Gun rights

The BoP is on both of us, just clarifying that. And I deny your video request, what I said still stands, I'll just post one later in the debate. 1. The constitution lays it out. My first point will be about political ideologies. It is against the founding fathers ideologies to be against guns. So that is simple logic, also without guns america would have gotten their butts whooped during the revolution, so they thought more guns would help in this instance. You will probably say how would we win against an army with only guns. In WW2 the Warsaw ghetto revolt took place. A few hundred Jews lightly armed held of 2,000 German soldiers, and 200 of them where the elite S.S. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org... The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] This part was copied from: http://en.wikipedia.org... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Look at this like a grammarian, shall not be infringed. The comma and the word infringed, that means it should already be a given right and an obvious one. Also the second part of that phrase says the right of the people... So it is protected by law. So political ideology, plain words, and grammar the 2nd amendment is a valid gun protection law. 2. Lowers crime. Violent crime decreased six percent between 2009 and 2010, including a four percent decrease in murder and a ten percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 47 percent to a 36-year low. Murder has fallen 51 percent to a 46-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called "assault weapons," would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.4 (1) Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal "assault weapon" ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters` agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have "castle doctrine" laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.9 Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime. (1) During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower (2) Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban (2) Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower (2) Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect (2) Now here are numbers that prove more guns less crime, not only the less guns more crime things listed above: * Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower (2) Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower (2) 3. Guns aren't dangerous. This is probably the most shaky and controversial argument I put forth, but are guns really dangerous. Well if I had a fully loaded gun on my counter and NO ONE touched it would it go off? Lets say NOTHING touched it would it go off? Not you might say what if you drop it, it might go off then. That is false. Historically that is true but new safety mechanisms on guns show that if you drop it it will not go off unless the trigger is pulled. So the dropping argument is a fallacy, and wouldn't someone or something have to touch it to make it fall? A gun it self isn't inheritly dangerous, if it goes off it is the person who is handling it's fault. So that is the clarification. Guns aren't dangerous unless messed with. It is an inanimate object, so saying a gun is dangerous is like saying a bed is dangerous. Their both inanimate, so it cant be blamed, only the user. User error, not gun error. Yes I knew that was repetitive, but I needed to let it sink in :) And also how does something that lowers crime be largly dangerous? for Graphs for my 2nd point look at my (2) scource. I like graphs more then words. Also I will still post a video, but later on. Sources: http://www.nraila.org... (1) http://www.justfacts.com... (2)