Gun control is unconstitutional

Rebuttals:"According to District of Columbia v. Heller, the term "militia" should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service (Source: https://www.oyez.org......)."Pro has forgotten to mention the first part of this phrase: Well Regulated. Even if we accept Pro's interpretation that any male is a member of the militia, this militia must be well regulated, meaning gun regulations are constitutional.Secondly, Pro is ignoring the fact that the founders would have wanted to modify the Second Amendment as time went on. We don't need a civilian militia anymore, as we have a police force, an army, and a National Guard."are you implying that the people are not being threatened right this very moment?"I see no threat that justifies an existence of a militia. I have a higher chance of becoming the first 15 year old President of the United States tahn Iran has of invading America.As for your examples of robbers or school shooters, please explain why a militia is needed to deal with those threats when we have a police force. Nor do you need a militia to protect yourself from threats."we have a constitutional right to use guns to defend ourselves from these threats."As Con has shown above, the founders would have wanted the Second Amendment to be amended as it proved unnecessary. It was written during a time when militias were used to fight the United Kingdom, and to put down rebellions, like Shay's Rebellion. Even if we accept your definition of militia, that was defined in a time where militias were needed to keep the country alive. As I have shown earlier, that is unnecessary now, as we have a military and police force.The founders would have wanted the amendment changed."gun control is unconstitutional unless there is a new amendment added to the constitution that negates or changes the second amendment."Pro is basing their arguments off of their interpretation of a 200 year old amendment, so it is perfectly fair for Con to do the same thing. The founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect militias, because we needed them. We no longer do, and they would see the damage caused by the Second Amendment would justify a change rebuttals:"According to District of Columbia v. Heller, the term "militia" should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service (Source: https://www.oyez.org......)."Pro has forgotten to mention the first part of this phrase: Well Regulated. Even if we accept Pro's interpretation that any male is a member of the militia, this militia must be well regulated, meaning gun regulations are constitutional.Secondly, Pro is ignoring the fact that the founders would have wanted to modify the Second Amendment as time went on. We don't need a civilian militia anymore, as we have a police force, an army, and a National Guard."are you implying that the people are not being threatened right this very moment?"I see no threat that justifies an existence of a militia. I have a higher chance of becoming the first 15 year old President of the United States tahn Iran has of invading America.As for your examples of robbers or school shooters, please explain why a militia is needed to deal with those threats when we have a police force. Nor do you need a militia to protect yourself from threats."we have a constitutional right to use guns to defend ourselves from these threats."As Con has shown above, the founders would have wanted the Second Amendment to be amended as it proved unnecessary. It was written during a time when militias were used to fight the United Kingdom, and to put down rebellions, like Shay's Rebellion. Even if we accept your definition of militia, that was defined in a time where militias were needed to keep the country alive. As I have shown earlier, that is unnecessary now, as we have a military and police force.The founders would have wanted the amendment changed."gun control is unconstitutional unless there is a new amendment added to the constitution that negates or changes the second amendment."Pro is basing their arguments off of their interpretation of a 200 year old amendment, so it is perfectly fair for Con to do the same thing. The founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect militias, because we needed them. We no longer do, and they would see the damage caused by the Second Amendment would justify a change."Arms is a short word for "firearms.""No, it isn't. The definition of arms means a weapon, not just restricted to a firearm. If the founders were referring to guns, they would have written firearms. The Constitution isn't a notes sheet, where you can shorten words for convenience. Pro's interpretation of the Second Amendment would protect the right to own a nuclear bomb, which is certainly not what the founders would have wanted.Also, even if we accept Pro's definition of arms, to only refer to firearms, than Pro would have to agree to the unrestricted access of any citizen to military-grade automatic rifles. The founders most certainly would not have wanted this, especially after seeing the amount of damage that would do to the country."you are claiming that the only reason that the amendment system was created was so that the founders could create an amendment that would allow gun control laws."Not the reason, but a reason."If that were the case, why didn"t the founders just write that in the second amendment? Why didn"t the founders explicitly state in the Constitution that the nation was allowed to implement gun control laws?"They did. That's the point of the amendment system. Why not specifically state it? They didn't need too, or at least they thought they wouldn't need too. They thought that the leaders of the country would have modified the Second Amendment, after seeing the damage allowing weak gun laws to exist. They made the document with the intent that amendments would change it as seen fit.How do I know this? The National Road. Congress never was appropriated powers in the Constitution to construct infrastructure, but they built the road anyway, with the founders supporting it. They recognized that the constitution wasn't working, and they reinterpreted the "regulate commerce" clause to allow the building of the road. They would have supported, if not an outright change to the Second Amendment, but a non-amendment change."Your argument that the founders wanted gun control is flawed because the founders never stated that in the second amendment, and since they are all dead, you cannot pretend that you know what their opinions would be if they were alive today."An ironic statement for Pro to make, considering their argument and rebuttals are built off of interpreting the founders beliefs and the time period when the Second Amendment was written (200 years ago).