Gun rights

"A general note on debates: Wikipedia should not and will not ever be taken as a source. I could have been the person to put that information on there."It is an ok scource. I think it is viable and it has good basic information. It also proves my point that the 2nd ammendment is pro-guns. "Just because some people said it was okay to have weapons 300 years ago, does not mean its right. Protected yes, right no. "I have two things to say about this. 1. Didn't the founding fathers say freedom of speech 300 years ago? And almost everyone in the U.S. thinks that is a good statement and still holds up today. How about search and seizure without a warrant, it helps keep your privacy, and that was declered 300 years ago. So was a right to a fair trial. And that still holds up today. So your age of the bill argument is an invalid argument, and a logical fallacy. 2. How is something protected by law and still not a right? If all of what I stated above that is in the constitution is a right, why arent guns? So you probably like the 1st ammendment, but want to destroy the second? The constitution are AMERICAN Rights! So if that is it's purpose why disregard what it says? Think about that. "Think about this, every time a gun is used in lowering a crime, a gun is used as a violent tool to commit a crime. That is, for every you lowered crime with a gun, you just committed a crime with a gun. Therefore, this point is a fallacy because it nullifies itself." One question, how does something lower crime raise crime? You havent stated how. About 2000 guns each day are used in self-defence. And you say you will use the gun to kill, most of these cases just showing the gun will make the attacker pull off. Here's a copy paste: Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reports that guns are used defensively about one million times per year. Ninety-eight percent of those times, not a single shot is fired, since the criminal runs away at the sight of the gun. Researcher John Lott, using fifteen surveys from such organizations as the Los Angeles Times, and Gallup, concluded that guns were used defensively 760,000 to 3.6 million times. No matter which side you err on, that is a lot of defensive gun uses, definitely more than are hurt in gun violence in any year. In light of those statistics, the question changes into: Is it safe NOT to have a gun in your house? http://www.saf.org...So Sice most defense the gun is never fired no crim eis commited on either side."Dictionary.com defines dangerous as: Able or likely to cause harm. With this definition, it is clear that a loaded gun on a table would in alaodeed be "able or likely to cause harm". Notice how the key word is "cause". If there was no gun, there would be no chance. Sicne I said if you didnt touch it then it would REALLY not have any chance of it going off. The only way it would go off is if someone picked it up and pulled the trigger. You never addressed that issue. 'Guns are not dangerous. I said it. Guns are not dangerous. Now, bullets are extremely dangerous. People are even more dangerous. I have never heard of a gun killing anything, except maybe in times of war when they are occasionally used to bludgeon someone to death when the user has run out of dangerous bullets. Guns do not kill people. Bullets do.' http://huntingdads.com...And even bullets aren't dangerous in and of them selfs, only if a person does the deed. Would a bullet kill someone without gun+a person. Even a loaded gun wouldnt kill unless a person pulled the trigger. You can't even argue against that, and you know it. My Dad tested this in our mountian house, he loaded his springfeild .45 hand gun and put it on the counter, and said, "no one touch this, if it is dangerous it will go off, if not it will do nothing". Guess what, it never went off. So guns are not dangerous, people are. So even if you illegilize weapons Murder would still exist. I could bludgend someone with a lap top, but that would be dumb, but it would still kill. So then lets illegilize those. Nothing is dangerous that is an inanimant object. They are made dangerous from humans or other things. So Resolved: guns dont kill people, people kill people. Now that I have refuted your case I will add on to mine. 'the Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment, although it generally avoids doing so. The last direct decision involving the 2nd Amendment was in 1939, in a case called U.S. vs. Miller. This case dealt with a man who was detained for unlawfully transporting a sawed off shotgun. He sued, saying he had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus transport the shotgun. Initially, his defense succeeded, and the charges were dropped with no trial. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Mr. Miller was too poor to retain an attorney, so only the government's side was argued in court. Without the defendant to present evidence or defend himself, the Supreme Court ruled that in "absence of evidence to the contrary" they couldn't say that the shotgun served a purpose in a well maintained militia. Instead, they sent the case back to a lower court, and ordered a trial, which would determine whether or not the shotgun was legal according to his second amendment protections. Thus they recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms, so long as those arms serve a purpose in the militia. Many scholars have felt that if Mr. Miller had shown up to his trial, he could have easily proven that a sawed off shotgun has many useful purposes in a militia, such as in World War I, when it was used as a trench clearing tool. However, because the verdict went against Mr. Miller, gun control groups have claimed it as a victory, and falsely claim that the Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a collective right. In reality, no collective right was ever mentioned, and the case was simply sent back to a lower court for a full trial.' http://www.saf.org... "According to the 13th annual survey that was sent to 21,000 sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the vast majority of officers believed that citizens should be able to buy guns. Responding to the question, "Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense?" Ninety-Three percent of officers responded affirmatively" http://www.saf.org...“Guns are dangerous.” “Guns kill people.” These are descriptions of things people do, not things of which inanimate objects are capableSo this statement above basically sums up my 3rd point. So since this is true, then thats like saying a book on your shelf is dangerous, only if you like to hit thigs with it. So the only way to make a gun dangerous is to put it into dumb peoples hands or crazy people's hands. For more info that gun control is bad go to: http://www.123helpme.com...Also P.S. I decided not to post a video for your convinence.