Gun Rights

As stated by the Debate outline this will be my final round, thus I will add my final conclusion, as well as my final rebuttals. Kind regards to my opponent for this debate.Final Rebuttals:Natural Rights:To argue the warrant of self defence, though this debate is not itself about self defence, I would like to refer to the first round and the quotation I used from the Declaration of Human Rights, something that my opponent cannot imply as a simple assertion, where Article 1 states that 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights', as well as Article 3 stating that 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person'. This warrants self defence being a natural right. Whether this self defence is realized through the use of firearms or not is, in reasonable conclusion, unimportant. This would mean that an oppressed individual could, ethically, use any means to defend themselves. If the adversary, the Government or any other individual can use these kind of means, why should a citizen not be able to? Who gives Government the power to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, be it 'enemies of the state' or any other individual? Thus there is no need to provide any 'solid' link towards firearms, as this category is 'weapon open'. An individual could defend themselves against an oppressor with their bare hands, sticks, blades, or, as in this case, firearms. As for Cons assumption that Pro has to 'prove that gun rights are not granted by the government and that we are born with this right to guns', the right to self defence, especially the right to self defence from oppression from Government negates this entirely. Furthermore it comes to question Cons integrity towards the subject of possible and occurring Governmental or Occupational (as in the occupation of another country or area) oppression, as Con states that 'Governments can reasonable restrict “arms” that citizens may have and if so, why not guns'. Who is to say that Government can do this? Who is to say that an Occupational force can do this? Exactly this is the point I am trying to show, that Government cannot infringe these kind of things. If Government can 'reasonably' (whatever that may be) restrict citizens from arms, that they may take up if they are oppressed, then who is to say the same Government is not 'reasonably' restricting our Natural Rights to Freedom, Equality, Dignity, Rights, Life, Liberty and Security? This is a huge issue, that Con is not addressing, and one of the most important factors as to why Firearms, Weapons or Self Defence itself is a Natural Right. Bear Arms:An oppressor should and can be met with equal force. Correct? I would say yes. Who would control an Government that is out of hand, committing genocide, Human Rights atrocities and War Crimes? While personally I am for Military Intervention (in certain cases), military intervention is often used as a last method. There have been conflicts going on for decades that have caused thousands of deaths in the civilian population of their countries, no intervention has been committed, nor does the Western World care about these conflicts, nor would many even know about these conflicts. Would a population at arms not have had a great impact on these issues? In fact, countries that have high numbers of firearms per capita, as already stated in Round 1 but not addressed by Con, have very low homicide rates committed with firearms. One should wonder why. This is while countries with firearms, primarily in the hands of their Government, have huge numbers of deaths committed with firearms. If this does not create a springing point towards the, as above established, Right of Self-Defence, through means of firearms, then I wonder what does.Deterring tyrannical government/repelling invasion:Con claims that the information provided is 'cherry picked', as we are indeed referring to '1st world countries' in this debate, this however does not conclude that information of other countries should be discouraged. However, to the contrary of Cons assumption, 'All of his examples are outside of this scope and only reference 3rd world countries', Con is missing the most important point in these examples, the reason why exactly those were used. The adversary. The opponent to those '3rd world countries' were, '1st world countries', mainly the US. The US was 'beaten' by, as stated, 'gun wielding militias'. And this on a far distant battlefield. Does this not conclude, especially if taken into the sight of a civil war of 'Government/Oppressor vs. The People', that the above called 'gun wielding militias' could well and easily overthrow a 1st world Government? To further this point, let me introduce this little scenario. A base gets overrun in a far away country (Afghanistan). Oh well, we'll send some soldiers from home and get another one. No problem for us.A base gets overrun in the home country (US). Oh, we just lost our weapons, vehicles, aircraft and whatever else. They can use it against crucial targets that will eliminate us. They are fighting us, not our soldiers 1000's of km away. An invader cannot loose the invasion. They can merely fail at it. At home this is a different issue. They can loose everything very fast. And that's why it could happen. Conclusion:In conclusion, all the above stated points, persuade that Firearms are a natural right. How can Government decide what we can and can't do, who is to tell if they are not in the wrong. How can we defend ourself from oppression? It cannot be done without arms. They will be involved sooner of later. Why not have them ready? For Life, Freedom, Liberty, Dignity, Equality, Rights. Let us not forget History. Liberte, egalite, fraternite. Vivre Libre ou MourirGive me liberty or give me death. Don't tread on me. No taxation without representation.Wir sind das Volk.We are born free. Lets keep it that way. Kind Regards to Con for this Debate, as well as all Readers and Voters! Have a nice day!