banning all guns is wrong

Ok, even if hunting had something to do with it, people still hunt. Some people actually still do it to survive. From the previous round you said, //"False. Our founding fathers gave the civilian the right to bear arms (not restricted to guns) for two current motives in their time: to hunt food and in fear of another British invasion. And as said before, it was intended for those in a well-regulated militia--one in which he do not have."// It is not just to protect us from England. It was to protect us from our own government, seeing the history and the reason why we left England in the first place. Now let"s say we get rid of the second amendment. What are you going to do if the others were also starting to be taken away? I understand the fact that there is a very low chance of this happening, but it still could. Without guns, the government has no reason to fear us, therefore they could do whatever they want. Again there are some things that may make it hard for them to take complete control, but the second amendment is a last resort. The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700"s. The "militia" clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right. That being said, the militia doesn"t have anything to do with being allowed to own a gun or not. //"You say the right to bear arms is against the government, yet you use a citizen versus citizen example."// So what"s your point? I gave you examples of both. Field mines and air to ground missiles are not part of the constitution, and I shouldn"t have to explain that. If you want to understand what I"m saying, go take a history class. //"May I state that if the government truly, truly wanted to take away your rights for evil purposes, there is not a single thing you could do about it UNLESS the individuals are allowed to own tanks, mines and other heavy weaponry. A citizen with a gun is naught but a small grain of sand in comparison to the un-manned technologies that our government possesses."// Now ill say this. The marines, army, navy, air force would never turn on us. They fight for America, not the government. Could the government destroy us if they wanted to? Yes whether we had guns or not, they could. But would they be able to take us into their own control? Not very easily. One grain of sand may not be a lot, but a lot of grains of sand make a beach. China, North Korea, Hitler did and then was able to kill millions of his own people, because they had nothing to protect themselves with. Japan is not a great example. They listen to what their "owner" says. They don"t need guns because they could attack us in a flash of a second. They did it before, they could "try" it again. Italy, example WW2. England may be in good shape, even though they have a higher crime rate then us, but they are the reason why we put the second amendment in the first place. Your only good example, that you mentioned is Canada. But no one cares to attack Canada and they have many allies that would be able to stop an oncoming attacker. America on the other hand is not very well liked by many powerful countries. Also a good example of gun control in affect is Chicago. Take a look at that and you will see what I mean.