No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

Right, ok, first a rebuttal then my own case. "1) The USA constitution does not grant this right. A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all. "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." While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right." My Response: ok, lets first off and define the difference between a right and privilege. [Definition - Right] 1. A legal or moral entitlement [Definition - Privilege] 1. a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all Now, looking at this definitions, my opponent claim that its a privilege is off base. He says that its a noun, and thus a privilege, not a right. I have the right to property, i.e. a noun, I have the right to life, i.e. a noun. Therefore, a right can be a noun or a verb. Drop my opponents contention 1. "2) It is cruel to the bear In many cases, the operation is done in a cruel way. Many times, the bear is killed for the sole purpose of having its arms harvested by a scrawny nerd. While arm commandeering may be appropriate if the bear has died of natural causes, it is otherwise a cruel and unnecessary practice. 3) Such a right would raise maulings by an alarming rate Current estimates show there to have been three fatal bear attacks in North America in the year 2007. There are approximately 1,000,000 bears in North America. Now if every US citizen were to have the right to have their arms changed to that of a bear, we would expect a 300 fold increase in the amount of bear related deaths. This is just unacceptable." My Response: Link his contentions 2 and 3 for my attack. He contradicts himself by using these 2 points. How? Because he "claims" that its a privilege, and as what he calls a noun. Chopping off a bears arm is a VERB, not a noun, and therefore according to my opponent should be a right, since its a verb. So, you can either accept his contention 1, and thus dropping contentions 2 and 3, or accept 2 and 3 and drop 1. "Please note- A successful CON argument must prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear." My Response: LOL, this is a funny burden. However, i argue that yes everyone should have the right to do that. It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them. =============================================================================== My Case: Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary. Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms. --Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves. Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government. =============================================================================== It's for these reasons I negate. I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military. A) The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. B) Guns are necessary for self-defense. We as people have the right to bear arms so we can defend ourselves and our own property. The government has no right to take away a means for self-defense. If weapons are taken away, let's see we have knives and our body. Once guns are taken away, then the sale of the black market would increase. Killers would get the guns, and we,the innocent people would be faced against a killer with a gun. Its stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. The innocents are unprotected, and the killers are armed. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.