Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

Debate Score:36
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Why didn't the government put restrictions on gun ownership after Lincoln's death? (28)

Debate Creator

jolie(9810) pic

Why didn't the government put restrictions on gun ownership after Lincoln's death?

They had a second chance sixteen years later, on September 19, 1881, when President James A. Garfield was assassinated by Charles J. Guiteau.
Their third chance came when William McKinley was assassinated on Friday, September 6, 1901 by Leon Czolgosz.
The most recent chance was after the assassination of John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald.

And that doesn't even include assassination attempts:
2.1 Andrew Jackson
2.2 Abraham Lincoln
2.3 William Howard Taft
2.4 Theodore Roosevelt
2.5 Herbert Hoover
2.6 Franklin D. Roosevelt
2.7 Harry S. Truman
2.8 John F. Kennedy
2.9 Richard Nixon
2.10 Gerald Ford
2.11 Jimmy Carter
2.12 Ronald Reagan
2.13 George H. W. Bush
2.14 Bill Clinton
2.15 George W. Bush
2.16 Barack Obama

Nor Presidential deaths rumored to be assassinations
3.1 Zachary Taylor
3.2 Warren G. Harding
Add New Argument
2 points

Because they knew that the right to bear arms was meant to protect citizens from their government.

'Cause you can't kill 50 people with a Derringer, next question.

2 points

Currently North Korea is run by a despot government. The population of North Korea is much larger than the number of people killed each year by all types of guns in this country. Despotism is a much greater threat than lone wolf terrorists.

1 point

Your point is?

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

A Radical Muslim shot up a gay bar why is it you Progressives can't accept that ?

DS0330(267) Disputed
1 point

I don't know, but since your a progressive, I am sure you can answer that.

KayneOfNod(317) Disputed
1 point

Cannons on a ship in a port town could kill a lot of people. it didn't happen though. and if it did, they probably blamed the pirates, not the Cannons.

1 point

I don't think regular civilians were allowed to buy cannons.

1 point

Um, 1968 was after Kennedy was shot, right?

Supporting Evidence: Gun Control Act of 1968 (
2 points

There you go then. We don't need any more laws.

1 point

We don't need more laws, but you are failing massively to show that, which only makes it seem like we could use more laws. Thanks for being a fuck up.

Well, yeah, JFK was killed in late 1963 and then little brother Bobby was gunned down in an L.A. hotel five years later in the Summer of 1968. Same year that MLK also went down.

But this is a good question by Jolie. I think the reason nobody thought about gun control was since it was such a different world, less people, less crime; no spate of mass shootings like we have had with Columbine and Virginia Tech and Orlando. America back then was still primarily and agrarian nation with a lot of farmers and hunters and ranchers. The country still had militias.

Times are very very different now, obviously, and I have little doubt that if the Founding Fathers were alive and were apprised of the gun violence we have endured over the past two decades or so that they would gladly re-write the 2nd Amendment in a New York second. Or should I say a Philadelphia second?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

How is this possibly a good question by Jolie? How can you claim that nobody thought about gun control during a time period when they introduced the gun control act of 1968?

You can't even figure out that gun control was discussed during a time period when a gun control act was passed, so what makes you think you are qualified to discuss what the founding fathers would do?

JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

As has already been pointed out - we DID pass new laws after the attempted assassination of FDR, and again in 1968. We also passed the Brady Bill after the attempted assassination of Reagan (who spoke in favor of the bill).

1 point

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.

Human nature hasn't changed.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The checks and balances that were put into the constitution were meant to distribute power.

The second amendment gives power to the people, keeping government power in check.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

We must not weaken the pillars that support freedom.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

So where was the call for restrictions on gun ownership MOONBEAM ? Please if you will provide that information on the IGNORANCE YOU SPEW !

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You are admitting that you think everything in that act was not gun control.

'The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.'

1 point

There you go then. We don't need any more laws.

1 point

Few people owned a Gatling Gun when Lincoln was assassinated. Today millions of AR-15's are in homes.

President Reagan supported the Brady Bill .... wonder why??

If the Assault Weapons Ban hadn't been allowed to lapse there wouldn't BE those millions of AR-15's. That little Congressional glitch ALLOWED the recent assault weapon tragedies! The blame is on Congress, face it Congresspeople! (But , JEEZ, It's been SO lucrative for the gun lobby! So far the massive killings hasn't reduced the buyers by a noticeable amount, soooo,'s what causes conservative orgasm!

1 point

massive killings

Why don't we ban cars? They kill way more people every year than guns.

Do you believe that the reason for the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the possibility of a rogue government?

Which do you believe would have a greater impact on our citizens, terrorists or a rogue government?

Do you believe that by slowly eroding the system of checks and balances currently in place will not make it easier for a rogue government to come into power?

Do you believe that the war on drugs was any more effective than prohibition?

AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

Do YOU believe that the American military would turn against America? The American military is made up of husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers! No politician is going to turn Americans against their families and friends! The "rogue government" in a democracy has NO CHANCE! The military would turn against any "non-freedom" movement that endangered their families.

Should we ban "no-fly lists" because they infringe on our Constitutional rights? If you are on that list you have the "right" to contest it. Why is it different , if you are on that list, to have the "right" to contest your inability to buy a gun?? WE, the PEOPLE have the "right" to protect ourselves from a whacko who wants a gun! TOO bad that they have to go through a process, a delay, to PROVE that THEY DESERVE their rights ... just like one who is mistakenly listed as dangerous. It is NOT taking away their rights "until we know what's going on", as Donald Trump would say! Funny, millions of gun owners stand by him on that, and wont stand by other Americans who have a "RIGHT" to know "what's going on" in the mind of a potentially dangerous gun buyer!

Prohibition made things worse. Do YOU really think that not fighting against Heroin, Cocaine and Opiates would be a thing we could live with?

We have "regulations" on cars and their drivers that DO save lives. We could have "regulations" on guns that would save lives ,,,, and yet not ban them!