U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms

I wouldn't need to be so patronizing if Pro's arguments weren't so stupid. Since his last argument is a disorganized mess of misstatements and out of context quotes, I am choosing to make a new, final set of assertions which support my argument, and directly refute many of the points he made outside of his formal contentions:Guns are property - So what?So is heroin. So are slaves. So are nuclear weapons and materials. The fact that something is property, even property that was previously quite legal to posses in America, like heroin and slaves, has no bearing on the right to posses it.This may sound like an offensive set of statements to some, but if there was any property that guns were meant to protect at the onset of The US Constitution, or I should say, protect against, it was slaves.[4]Since keeping slaves is no longer legal in The US, and the only property protection considered in the formation of the 2nd Amendment was slaves, and also because, as shown above, property right are not absolute, the basis of the right to own a gun as property, or to protect property, does not exist, in and of itself.People with OR WITHOUT firearms may form a militia - a poorly regulated militia, not a well regulated onePro cites U.S.C. Title 10, as well as Mason and Corbin, in stating that we're all already in a militia. Great. 53% of us in this militia don't own guns.[1] Why are guns necessary again?Of course, what Pro was talking about here, and what he even went further to call out was what is defined as the "unorganized militia". The 2nd amendment doesn't say, "A disorganized, clusterf*ck of a militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". It says a well regulated one is.And, as 14 states found out recently when they tried to form their own, armed militias (unarmed, organized state militias are permitted currently) and had each of their governors threatened with prosecution for treason, a well-regulated, ARMED militia is no longer within the realm of possibility.[3]Because that singular legitimate purpose, the only one enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, is no longer possible, the reason for the right to bear arms also no longer exists, and therefore the right no longer exist (no longer should exist).The right to bear...false witnessIn another portion of his argument, Pro states that it is a natural right to be able to posses all property which doesn't unnecessarily interfere with the life and/or liberty of others. Well guess what? It is the purpose of a gun to interfere with life. When used properly, in fact, it is its purpose to permanently interfere with life. I guess Pro thinks this is reasonable. There are (or, were) 20 children in Connecticut whom I believe might disagree.2/3 of all homicides in The US are committed with a firearm[1]Over 1/2 of all suicides in The US are committed with a firearm[1]And, a full 100% of all accidental gun deaths in The US involve a firearm[1]The US has more firearms, and more firearms per capita, than any other nation on the planet...BY FAR[1]Among industrialized nations, The US has, by far the highest murder rate, surpassing the next closest nation by over 50%, and surpassing others by between 200% and over 800%. Ironically, our assault rate is quite low, but fear of assault is quite high. Why is this? It is because assaults in The US typically involve guns, and guns are scary (assaults which lead to homicides are reclassified as murders)[2]Being in fear is an assault on liberty. Being murdered is an assault on life. Since guns serve no legitimate purpose, as intended by the framers, I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to assert that because of this, Americans' right to posses firearms is long overdue for repeal. A final thought on James MadisonI only called out Madison to show his intentions when he wrote the 2nd amendment, because HE WROTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT. As I have already shown, intent is paramount to a contract, and this is where Madison's importance in this argument starts and ends.As it turns out, Madison was unable to time travel 200 years into the future to see the technological advancements which make his assumption about a civilian force being, at all times, more powerful than the central government, absolutely wrong.Remote controlled missiles, remote controlled bombs and bombs with the capability to destroy entire populations of a state with the push of a button render this prediction by Madison not only incorrect, but completely ludicrous.Firearms, as defined for this argument, offer no protection against this kind tyranny, nor any other, and from this point forward, they never will. Madison lived in a time when the private citizen could own weapons of a power to equal the weapons of the government. That time has long since passed.He was wrong, and since the only purpose guns serve are exactly the antithesis of the purpose he thought they would serve, they should be, immediately, outlawed.Conclusions1. As I have shown, there is no absolute right to own, or protect, property, and especially not one which includes firearms.2. The one true purpose of owning firearms is no longer possible to achieve.3. Guns offer no protection against tyranny, nor do they have any appreciable affect in the promotion of life and/or liberty.4. To the contrary, guns take away so much from the life and liberty of others that the right to possess them, since it no longer exists, should be immediately repealed.Sources[1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...[2] http://www.nysun.com...[3] http://www.infowars.com...