Gun Control Laws

Glad that you'll argue even if you're on the other side :P 1. Assault rifles are argued to be unnecessary due to modern technology and advancements in the gun industry since the 2nd amendment was put into place. However, we do not have the right to bear arms so that we can defend ourselves from home invaders and criminals, we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves and rebel back against potential tyranny. 2. Handguns are involved in #1 as well, but are easier and more probable for everyday carry outside of your home. They are the most probable weapon for protecting yourself outside of your home, away from your assault rifles. 3. I'm not aware of the specific types of safety enhancing technology, but as long as the gun does not lose its ability to be drawn and fired immediately, I will likely not have a problem with it. 4. I would have no issue with gun buyback programs because I feel they wouldn't have very much effect. People who buy guns are going to keep their guns, with no requirement to sell your guns then I find it unlikely that anyone will with the exception of financial crises. 5. I disagree with further background checks because all it will do it allow the government to easily prohibit certain people from buying guns. They would use very very minor misdemeanors as excuses to keep people from buying guns with the end goal of having few people that own them anymore. The process of background checks would be abused to reach the goal of having less people that own guns. 6. I disagree with high capacity magazine bans because there is no strong need to decrease the amount of ammo that one clip can have. I can see arguments posed with automatic rifles, in which I may agree with a limit on the fire rate of a gun, (Ex. no more than 4 bullets per second), otherwise I see no need for restriction. 7. Ammo bans have no use other than to slowly ban certain guns by banning all of the ammo it could possibly use, a bullet is a bullet, its going to go through you whether its a 40 cal or .556... 8. This is just another attempt at limiting and controlling guns bought by people. Say you closed the gun show loophole, then the government decides to pass a law saying "guns can no longer be shipped in packages due to interceptions by terrorists" and opens a limited amount of gun shops so that people have to drive hundreds of miles to buy guns. See how its now extremely hard for someone to get their hands on a gun? Its a restriction that could have a domino effect, eventually eliminating all ways for people to get guns. 9. There are no reasons to limit gun carrying. Therefore we should not limit open or concealed weapon carrying. 10. Limiting deadly force with guns would essentially be limiting the use of guns to almost 0. In the case that someone else has a gun, and you have a gun, there would be no probable way of disarming them without killing them ESPECIALLY if they are shooting at you and know you are there. Even if you shot both of their legs and they were crawling they would still be able to shoot back at you and kill you. Allowing deadly force is essential to protecting yourself. 11. The government has no right to confiscate anything from its citizens, "by the people for the people" right? More like "by the power hungry, for the power hungry". Confiscating guns would only give the government extreme and high power and would likely end in a dictatorship, what is a country that can't fight off its own government if the need arose?