The following is a point/counterpoint discussion regarding the regulation of guns in the United States. James Bethel, a former Army infantryman who served in Afghanistan, will present the point. Alvin Rodriguez, a former Army infantryman who served in Afghanistan, will present the counterpoint.
POINT: I remember the first time I handled an assault rifle. Shortly after my entry into Army basic training, the drill sergeants explained that this weapon, an M4 rifle, would need to be with me at all times. We were taught everything about it, from how to use it, how to clean it, and of course, how to shoot it. And when I went to Afghanistan, I did plenty of that. But I don't really know whether this same type of weapon belongs on American streets, especially in the wake of deadly massacres in Las Vegas, Orlando, and sadly, so many other places.
COUNTERPOINT: Look at this stupid liberal snowflake right here. I can tell he's a stupid communist-sympathizing Killary supporter just by reading his first sentence, where he mentions "assault rifle." That term is completely made up. No one would call an M4, or an AR-15, an assault rifle — except for a liberal piece of shit like this guy, of course. Did you even serve?
POINT: Like so many of my fellow Americans, I watched what happened in Las Vegas with absolute horror. That one man can acquire dozens of high-powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, and then unleash it on unsuspecting concertgoers, should give all Americans pause. We still don't know why he did what he did, but we do know that he had a large cache of weaponry.
Could this have been prevented? Could lawmakers pass laws that may prevent similar episodes in the future, such as a ban on so-called "bump fire" stocks that allow fully-automatic fire? Perhaps we can have a discussion about limiting the number of guns a person can have, or we can implement a system to flag people like Stephen Paddock if they purchase large amounts of weapons and ammo.
COUNTERPOINT: You know, I served my country and protected everyone's freedom — especially their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms — when I was fighting in Afghanistan. And I cannot believe this liberal piece of shit is trying to take everyone's guns away.
Let me explain something to you. Most American gun owners are nice, law-abiding people. All they want is to use their guns for hunting, personal protection, or, just to shoot for fun. The founders of our country enshrined gun ownership in the Constitution so that we could rise up and overthrow the government if it ever became oppressive.
And you know what other oppressive governments did? Before they took over their countries, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler all confiscated guns from their citizens. So you agree with Hitler, huh?
POINT: Like many Americans, I don't really think that banning guns is the answer. There are simply too many guns in circulation, and the fact is, most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. But I do think that we can probably agree that something like preventing mentally-ill people from purchasing guns or requiring background checks before everyone buys a gun are reasonable steps to have in place.
These small steps probably would not have stopped the shooter in Las Vegas, but perhaps, it would have made it a little bit harder for him to acquire some of his weapons. Regardless, these small moves would very likely minimize other deadly incidents in the future, just as the 1934 National Firearms Act has made the thought of using machine guns in crimes virtually unheard of.
COUNTERPOINT: As a veteran, I'm appalled by this liberal snowflake's ridiculous "logic." If you pass a law against guns, it's only going to affect the people who actually obey the laws. Criminals won't care about it, and they'll get their guns some other way. Oh, and by the way, there's this pesky thing called the Constitution which, I think it's quite obvious, you completely despise.
But don't worry. I'll be here to defend it from demon-crats like you.