The American 2nd Amendment is an outdated piece of sh**

TD,Thanks for your thoughtful response.You have made an articulate and impassioned case for why the First Amendment - specifically the freedom of speech - is a more important and more effective means of revolution than gunfire. I couldn’t agree more. I ask you re-read my opening statement from Round 2 as perhaps you missed it. There is no debate between us on that matter.But this debate is about whether the 2nd Amendment is an “outdated piece of sh**, not how it compares to other Amendments. If you want to see an irrelevant-looking Amendment, try the 3rd [3]. Your entire argument is predicated on Freedom of Speech, and the existence thereof. And that’s exactly the point. Free speech is not a given. The reason I mentioned the 40 million killed in the Soviet Union and Communist China wasn’t just because the people were unarmed, it was because the people had no voice. They were persecuted and killed exactly FOR speaking out against their government. That has been the hallmark of tyranny throughout human history. Hitler was democratically elected and chipped away at freedom of speech until it no longer existed. As I have pointed out ad nauseum above, recent U.S. administrations have been effectively “chipping away” at the first amendment for a decade now, and have only escalated their attacks against dissent. And when there is no freedom of speech, when tyranny is upon us, I would much rather be in the position of Chechnyan rebels fighting oppression with guns than Chinese dissenters being run over by tanks.Onto a couple of specific rebuttals:I did not say “guns reduce murder.” You are, once again, creating straw men. Re-read my round 1 entry. I said “this research survey... suggests..”. They are not the same thing. You complain that the study “blatantly omitted” the U.S. Of course it did, it was a study of European nations. What has that to do with anything? It was a study of how gun possession correlates to murder. Geography is irrelevant. Unless you believe culture murders people, not guns. Then geography would be very relevant. As it happens, homicide and violent crime has been sliding in the U.S. for twenty years despite rapidly climbing gun ownership [2].As for guns as self-defense, I don’t content that tasers aren’t better in most social settings. They are. But again, that is not the debate. Automobiles are generally more useful than bikes, but it doesn’t mean bikes should be outlawed.You bring up the straw of “military-style” weapons in the hands of civilians. Huh? First, in the opening round you said “this is not a policy debate...” That subject seems to be the essence of gun-policy discussion. Secondly, after belittling the idea of civilians defending either themselves against tyranny or their nation against invaders, it seems the presence of “military style” weapons would run counter to your argument. I agree there are a lot of them. I am not making a case for or against a policy that legalizes them. But as it stands, there are indeed military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. You can’t both complain that citizens are helpless AND complain that there are too well-armed. Your straw men are burning each other.You presented an interesting list of nations that you say have used peaceful means to enact political change (funny that you had “Occupy Wall Street” - wouldn’t it have been nice if they could have accomplished something? Maybe impacted those wealth inequality figures I mentioned in Round 2? But alas, Republicans and Democrats are on the same side: the banks that have bought them [4]). But to the more important point: what about nations who have NO freedom of speech/expression AND no guns? Here I give you the 40 million DEAD in the Soviet Union and Communist China. The millions killed in North Korea. And that’s the point: how do you defend against tyrants WITHOUT the freedom to speak against them. You said that John Locke’s “context was not exclusive to guns.” I agree. But he did write in greater detail about the violent lengths he thought were appropriate when faced with tyranny:John Locke [1]: ““And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; ...And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”I take from those words that John Locke strongly supported the idea of an armed citizenry. I think you and I have a fundamental difference in how we view history. You may believe we have entered a “new age” where “peaceful revolts and not violence are the dominant avenues to counter oppressive regimes.” I pray that this is indeed the case. And I think, in general, it has been for the last 30 or 40 years. But there are 6000 years of human history suggesting the lure of tyranny is ever-present for those with sufficient access to power. The relatively peaceful last 40 years can easily lure us into a “recency bias” [5] that suggests we have indeed entered a “new age” of peaceful resolutions. Personally, I think history is cyclical. Technologies change, but the cycle of human behavior does not. Tyrants will rise again, here or elsewhere, and the one day long after they are gone people will once again think they will never return. The question for Pro that is pertinent to this debate is: if Freedom of Speech were to be circumvented or removed altogether, as has happened repeatedly through history under tyrannical regimes, how does Pro suggest a citizenry defend itself and oppose tyrannical oppression? In the past, there has been no means of fighting back. The citizens can only wait and hope for economic collapse (as happened to the Soviet Union) or a foreign invader.And please don’t say it’s impossible or it can’t happen anymore. I believe you are smarter than that. It can happen anywhere. All it takes is a charismatic leader and lackadaisical citizenry that doesn’t fear the possibility of tyranny.Dear voters,Pro has constructed numerous straw men through the course of this debate, but I trust you the voters will read my commentary for yourselves and vote accordingly. I believe I have shown that an armed citizenry (especially a citizenry as ridiculously well-armed as that of the U.S.) can help in defend the nation against a foreign invader and help combat an oppressive regime were peaceful options (i.e. freedom of speech) to be removed. I have also shown studies detailing a lack of direct correlation between guns and violent crime. My adversary’s case revolved around the idea that Freedom of Speech is a better means of political revolution than guns. Here here! I couldn’t agree more. But what has that do with this debate?Vote Con.[1]: http://www.tysknews.com...[2]: http://www.zerohedge.com...[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]: http://sunlightfoundation.com...[5]: http://www.skepdic.com...