For my debate topic I got the Ban on Assault Rifles but the con side. This means that I have to argue that assault rifles do not need to be banned, and the primary argument is that this would be taking away from citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Personally, I did not have much of an opinion beforehand because I felt like I was not educated on the topic enough to have a full argument on my side. I do feel like after doing some research on this issue that I can now see that it is a much bigger argument. One of the main ideas is that there is no set definition for “assault rifles.” That means that this style of weapon could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Some people say that an assault rifle is based on how many bullets the magazine holds, or if it is a military-style weapon. There also was a ban in the late 1990s banning certain semi-automatic weapons. Some of the information I get with a simple google search is a lot of bias websites. There are usually only websites that are either for or against the ban. There’s a lot of good information that I can use I just have to be careful not to pick information only from one side. Some of the ways I plan to address this argument with logic is to use the main definitions of an assault rifle and explain how that is being used to take away from simple gun owners who legally own their weapons, which is protected under the Second Amendment. I am also going to take statistics of gun violence incidents and show how many of them involved assault rifles. One ethical issue that could relate to this topic is that the constitution states that citizens have the right to bear arms and by banning assault rifles you are taking away from their rights. A lot of emotions could be brought into play by both sides, one side using all of the mass shootings and the lives lost with them, and the other side using the emotions of having rights taken away.