There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms.

I would like to give some insight in to where my POV is coming from. I am all for responsible gun ownership. I realize that like all other rights that these rights are not absolute. As an example there are in fact reasonable limits to free-speech rights, and I am of the view that there are and should be reasonable limits to gun rights as well. I am not sure what has caused me to be more vocal on the gun control issue. It may have started August 5, 2012, when sitting at a stop light. The cop across the way suddenly turned on his lights and took off for the Sikh temple a mile and a half up the road(given the timing, that car most likely held the cop that the shooter shot). Or perhaps it started October 21 2012, when I realize 2 days before hand I had drove by the spa that was shot up . Now please don't think I am anti-gun, I just started hunter safety last Monday and hope to buy a gun yet this year, and if I become a threat to others I hope the government by powers granted in the 5th and 14th amendment (due process) takes away these rights as well, to prevent abuse of them. Lets take a look at some of the things Pro said Pro said "Sure, people die in the U. S from guns. But they also die from car accidents, drunk drivers, curable diseases, and gang activities"This is a red herring, in context it does not matter that people die in numerous ways. We should strive to prevent all needless death, and failure to be as proactive in some areas as in others is not a defense to not acting where and when we can on one of the causes of needless death. Pro said " . .. When someone is murdered with an ax, you say "This is such a terrible man. Who could do such a thing? " But when someone is shot, you automatically attack the guns. "Actually I think they are horrible people too. So why do we look at guns? It is simple of all the tools you noted, fire arms are the only ones designed solely for the intent of entering live flesh in order to kill; it can produce the fastest kill rate; and it is long range. In the case of all the other tools noted, the tool is being used improperly in hand to hand combat where an unarmed victim may have some fighting chance. Pro said "So stop putting all the blame on the guns"Pro is the one that set up this debate. The proposition is about "There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms. " It is my plan to look at the total argumentIn this debate. I will focus on arms and not just guns. It would seem the proper definition of "arm" is "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. "[1]One of my key contentions is that we currently do limit gun ownership. an example of this is, in our current society no civilian has an automatic right to own an RPG. RPGs are arms yet access to them is restricted by laws. Oddly enough you don't hear people up in arms(pun realized after the fact) that they can not get RPGs off the shelf no questions asked. For the proposition, "There should not be any laws prohibiting or infringing on our rights to bear arms. ", to stand Pro needs to successfully argue existing laws need to be struck down along with any future laws on this issue. To argue any less that that is to take my position that the right to bear arms noted in the second amendment like all other rights are subject to reasonable limitations which include limited prohibitions and restrictions. Does Pro believe that stopping a felon from buying an RPG is infringing on the right of that individual to bear arms, and that it is absolutely wrong to do so no mater what mitigating circumstances. We do have laws that limit who can bear arms and what arms they can bear, yet Pro has not touched on this yet. The government can and does take guns away from people. In Wisconsin if you are caught poaching the DNR will seize your guns. Now perhaps Pro will suggest poachers forfeit their rights to their guns by their actions, but that is my argument that reasonable restrictions and limitations are warranted that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Pro said " Sure, it'll be a pain to reload, but when a crazy, lunatic killer is shooting, I'm sure he doesn't mind the imposition. "And one question to put to Pro, should we limit the rights of mentally ill people who are homicidal to bear arms? I say Yes, if they are a perceivable danger. What say Pro? Pro said "People are too quick to trade their freedom for security. "What freedom or safety do the 32,163[2] people that died due to firearms in 2011 have? That is 10.3 deaths per 100,000[2]. Honestly I can not make heads or tails of this comment by Pro. Do guns equal freedom and no guns equal security or do no guns equal freedom and guns equal security? Pro has offered a very weak argument for the right to bear arms to be an unrestricted right, predicated on bare assertions that such restrictions will not fully solve the problem of mass shootings, while ignoring the fact that there are laws already on the book that restrict or prohibit gun ownership. To argue against building a smarter mouse trap because if we do nature will make a smarter mouse is a poor excuse for why we are not dealing with a rodent infestation. [1]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] . http://www.gunpolicy.org...