Gun Rights

Thanks for your arguments WAM. 1: Natural rights I argued last round that other than asserting that the right to defend yourself is natural, pro does not provide any reasoning and leaves this as a bare assertion. More importantly, it is not argued that gun rights are natural. Last round pro does attempt to link the so called natural right to self-defense to gun rights. But still does not warrant the claim that self-defense is a natural right. Pro argument seems to go something like… if natural rights are being oppressed by a government and defense of those rights are natural then it would follow that bearing arms is a natural right. As I stated last round the right to defend oneself might be natural (Though pro has not shown this), this does not mean that the right to defend yourself with whatever or however you would like is a natural right. If I am being oppressed am I able to use an atomic weapon to defend myself? A grenade? A gun? A knife? It seems to me that the link between the supposed natural right to defend yourself and guns is weak at best. Pro needs a more solid link to guns specifically, and needs justification of a natural right to defense. Pro also does not dispute my definition of natural rights thus it is the working definition for this debate. To prove that gun rights are a natural right, he must now prove that gun rights are not granted by the government and that we are born with this right to guns. This is a tall order as common sense seems to show that Governments can reasonable restrict “arms” that citizens may have and if so, why not guns. 2 Bear Arms: Pro admits that the phrase “bear arms” is vague. He claims that this was intentional so as to include “all weapons.” Under this reasoning pro is contending that all weapons are a natural right. He confirms this when he argues that “This in conclusion means that the citizen should be able to 'bear' the same weapons as the Government does, or any other 'Arms'.” This is obviously ludicrous. Thus Pro’s argument for gun rights would apply to bomb rights, missile rights, Fighter jet rights, etc… Though, he does admit that “This may, financially, not be practical.” Not only is it not practical, it is insane. Even for those financially endowed, should Bill Gates have a right to a private army and fleet of jets with bombs and missiles simple because he can afford them and the natural right as pro applies it means all “arms.” It is reasonable for the government to restrict the ownership of bombs, and other weapons inclusive of some guns, then it follows that the right to own a gun is not a natural right. The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically. 3 Deterring tyrannical government/repelling invasion: Con argues that because the U.S. did not “win” the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, Afghanistan etc that this negate my argument that your rifle does not stand a chance against a modern government like the U.S. This is a bit cherry picked, though an interesting argument. It is worth noting that Pro claimed in his opening round that we are referring to 1st world countries. All of his examples are outside of this scope and only reference 3rd world countries. I maintain that no first world government if corrupt could be overthrown by gun wielding militias as the Government has far superior resources. The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt (1st world) government is outdated. It is no longer a valid reason to support the owning of guns. Conclusion: Gun ownership is clearly not a natural right. The second amendment is so vauge as to not clearly apply to guns specifically. The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt (1st world) government is outdated. With that I turn things back to pro.