Gun Rights

In this Debate I will take the Pro side, meaning that I will argue that it is a right to own and possess firearms. I will take this into more of a 'free system' (Democracy? ) side, as I believe that this should be the main focus of the debate, as most 1st world countries, about which undoubtedly this Debate is, have this kind of system implemented. Opening Statement: The civil ownership of firearms has had plenty of recent Debate, following mass shootings and thus posing the question why civilians want or need firearms at all. The Pro side will show that it is (and should be in the cases where it is not) a given right to possess firearms in Democratic, 'free' countries. First of all the focus should be on the reason why the US, the country with the highest number of firearms per capita, followed more or less closely by some European countries, even has its Second Amendment and why it is that important to have these kind of 'rights' in a civil, democratic society/country. The Second Amendment, implemented in the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791, based on the English counterpart of a 'bear in arms', described by Sir William Blackstone, an English Justice of the Court, as "auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. ". In this Debate Pro will more or less disregard the act of personal Self-Defence and focus more on the pressing matter of the issue, the resistance to oppression and the civic duty to act in concert in defence of the state. Lets focus on the why, why was the 'Right to bear Arms' created in the first place? Prior to the implementation, as anyone even remotely familiar with history should know, the US emerged victorious over their former British Ruler(s), being a colony under the Rule of King George III and having beaten the British in the US War of Independence. To swift away from the above a bit, the Second Amendment was not made for Hunting rights. Firearms were a vital part of life in the late 1700 as Hunting was for many the only way to provide food. Nor was it made for (Personal) Self Defence, as individuals would have simply defended themselves, besides, a muzzle-loader is no where near an ideal self defence weapon. They were mostly used as a club after their 1 shot was fired. The reason is, as already stated above, as well as valued by early English Settlers under the English Right to bear Arms, deterring tyrannical government, repelling invasion and some more. In fact, the English did try and did take firearms from citizens of the later established US, especially as to undermine the possible presence of 'Minutemen', privately organised colonists who independently formed militias and fought the British with some success, especially due to their more or less 'Guerrilla tactics' style warfare. The interference into the 'Right to bear Arms' would have had a grad impact on the US War of Independence. Thus the Second Amendment was created, as to protect the civil right to keep in bear Arms regarding fight against oppression by Government or Rule. The founding Fathers had 8 years of war behind them, against an oppressive enemy who, as to means of tactical warfare advantage aimed to disarm the population to, effectively, get them under control. They did not want this to occur again, thus the second Amendment being in place for the population to defend themselves against oppressive rule. While there is a defensive bonus, in the case of invasion, if the population is armed, just as in the case of Switzerland, which has mandatory military service and afterwards has the individuals take their service rifle with them (no ammunition though, however, individuals can purchase ammunition privately) and thus has a well standing, trained militia with a (home) access to weapons and one of the greatest weapons per capita number, this is not what Pro is trying to point at. The prospect of 'a rifle pointing out of every bush' was a big deterrent for Japanese invasion of the US mainland in WW2, however, this prospect is more a secondary effect of the 'Right to bear Arms'. The main prospect is that, in a free country, a democracy is mostly applied. We, the people put Government into power. However, what is the people's prospect of removing the Government in the case of oppression? If many can put a few into power, why can they not remove them? Military would be on the Government's side, so is the Police. Who do the Citizens have? They cannot, effectively, protect themselves against unjust rule if they do not have (free) access to 'equalizers' in the form of firearms against potential unjust rule, whether this is the case, a possibility or not. These things should be had before and not dearly missed after. These are the main issues that are to be dealt with in the Debate about the 'Right to bear Arms', and the main reason that I am for it. Conclusion:Government is put in place by the People, they should be able to remove them. Thus Government is supposed to be scared of the People, not the other way around. This should always be the case in a 'true' Democracy, in a 'true' free country. This makes owning a firearm, or in fact any other weapon that will make the public equal to a potential adversary in the form of their own Rule, morally just and desirable. As it states in the Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 1:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Article 3:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of personIf someone takes these Rights away, the Right to bear Arms should be in place to stop this. Once again, Thanks to Con, I am looking forward to your arguments.