed alcohol prohibition. The mafias were getting a lot of money and power from the illicit alcohol trade, but re-legalizing alochol cut off a lot of that money and power. I wouldn't say that the removal of the prohibition caused their downfall as there's plenty of other activities that they're involved in, but it helped remove a decent chunk of their money and power.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The Mafia then went into the "drug trade" and another source of vast sums of money......the unions.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The Mafia then went into the "drug trade" and another source of vast sums of money......the unions.

    Yep, I brought this up in why homicide and crime rates didn't drop to prior prohibition rates.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •