Gun rights

Since my opponent didn't have access to a computer last round, I'll make my final round brief. First, I would like to address his arguments made in defense of his plagiarism. Afterward, I'll wrap up with the one argument I couldn't make in Round 3 due to character constraints.1. Pro's weak arguments in defense of his plagiarismPro explains that he introduced his own citation rule in Round 2 to "avoid plagiarism issues," but this doesn't eliminate the basic obligation to at least QUOTE entire sentences lifted word-for-word from other sources. Additionally, Pro didn't even follow his own rule sometimes. For example, the first paragraph under his first contention in Round 2 (beginning with the words "Is the amendment...") was language lifted directly from a different source, but he didn't include a footnote after the paragraph to indicate he was citing anything at all.Even if you accept Pro's explanation that he somehow didn't need to provide quotation marks, he may still have committed plagiarism by essentially failing to introduce any original ideas in this entire debate. Almost every paragraph of my opponent's arguments from Rounds 2 and 3 are arguments cited from other sources. As plagiarism.com explains, this too is an example of plagiarism:"The Resourceful Citer: The writer properly cites all sources, paraphrasing and using quotations appropriately. The catch? The paper contains almost no original work! It is sometimes difficult to spot this form of plagiarism because it looks like any other well-researched document."http://www.plagiarism.org...;As my opponent barely wrote any original sentences, I think voters should award me with the "spelling and grammar" category as well as the category for "conduct."2. Gun rights are not human rightsHuman rights are rights that are universally recognized, as evidenced by their codification in major international treaties or resolutions that enjoy near-unanimous support. Generally, the two foremost legal authorities defining "human rights" are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). [2] The UDHR was U.N. general assembly resolution adopted by a vote of 48 to 0 in 1948, [3] and is classified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the "most translated document" in the world. [4] Similarly, all but 19 of the world's 194 countries have signed the ICCPR. [5]Some U.S. Constitution rights qualify as "human rights," while other clearly do not. The 1st Amendment's right to free speech, for example, is a universal right codified in both the UDHR [6] and the ICCPR. [7] Similarly, the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is codified in both the UDHR and ICCPR. [8, 9] Unlike the 1st and 8th Amendments, however, there are no similar provisions enshrining the 2nd Amendment's right to "bear arms" anywhere in the UDHR or ICCPR. Thus, under international law, gun rights are not "human rights." This distinction answers my opponent's objection in Round 3 that I was selectively dismissing provisions of the U.S. Constitution.Notwithstanding their lack of recognition under international law, my opponent argues that gun rights are human rights because guns are an extension of the "right to self defense." This argument is weak from the onset, because there is no "right" to self defense. To begin with, self-defense is not recognized in the UDHR, the ICCPR, or, for that matter, in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, self-defense is merely a legal justification for conduct that, if it weren't absolutely necessary, would otherwise be criminal. [10] Even if self-defense could be characterized as a "human right," it doesn't follow that this necessarily establishes a right to own and carry firearms, because there are less lethal means of self-defense. People can carry pepper spray or learn certain martial arts, for example. To make an analogy to international law, no country has a "right" to develop nuclear weapons, even though nuclear weapons are indisputably the most effective way of guaranteeing a nation's right to self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Some weapons are simply too dangerous to be freely available, and government legislatures are perfectly entitled to make a determination restricting their availability.Conclusion:Though recognized here in the United States, the very concept of "gun rights" are an anachronism to the rest of the world. Given how easily guns are available in America, it should come as no surprise that our homicide rate is higher than any comparably wealthy country. For the sake of creating a safer society, it is time that we recognize the "right to bear arms" protected by our Second Amendment was simply a huge mistake from our pre-industrial Founding Fathers.Sources:[1] http://www.un.org...;[2] http://www2.ohchr.org...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[6] http://www.un.org...;[7] http://www2.ohchr.org...;[8] http://www.un.org...;[9] http://www2.ohchr.org...;[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...;