New Member Debate: (Domestic) Gun Proliferation

My thanks to my opponent for waiting on me yet again. But, in other news, yay weekend! I have organized my final round by contention, some response numbers, some topic headings, and a conclusion. ---------------------------- C1. Constitution: 1. If bad laws and court decisions are a possibility regarding the restriction of freedoms, obviously the same is true of expanding freedoms. At best, this is a wash. 2. I never asserted that the "mere possession of firearms" infringes on my rights at all. If we are dealing with U.S. gun policy, then a citizen with a legally obtained and licensed weapon is an appropriate risk to my competing rights (cuz we all said so). However, what I was arguing is that weaponry past these limits (as set by gun control policy) is excessive and overly dangerous, hence the reason that the limits exist in the first place. Those banned weapons are too much of a potential infringement on other rights. I'll actually touch on this again later. 3. The faux paux of adding new arguments in the last round aside, this is a straw man for a single phrase within an argument-- my opponent is making it sound like I think a Pro vote will lead to instant anarchy. Please note that I've made no such claims, implied or otherwise. Intent: So many things to say about this court case and Scalia, so few characters... Coincidentally, Scalia uses the same tactic in this case that my opponent is trying to use to win intent. However, let's take a look at the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens, in which he is joined by 3 other members of the court: "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right' or an ‘individual right.' Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right...The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution...The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment's text..." My beef with free access to guns has never been about whether the right is communal or individual. Scalia makes the same assumption from the intent argument as my opponent does. My arguments about the social contract flow right into this, specifically when Stevens refers to Framers' intent: this amendment is not meant to "enshrine the common-law right of self-defense." As I pointed out in R1 & 2, we ask police, military, and other highly trained people to wield weapons that are banned to the public. This is about function of the weapon, not self-defense. I do not need a rocket launcher to properly defend myself. Nor do I need an sub-machine gun to hunt. All those times I refer to vigilante justice and the unpredictability and instability of individual people, what else do you think I would have been talking about? It's bad enough that we allow people access to guns at all. However, as a citizen of the U.S. I am prepared to accept gun control policy as is, with safe guards intact. Anarchist State: When did I ever characterize a Pro world as anarchist? I hope that my analysis throughout R3 has clarified wherever this misunderstanding was bred. It's quite simple: banned firearms are banned for function. Banned firearms have no use excepting the destruction of life and property, and both are clearly violations of far more fundamental rights. The same can be said of eliminating licensure, waiting periods, and mandatory gun safety courses. US Ground Invasion: First of all, it's not my burden to prove this. However, let's examine this issue logically, based on our knowledge of modern warfare and ground wars for the last century or so. What's more likely? That the U.S. will be struck from afar (or by terrorist infiltrators) by its enemies via missiles? Or that the ways of war and terrorist capability will be altered completely, and the U.S. will actually be faced with an invading ground force? My hat's off to any terrorist organization who can assemble millions of troops and the ability to get them here without us noticing first. And if China, Russia, or any other nation large enough to complete the task invades us, then by golly I'll cut off my right arm. It's simply not a geopolitical reality. ------------------------------------- C2. 1. No response. 2. Well, my opponent concedes that he can't prove what leads to criminals being deterred from crimes. Then, he boldly states that "an armed home owner scares burglars most of all." While I will admit fear is a natural deterrent from action (to say otherwise would be awfully stupid of me), I absolutely refuse to admit that home owners are the top deterrent for burglary. Funnily enough, so did my opponent a sentence before he made that claim. ------------------------------------- C3. 1. First of all, the "you started it" thing made me chuckle :) Second of all, my opponent just did a really good job of proving why my analogy applies directly to this situation, and supports my stance. The kids in Georgia go syphilis because they were *exposed* to something potentially dangerous, but not taught about its mechanics or safety protocols. Understanding a concept does not come from exposure, just like watching a redtube clip doesn't lead to a thorough understanding of contraceptives. The analogy makes it clear that showing someone something, or even having someone come across something, is not the same as educating someone. Although, I'm sure that the kids who got syphilis are pretty clear on the use of condoms now...little late, though, don't you think? 2. To be honest, I'm a little confused as to what this is applied to in terms of responses to R2. I think that this is about the whole middle ground thing that I attacked towards the end of the case. If it is, then my responses are the same as well. My opponent really hasn't made his stance on gun control clear, so I naturally assumed deregulation. I still think that's his position...I guess? At which point R2 contradicts R1, and his advocacy is a big ole mess. ------------------------------------- In conclusion, I suppose the best way to sum up a Con vote would be with regards to function and intent. My opponent was never able to justify an expansion of this right beyond the legal limits in place in the U.S. This is because those limits basically conform with the Court's decision in D.o.C. vs. Heller, no matter how ill-founded Scalia's interpretation of the amendment might be. If, indeed, the amendment blankets self-defense, then the weapons banned now are not necessary to defend oneself. If we believe Stevens and my case, then the likelihood of needing to defend ourselves against a force seeking to revoke the sovereignty of the citizens of our nation, foreign or domestic, is nearly non-existent. Even first world countries with far more strict gun control policies (like Britain) still maintain a democratic government. At the end of the day, there just isn't enough reason to change gun policy as it stands.