More Guns are Not the Answer to Stopping Gun Violence

You see you are incorrect when you say that black people and women would be unable to vote because it is written in the constitution that they are now able to, so don't make up stuff to make you sound better. If you are for giving up liberty for safety then by all means you be a slave. What i am saying is that if you say government should be allowed to say anyone can't defend themselves, where exactly did they get that power to take over someones right of self defense from. When the government gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves their is obviously tyranny, so you think its okay to live life as a slave to tyranny as long as the tyrants don't restrict you from owning a gun? I'm sorry but that sounds like hypocrisy. More guns is better than less guns. You see if our government would stop discouraging people to defend themselves then more people would defend themselves, our government is 100% institutionalizing children to be scared to defend themselves, this can be seen in zero tolerance school rules where you are arrested for defending yourself. I'm sure you will refuse to hear me out and continue to believe the whole 'if we are nice to them they will be nice to us, BS". But if you learn anything from what i'm saying it is this, if you call yourself American and you are for putting restrictions on the only right in the constitution that says shall not be infringed (use common sense ask yourself "why did they write that only in the 2nd amendment?")You are spitting on the graves of the thousands of soldiers that died so we could do what we want, you are sticking the middle finger our founding fathers principles of law declaring your's are better. What you support is lawlessness you are supporting a strong government rather you know it or not. I know i posted this in the comments but i will post it here as my argument now. http://www.cnsnews.com.... http://dailycaller.com.... https://www.washingtonpost.com.... That was for round two so now lets get to round three. If the government was allowed to restrict or limit a RIGHT that then turns your right into a government PRIVILEGE meaning that the government then gets too decide who can or cannot defend themselves this then gives the government more power. The people own their own rights meaning only we can restrict or limit our rights not the government. What i said about John Locke is true, the right to defend our own life, liberty, and property, is definitely 100% part of constitution principles. go to this website,( http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com....) and you will then find out exactly our principles. in case you didn't know they didn't support government tyranny. This is all I have too say now. I will now leave it to the voters. I will sum up my debate in case the voters didn't read it all. I have based my principles off of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, And George Washington. All of these people understood that government by nature wants too rule over people, they knew if a government was to try to grow in power they will first go for the peoples arms, making people unable to revolt, also if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would then have guns, which would then leave law-abiding citizens no choice but to rely on government safety. My argument for "more guns are not the answer to stopping gun violence" is that neither of them would stop gun violence if you restrict guns, their will still be gun violence, and if you have more guns their will still be gun violence, the only thing is that if we had more people with guns i would still be able to defend myself. Instead of bringing a knife to a gun fight.