Gun rights

" I do not support the first amendment. I do not believe in freedom of religion and we do not have freedom of speech. If we have freedom of speech, we could say "fire" in a theater or yell "this is a robbery" in a bank. Because we cant, we don't have the freedom of speech. Therefore, my first argument stands."Not to be mean or anything, but have you read the constitution. On private property they can censor you. The news can censor you, I can censor you, a theatre can make rules saying what you can say in a movie theatre. The constirution is about the goverment not taking away these rights. So in a bar the bar can choose to say 'hey put away your gun' but a goverment agent cant. So those laws in my about the bar thing is un-constitutional and it should be bar owner chooses. Also Since now you know people can't say that then you will probably like it. Also you are probably for a free trial, and that is still 300 years old. If you are against that then North Korea would be a good area for that ideology. But In america I will accept your opinion. "If person "X" uses a gun to kill a criminal "person Y" who had a gun, then person "X" still used a gun to kill. Here it is as an equation: GUN -/+ GUN = GUN being used at one point or another, either to be used for crime or against crime."So you sare saying owning a gun from a gun dealer is bad? And the dealer never says go kill him with this gun. That claim is proposterous. Your saying in self-defense you would use the gun to kill, which = crime. You probably disregarded my scource and statement on that. It said what like 98% of self defense cases involve no shots fired. Just the showing of the gun. So your claim is going against the facts. "Whether the gun is touched or not, it still is "Able" to be used for harm." How? an inanimant object cant do anything! I repeat, can a inanimat object kill you? NO! Not without a 2nd party interferance. A gun that is not touched I garrentee will not go off, only if something touches it would it have any chance to do so. Heck I'll bet 1,000,000$! Your claim is saying something that can't do anything on its own would hurt someone. Sorry, but basic knowlage trumps you there. By the way, I have refuted your arguments twice now, and both times where sufficient your case is totally invalid. Now I will add more detail to each of my 3 points so I will have a strong case, although it already was. 1. protected by law. Since I disproved your 300 years ago statement, I will keep pressing this argument. Also aai dont understand your hatred towards wikipedia if it is as good as brittannica. So I will give you other scources that you would not object too. The militia phrase is the one that people like you use. Well people that look at that and take that stance fail to recognise the 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. So that is pretty darn clear. The militia thing says the army has guns, this says the people can too. To "keep" arms means keeping one's own, private, arms. Also I think I addressed this earlier, look at the shall not be infringed. That means it is protecting something that should already be there. (the right should already be god given/exist already). So it is protected, we agree, so that already solidifys my main argument. 2. lower crimeI've already showed my reasoning, but here are the stats (graphs):- So theres that. 3. Guns are not dangerous. I have said a lot already. An inanimant object cant kill alone, it needs something alive to pull the trigger. So guns are not inherintly dangerous, but people are.