New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

I know the feeling with tardiness, and my appreciation as always for the time spent on the debate. Onto the last round.--------------------C1. Constitution & Intention1. My argument was not that false laws or interpretations last forever, but that they DO happen. Popular opinion, legislation, and even judiciary scrutiny is not infallible, and so these laws that restrict personal freedoms are damaging still.2. My opponent, (this third person stuff seems rude, I must say), is asserting that the mere possession of firearms by others infringes upon he(r?) right to life and due process. I posit that such a relation doesn't exist. To infringe upon those rights would require unlawful murder, and that is a matter separate from the right to keep and bear arms.3. I am adding an argument here. My opponent implied that being shot in the assumed perpetration of a crime is a violation of he(r? I need a new pronoun) right to due process. Unfortunately this set of priorities places the right of life and due process of the suspect above the right to life of any possible victims in the area. This priority would criminalize an individual defending their right to life, and place law-abiding citizens at the mercy of ruffians. I disagree.1. I hate to reference scalia, but I defer to him in DOCvheller:"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people""---------------------------------------It seems that while my opponent is able to argue that I am advocating an anarchistic state where vigilantism rules, the more than obvious extrapolation of my opponents arguments are non-topical. This is unfortunate as my opponent's words are saturated with inferences to just such a degree. And to add to it now I feel embarrassed expressing my anguish over this, botching of an opening, as if it were only a ploy to win. Euch.---------------------------------------My opponent routinely calls on the unpredictability and unreasonableness of humans as a species in looking towards control. However, the same scrutiny of an individual human is denied to the structures and organizations, to the macro interactions of the species. Hamilton said in federalist paper 34,"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."If we are to remain skeptical of human nature, then it should be obvious that disarmament, strict or otherwise, and reliance on the society, (not your neighbors, friends nor community), on the state, is a fool-hardy endeavor that leaves its members open to abuse. The social contract requires the abandonment of some rights to secure safety & stability for it's users, but to take away a person's right to defend themselves * is treading down a dark road.*,AGAINST ANYTHING, for the sake of the social contract,*This argument is non-topical, much to my chagrin. Therefore it only applies to talks of Britain.2. Prove it won't occur on US soil.-------------------------------------C2. Forfeit & strongarm1. Outclassed, no retort.2. An armed home owner scares burglars most of all. The same can be assumed for other crimes, and a fear is a logical deterrence.Forfeit on other points.-oh, except screw becoming Britain. Free speech isn't the same as in the US and the cameras + lack of arms aren't encouraging.-------------------------------------C3.1. Appeal to emotion, and an analogy that doesn't give you an advantage-To use your analogy, if those kids were shown porn regularly, you can BET they will know what goes where and what happens. All 200 of them were, in fact, having sex after all. That would be proof of concept for me if they were only exposed to porn.But, you can also bet they'll be much more likely to know what the hell a condom is than a kid in an abstinence program, unless you're showing them that bareback stuff. (BTW you started it)Exposure learns you, end of story. 2.Yeah, gotcha. An addition to the automotive class that includes guns, if everyone has the option, is the position I'm coming out of this with. This addresses your #2 of the 3rd response, as it did last round.-------------------------------------I concede a defeat.We both are aware of human nature, but I guess, I'm more concerned with the danger of a syndicate than I am of a single individual. One can defend oneself against an individual after all. And beyond a well-educated population, an armed well-educated population will see to the continuation of a social contract much better than otherwise. Plus I'm a big fan of that one Benjamin Franklin quote. My thanks for spending the time, enjoy the win.