gun rights

:) Libya had guns, ha ha. Since when Qaddafi ilegalized them, those where smuggled in from Europe. So that goes with my case that if illegilized you still get guns. defense on my sources behalf. I never said it was about that ban, it is just showing the stats if you restrict guns, since you asked I will give you stats on this subject of a ban: http://www.gunblast.com... This talks about the gun bans in England and that criminals still have guns. Here's another: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu... Same stuff with more numbers though. It is also simple logic that this would raise crime. Would you rather rob someone when guns are allowed ad it is possible that they can shoot you, or when they don't have guns. Um, this is a gun rights debate you have to act like you disagree with the second amendment. If you take he con side that is implied. Then you have to prove that it doesn't relate to normal citizens. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (do't worry there is a lot of web sites that can help you) "Again, the second amendment is what we are debating, not a defense for the pro." You have to disagree that is IMPLIED IF YOU ARE CON! And that makes no sense at all, you just said this isn't my defense, if you are against guns in this debate, then you have to show me that I have no legal protection in that right. People ill still have guns after a ban. Do you know how easy it is to make an ak-47? Terrorists do it in huts in Pakistan all that all time. I made an AR-15 with my dad in the garage a year ago, and my neighbor does that as a hobby. So even if a murderer gives away his gun, (which he wouldn't care because he's gonna kill someone anyway) then he can just make a new one. And most f the black market from guns in this country isn't from gun stores, but from Europe. http://www.savvysurvivor.com... this happens because people break into government gun storage and run away with guns and send them to Libya, middle east, USA, Mexico, etc. So yes, less guns are in circulation, but the same amount are in the ghetto. "The reason Libya had no fly zones is because the rebels lacked an air force, they got help on what they didn't have. They had guns. So, according to the Libya example we would get guns because we don't have them." already answered this, but look at other countries Syria hasn't gotten help yet, and thousands of them are killed every protest, so foreign aid comes slow, or to late. 'Fear is the foundation of most governments.' John Adams. So when a government kill people they instill fear to keep in power, if the people had guns, then the government fears them and then there is liberty. Yes the army has tanks and an air force, but they wont kill people when 30% of America can fight back and take down one soldier down with them. In WW2 the fight in the Warsaw ghetto, 400 lightly armed with smuggled in pistols (numbers of 400-1000) help off the German S.S. the finest soldiers in the world at that time at bay for a month. 2090 German troops finally regained the ghetto with 300 casualties and 93 wounded. The revolvers took More casualties, but this was still a phyricc victory for the Germans. I'm not saying that having more guns=victory vs a government, but I do believe being armed gives you a chance. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.monticello.org... http://gunsandbullets.files.wordpress.com... look at this graph it extends my case for more guns less crime.