The right to bear arms.

Resolved: The right to bear arms. My opponent should be technically "Con" but w/e. I'll present my own case then attack my opponents. ================================================================================= 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Militia: Armed forces, AND a military unit made up of free-citizens to fight any oppressive regime if necessary. Security of a Free State: Obligation of the PEOPLE to protect their given freedoms. --Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms: Right of the people of the US to have arms to fight a repressive regime or protect themselves. Shall Not be Infringed: shall not be violated by any government. =============================================================================== It's for these reasons I negate. I. The purpose of this amendment was to give the people the right to have arms besides the military. The Framers of the Constitution gave the President the right of Commander and Chief. They knew it would be necessary for the PEOPLE to protect their free state against a possible tyrant who controls the military. If a tyrant becomes president, it is the obligation of the MILITIA - people in a formed quasi-military group, to fight any regime that violates their rights. Power of the Pen is useless without power of the sword. Yes, on paper we may have the right to abolish any form of government, if they over extend their power. However, what good is that if the only ones that have arms is the military. WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. The people need some force to be able to fight the government if necessary. Why do you think the British banned their people from having guns? THEY BANNED THEM RIGHT AFTER THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. WE HAD GUN POWER BEHIND US, AND WE ACHIEVES OUR FREEDOM BY FIGHTING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. II. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" It's simple, the clause is right in front of you. The Framers of the constitution knew that people need to be able to protect themselves. The government cannot be everywhere at every time. If an armed killer breaks into your house and wants to rape you, they will tie you up, rape you, then kill you. The police won't know until the killer is in Brazil. The people have a right to keep a gun, if they want, to protect themselves. I will cite the Castle Law in Texas: This law says that if a person is on your property and you feel they will hurt/kill you, you have the right to use force, even deadly force against them. III. If you ban arms, then you need to ban everything else. Automobiles have the highest rate of death among young people. Anti-2nd Amendment people claim that guns are dangerous and could kill people. Ok, thats a non-unique argument. Knives kill people, cars kill people, AMUSEMENT PARKS KILL PEOPLE. If you universalize the action of banning a weapon, then lets ban everything else. But the government can't because we have rights to. =============================================================================== I'll now attack his case: The only thing he presents in his first round is this: "My stance is that the definition of the Second Amendment is this: 'The people in a militia [the National Guard, for example] have the right to own and/or carry weapons.' It should not apply to common citizens who are not part of a 'well-regulated militia'." My Response: You are essentially changing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment; it clearly doesn't just involve the military. And my opponent doesn't understand the meaning of a militia. MILITIA IS DIFFERENT THEN MILITARY. If my oppoent can completley change the wording, then I have the right to make th argument that it should be worded: The people of the US have the right to bear arms for protection of self and the protection of the rights given here by the consitution. Also, extend my 3 contentions as case attacks as well. =============================================================================== This is a clear neg-aff ballot(?) I still don't know what I really should be considered. W/e its a clear RedEye win. Thank you ladies and gentleman. I am ready for opponent's responses.