"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

You very successfully rebutted my first point, but my point still stands, while it will be harder, the violence will not be stopped and the illegal gun smuggling will not stop. I understand your point is that it will lessen, and maybe that's true, but it will also take away my rights and freedoms so that you can feel safer, and I'd rather not test and see where it goes. - Yeah, in the Preamble, not the second amendment. that's not my point. The constitution is for the people, not states or governments or armies, for the people. - This is because it was sourceless. http://www.lawnix.com... RULING: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. I never said, "What's the point of the comma?" I said, "What's the point of the first clause then?" If we interpret it your way, it doesn't make sense, as the first established nothing and there would be no reason for it. If you interpret it my way, it makes more sense. It establishes the right for militias to exist. This is because, as I've stated before, the U.S. army was almost nonexistent then, so the founding fathers decided to use the people to defend our country as well. In asking for the point of the first part, you imply that you are asking why the comma exists, referencing the first part of the amendment that is separated from the second by the comma. - I disagree. The AR-15 is not good for hunting or self-defense. Hunting takes patience. You wait for hours, then when you see an animal, you slowly aim, then fire your shot. If you miss your first round, the animal will obviously hear you and run away. If you had a semi auto, maybe you could get another shot, but is that really the point of hunting? You aren't supposed to fire tons of rounds at an animal, you only should need one, or more, if you track it. Yes, you can use it, but it is not meant for it. You could use pretty much any gun for hunting, at with varying effects. The AR-15 CAN be used for hunting was my point, not the effectiveness of it. It is an accurate weapon when used correctly, and can take down most game cleanly. It is perfectly effective and useful for hunters. As for self defense, your point is useless, because you say a semi-automatic is not useful because its a medium range gun, but a pistol is semi-automatic, and you say that's useful. You rebut yourself, or just show a clear lack of knowledge of guns. [B] Once again, I can throw out this source. It has no evidence, other then the authors say so. The source says the fathers knew about the Air Rifle, but once again, it links to no historical documents or anything of that sort. http://constitution.com... They were not fools and were not oblivious to the existence of advanced firearms for the time. They were well-known firearms, the Giradoni rifles, and there is not one doubt in any person with common sense's mind that the founding fathers knew about them. [C] This is incorrect [1]. This is a link to a video with a gun that can be fired while attached to a drone. So this is legal for civilians. My point is again, as tech improves, laws need to as well. Yes, the Giradoni Air Rifle existed, but it is nothing compared to the guns we have today. that drone is equipped with a civilian grade firearm, I assumed you were referencing actual drones that were equipped with military grade weaponry that were accurate and dangerous. The drone you showed had no means of being accurate, isn't being mass produced, was handmade by the owner (just like any explosive or other dangerous things could be) and isn't in very many people's hands. And, like I said before, just because new tech is being produced, doesn't mean I should have to give up my rights in the modern world. - I don't get what you are trying to say here. My point is that an AR-15 is a gun well fit for civilian use, it's not even a military weapon, and it is used in a minuscule amount of shootings. - This doesn't rebut my statement. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't address my point. Your point is that banning firearms is perfectly okay by the second amendment, and its exactly what you said. " Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knives, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms." and it's been a reoccurring argument on your side. - Oh come on. You don't expect people to buy this, right? These are all 3rd world countries, some of which have drug cartels. These are not fair comparisons. you tried to use countries with 10% of our population as a fair comparison too. I'd like to bring that back for a moment, actually. "rates are controlled for population" yes, but a rate per 100,000 people is not a percentage. It isn't equal if the total numbers are different. just because it is "controlled for population" doesn't mean it can be compared with countries with 300 million more people. these countries like Canada and Australia have much less "per 100,000's" than we do, so they have less people that CAN die per 100,000. These countries are also less free than we are. Like I've said, America should be a free country, even if that means giving up our safety. I'd rather have freedom over safety. Please watch that video with a more open mind. You clearly ignored it just because of who was providing information. I know you don't like Steven Crowder, but seriously, he makes excellent points in this video, points that I have not enough characters to portray. You don't have to, but seriously, my argument is made much clearer when you have the information he provides, and here are all of the sources. http://louderwithcrowder.com... reduction of crime. I provided 3 examples to prove this. Japan, Canada, and the individual states. Canada and Japan have a significantly lower crime rate then the HS, and they have much stricter gun laws. I then provided and example of the states. I provided a chart which showed that states with more gun laws had a lower gun homicide rate. My opponent drops this completely. So he agrees; gun control reduces crime. http://www.mediaite.com... http://tv.naturalnews.com... I didn't agree. Don't make assumptions because I didn't rebut you. I didn't have enough characters, and I decided to focus on the new issues you brought into the argument. - Lower then whos'. And I was only basing this off gun homicides. Lower than most countries with high amounts of gun control. - Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. The study I linked too showed that 75% of convicted felons said they carried guns because their victims might be armed as well. So the more people get armed, the more criminals arm themselves. This means innocent people could get shot by criminals, just because of the chance they were carrying guns This study basically says "criminals are afraid of people with guns so people shouldn't have guns so the criminals aren't afraid and won't carry guns. Disarm the victims so that the suspects won't need to." (this is my translation of it) since gun ownership has gone up in the recent decades, gun violence has gone down in the US https://ucr.fbi.gov... http://www.npr.org... as gun ownership in the U.S. has gone up, gun violence has gone down drastically. Here are some sources to back up several of my claims http://www.abcnewspoint.com... I'm going to take a few characters just to say a few final things not pertaining to the debate. Thank you for making my first debate intellectual and fun to do. Also, You've regained some of my respect for your side of the argument, although I don't agree with it in the slightest. I'm also glad to see that there's a part of the internet that isn't all just trolls saying "kys" So he agrees; gun control reduces crime. DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER? It was fun!