Gun Control Debate in class

[JLJ1208]

Hello everyone! I am a student at Valparaiso University. My major is Political Science and I have a public policy class this semester. Our professor told us at the beginning of the year that we would be having two debates in the semester: The first one would be on gun control policy and the second would be on communications policy. I naturally chose the anti-gun control side.
Our professor gave out the specific statements we would be debating on yesterday, and the debate will take place in class this friday. Our group divided up the statements and the one I recieved is:

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.[/SIZE]

Our group is also answering this statement together:

If creating stricter gun control laws were a priority for the public, then Congress and the states would certainly create such laws. [/SIZE]

I was hoping that you great guns out there could help me to formulate a really great argument.

Thanks so much

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Start by defining your terms and analyzing the statement:

What does "excessive" mean?

What does "nearly impossible" mean? How often has there been "excessive" regulation in the past?

Does simple belief ever make something impossible (or possible?) Or does belief have to be backed up by action, or willingness to act? If so what action(s), and when?

Was the AWB an instance of a "stricter gun control law?" Congress passed it.

When you're satisfied, get other team members to prepare a case against your statements, and counter their counterarguments.

- pdmoderator

 

[Desertdog]

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.[/SIZE]

To me, it does not matter what the citzens THINK, it is what the persons making the laws think. They may face not getting reelected if they pass a bill the citizens don't like, but many of them are willing to take that chance.

Would the NYC and Washington DC no guns law be called excessive? Apparently not, by the people that passed it.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.

The statement on it's face is false.

Look at DC or Chicago. Is a flat prohibition excessive? I would say so.

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Yeah, but the kid's apparently been stuck with the task of defending a false statement.

Of course, he could always step outside the prof's box. Might lose points in the course, but would gain dignity.

- pdmoderator

 

[buy guns]

i have a friend who goes to valpo. his name is sean frangella. you know him?

 

[ACP230]

Clayton Cramer did a piece on the racist origin of gun laws.
Might be interesting to look at with an eye toward selective enforcement as over regulation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.

I agree with pdmoderator. You have been stuck with a false argument to defend. Let's look at why, then perhaps you (and others) can expand on the arguments.

1) "American's (sic -- should be Americans') belief in the right to bear arms ..."

And what "belief" would that be? It is not my "belief" that wrote in the 2nd Amendment that "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I believe that statement exists because it is there in black and white for all to see. The right exists irrespective of the belief of one American, 10 Americans, or all Americans.

2) "Excessive" regulation impossible? Given that the 2nd Amendment places NO restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, and given that many states' constitutions are even more explicit than the 2nd Amendment that the RKBA is an individual right and intended to provide for the self-defense of the individual as well as the defense of the state, it is arguable that any regulation at all is prima facie excessive. If existing regulation is excessive, ergo our collective belief in the RKBA clearly does NOT make (and clearly has not made) excessive regulation impossible.

3) For a practical argument, peruse the thread(s) discussing the gift shotgun for Senator Kerry. The self'-styled gun expert who is quoted in one of the posts points out that if the laws (regulations) are so numerous and so complex that a United States senator cannot understand or comply with them, how can an ordinary citizen be expected to understand and comply with them? If the regulations are too many and too complex to be understood and complied with, isn't that an argument that they are "excessive"?

 

[jnojr]

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.

1) Any regulation of guns is "excessive"... a highly contentious point, but supportable by the intent of the drafters, the reason for the Second Amendment, etc.

2) "Excessive regulation" is all around us... Washington D.C., NYC, the towns in Illinois that ban handguns, "assault weapon" bans based on cosmetic features, Californias "drop test" law which is purportedly about safety but exempts LEOs, governemnt, and military.

3) (Since he's mentioned) Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man who's a known, proven, and admitted liar.

The last argument is where you're gonna have to jump out the window. A bunch of college kids (yes, kids) who haven't had to live in the real world yet are already full of liberal nonsense, and won't be receptive to truth and facts. But attack their cult icon, and fuses will pop...

 

[tyme]

American's belief in the right to bear arms (even Michael Moore believes this) makes excessive regulatioin of guns nearly impossible.

This is only marginally true. At the present time, an attempt to ban shotguns, or all handguns, at the federal level would fail because too many people, including many Senators and Reps., value that right. In the future, it might not be impossible, thanks to revisionist and socialist teachings in schools.

If creating stricter gun control laws were a priority for the public, then Congress and the states would certainly create such laws.

Yes. Senators and Congresspeople who care more about principle than about getting reelected are in the minority. Anything the public places a priority on would pass.

Those responses aren't very good. I blame it on the seed statements, which are terrible. I'm not sure what to do with them.

"belief in the RKBA" takes many forms.
"excessive regulation"
"nearly impossible"
(and the prof doesn't even define "guns"? Are we talking about anything up to mortars, or just small arms? it would be easy to further (and more-excessively) regulate mortars, since the interest groups lobbying against regulation would be non-existent)

"priority for the public" is nonsense. The public never agrees on anything. On any major issue, there are always vocal interest groups on at least two sides. Several groups conduct polls that show the public supporting each position. The first interest group to spin the issue and plaster it in the media often wins.

Given an obvious mandate by the public, both state and federal government would pass a law outlawing snowshoes. What might happen to cause people to want to ban snowshoes is unknowable. What might happen to generate clear public support for guns in the hypothetical you were given is unknowable.

 

[JLJ1208]

correction pdmoderator- you said:

"Of course, he could always step outside the prof's box..."

should be restated as:

Of course, she could always step outside the prof's box...

Warmest regards,
JLJ

 

[JLJ1208]

hey buy guns
sorry, don't know your friend. What's his/her major?