The right to bear arms.

I'll address his rebuttals and then support my points. "Militia was the group of men called upon to help defend against British Attacks. These were ordinary citizens. Take Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. He calls upon the people to GRAB THEIR WEAPONS and help defend. The people is the militia. " But they were colonies - they didn't have their own military. We have the National Guard, the military, etc. today. So in this day, the people are not the militia. The militia has been defined last round. "Then he brings up that the guns were from Britain and were only supposed to be used for hunting. Lol, he is essentially saying that the colonists had no right to fight Britain. " Technically, yes. The colonists illegally fought Britain. I'm not saying they shouldn't have, I'm just saying it was against the law at that time. "ONLY IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS CAN WE EVER DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A TYRANT. " This is not true. We can still defend ourselves from a tyrant through the National Guard. Keep in mind that States can also call the NG. Also, who says we are able to have a U. S. tyrant in this age? Our system of government prevents one branch from having too much power. "No its not. It is clearly saying that the people have the right to bear arms. Either for protection or hunting. " OK, let's break this down even more. Here is the amendment: "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. " Note the fact that "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a clause and an absolute phrase. It also has the same sentence structure as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Both can be taken out of a sentence and the sentence would still make sense. So we'll remove that part. DISCLAIMER: I'm not changing the wording of the Second Amendment. I'm just showing what "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is. "A well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Now look at the sentence. Common grammar tells us that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" acts as an absolute phrase. This means it describes and EXTENDS the subject (in this case "A well-regulated militia"), so it is giving a well-regulated militia the right to keep and own a gun. "My Response: The point of the contention is, if the government truly wanted to protect against death, ban automobiles not guns. " But you're wrong. If the government wanted to prevent automobile deaths, they would ban such things as alcohol, which cause people to recklessly use their cars. Not only are cars necessary for timely transport, the cars themselves are not the cause of death. Likewise, if the government wanted to prevent gun violence, they would make guns available only to a well-regulated militia, so the cause of death, crazy people with a gun, would be prevented (crazy people wouldn't get the guns, only a well-regulated militia). "First, I want to see where you got this. However more importantly, there are so many protections against getting a gun. U need to take a physical, and psychological test beforehand. Cars are 50x more available then guns. " Alright, so to get a gun, you need to take physical and psychological tests. To get a car, you need to take written and driving tests. To get a gun, you need ID and a permit/license. You also need ID and a permit and license to get a car. Getting a car also takes much longer than a gun. You need to sign loan forms and insurance papers. A gun is easier to get than a car. It may not be available to as many people, but that doesn't matter. It's easier to get. Not only that, but a wider range of people can use a gun. Can a four year old drive? No. Can a four year old pull a trigger? Yes. (Don't tell me no, because it's happened). A gun is easier to get, and is able to be used by pretty much everyone. Finally, I will look at his voting issues: 1) "To truly uphold the security of a free state, we as the people and true leaders of America, have the right to fight for our own freedom if it ever gets infringed on. " This is pretty much a restatement of the Second Amendment. He's saying that if our right to freedom gets infringed, we can defend it. We already know this. However, note that he doesn't say anything about guns. We can defend it other ways. Arson, riots, etc. Besides, the State can call the NG to defend itself. So this point does not help him, and should not be a reason to vote for him. 2) "We all have right to self-defense, guns aid in protection of ourselves. It should be allowed if someone wishes to have one. " True, we do have the right to defend ourselves. And guns do help with that. However, they are not necessary. As I have said before, we can use other self-defense methods, such as arson, riots, etc. Furthermore, consider this: everyone has a gun. Your house gets broken into and the burglar pulls out a gun. You pull out yours. What good does that do? You both have a gun, so neither of you has more of an advantage over the other. The only thing that has occured is that you are both equally matched, because either one of you can end the other's life with the pull of a trigger. 3) "The clause clearly states militia and people, both referring outside of the formed military. The Framers knew this, and it's our job to keep our protected right. " I already used common grammar to show that this is not how the framers meant it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now here are the reasons that you should vote for me. 1) I have rebutted all of my opponent's points and rebuttals. 2) As I have shown above, you have no reason to vote for my opponent. 3) Common grammar and the other reasons I have stated prove my point. Please remember to vote on the debate, not the issue.