Gun Rights

Kind Regard for Pros effort on their ArgumentRebuttals:As for Pros question of the 'Natural Right' to bear arms, Pro may be correct that this means that this right cannot be given/granted by Government, then however quotes that Natural Rights include 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. These are 'rights' that can be taken by Government, however, them being a Natural Right would imply that anyone oppressing them would and could be met with force. This indirectly implies a use of firearms, as they are the predominant weapons of this era. Thus this would mean that bearing arms would be a natural right within a free society. 2 Bear Arms:The 'Bear Arms' part of the constitution is, I admit, quite vague. However, this was done on purpose. It was not meant to be defined to a specific type of weapon, but to be all weapons. This is quite logical. Technological improvement is ever imminent. As was the case in 1790 as is the case today. Restricting the 'Bear Arms' part of the constitution to any other weapon than the 'State of the Art' Weapon that the adversary, in this assumption being the Government, bears, there would be no reason to include the Second Amendment in the Constitution at all. Imagine if the US would have won against the British in the US Revolution bearing Swords or Clubs? No, they would have lost. And this was exactly the idea behind the second Amendment. Being equal to the Government. This in conclusion means that the citizen should be able to 'bear' the same weapons as the Government does, or any other 'Arms'. This may, financially, not be practical, however, I will come to that point later. 3 Deterring tyrannical government/repelling invasion:Pro seemingly does not have a lot of knowledge about modern warfare, nor the effectiveness of the 'standard' 'bear in arms' weaponry, which mostly would be the equivalent of a basic infantry soldier. According to Pros logic of the ' drones, bombs, missiles, jets, helicopters, satellites' the US should have won the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, Afghanistan and all the likes (insurgency war) as all the opponents do not possess any of the mentioned by Pro. However, this is not the case, and especially would not be in an 'oppressed vs. oppressor' war in a society that 'bears arms' against the Government. Conventional forces cannot win an unconventional war (unless they annihilate the opponent who in this case is their own population). This means that the 'civilian bearing arms' in this scenario has quite good chances to success. Thus the concept of owning firearms to deter corrupt Government or occupation is not out-dated. What was the first thing the US did in Nazi Germany? Take the Guns. What did they do in Japan? Take the Guns (as well as many Samurai Swords and stuff like that). Same thing in the middle east. They took the Guns. So that the civilian population could not take up arms and fight the invader.As for the public possessing weapons not being a deterrent for invasion. What an amazing fallacy. Switzerland gives all conscripts their weapon, for exactly that reason, the Japanese did not invade mainland US in WW2 for exactly that reason, even if only 10% of (lets take this as an example) US residents would take up arms in an invasion, that would be roughly 30 million. Around 15 times more than the US armed forces. Please explain to me again, how this is not a deterrent. Though this Debate is not about Gun Control, nor do I want to make it into one, all of the above restricted citizens in one way or another to possess weapons. That had a reason. So they could not create an uprising. Just as another point, though I will not provide sources for this as it is not very relevant right now, the majority of genocide and mass killings are committed in countries in which the general population is not armed. On the other hand (the US is the only country in which this doesn't apply) all country's with high firearm rates have low firearm homicide/overall homicide rates. Thus it seems logical to me that firearm rights should be established and held. Conclusion:If liberty and freedom are, as Pro suggested, natural rights, then possessing weapons is a natural right as well, as liberty and freedom, under current (or possibly for ever) world circumstances do not exist without weapons, which in the contemporary are firearms. The overthrow of Government by 'Gun wielding citizens' is very much possible and in my opinion will be possible for a long time to come, if not for ever, no matter if the citizens are armed or not. However, citizens possessing arms would very much help the process and may prevent the worst from happening. Thus firearms are a 'natural right' for humans in pursue of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and as this should/would comprise all humans, this extends this 'natural right' to everyone. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to your Rebuttals.