Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

Clarifications Rebuttal "I have not explicitly nor implicitly branded you, my opponent, as an NRA affiliate or a conspiracy theorist" -Just by bringing it to the surface in this debate, you have done just that. Anyone with a predisposed problem with the NRA could make a judgment on this debate while seeing me as such. Clever, however distasteful it is. "However, I have shot down the plausibility of a possible Government take over on the Second Amendment." -Actually, I do not feel that you have. While missing the point of the opening of the debate, you tried to make your case that: "I accept this debate not because I am for stricter gun laws but because of the necessity to show that strict gun laws do not violate the second amendment". This is well and good, but all you have seemed to accomplish, is stating the actual amendments. If these were clear cut, we would not be having any debates on these issues. I attempted to give my translations. You disagreed on these, but offered nothing in return. I told you how I felt, and all you do is quote with nothing interpreted. Again, see the purpose of this debate. You an say all day long you have "shot down the plausibility" much like I could say the ocean does not exist. "The NRA is currently the most active gun organisation arguing against gun control and they are used as examples in the context. Once again they are not meant to "label" my opponent but are examples of gun advocates." -Again, what is the purpose for your examples of gun advocates? I thought you were going to show me that strict gun laws do not violate the 2nd Amendment? What was your reasoning an how does the NRA example show me anything? Once again clever, but a little classless. Rebuttals Defended: "1.My opponent's interpretation of the 2nd amendment following the criterion of the 9th amendment which dictates how the constitution is to be interpreted is flawed. My opponent states, "MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form)." Flawed portions of the argument have been bolded. To keep and bear arms does not mean to own the same weaponry as the US military including ammunition. An American citizen does not have the right to own nuclear warheads, machine guns, tanks, battle ships, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Fighter-aircraft, B-2 bombers, ICBMs, modern artillery pieces, and other weapons that could potentially cause mass murder with a single use. (excludes side arms, shotguns, bolt action rifles, and antiquated weapons (due to ammunition being rare)" *please note the bolded statement was "to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition" -The 2nd does not specify any boundaries that separate or distinguish what can and cannot be possessed by by the people. If they did not have the same weapons and ammunition as the British, we would not be America right now. Do you really think that People who just fought a war against their government would write the 2nd Amendment, and mean anything other than equality in arms between people ad government? If so, THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU THINK THEY MEANT. Other than a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear) why not? You simply say "An American citizen does not have the right", Then prove it without copy and paste of a document that is constantly a subject of debate, or back it up with HOW YOU interpret it. Please. "2. The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments. Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion. Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns" -Wow, an opinion? Please inform me of where to find the translation of "Arms" in the late 1700's that reflects the terminology "civilian grade guns". I cant wait for that link. "Again, like I stated in the previous round, the 9th amendment merely states how the constitution is to be read in order for the reader to understand the constitution. Also, the 9th amendment is by no means the defender of the constitution as that responsibility falls with the POTUS, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the people of the US." -Yes, you did state...How do you back up these statements? With copy/paste? And ok, the people of the US defend the constitution....from who, and thru what means? Please inform me of what the 9th does then, in your words. ""To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority." Is the fallacy an appeal to authority" where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it, or in this case where an assertion is deemed false because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. My opponent also argues that scholarly interpretations should not be used in debates. However, such thinking undermines the first amendment, but I digress." -Yes, you do digress. You and I, are not authority, and should heed scholarly interpretations, but should also that as many scholars will interpret differently, so they are not the authority either. Once again, see the top of the page. I believe I did not ask to peer into the mind (Opinions, no matter how scholarly they are) of anyone, but yours. So yes, you have digressed, a lot. "4. Contradictions My opponent contradicts himself by agreeing to the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by saying, "I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well....not right?", and then says, "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". Would my opponent clarify his statements as current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. " -I agreed with your 1-9. How is this a contradiction to your strengthening the BHVP Act? 1-9 was current. "current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. " is in fact adding to the current laws? Again, how is this a Contradiction? are they "Proposing" to make no changes? This notion of yours is completely ridiculous. "First attempting to ban Handguns is a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment, especially in homes where shotguns would be too bulky to use. Third the so-called balance between the people versus the government is still the same as the National Guard, a state (not federal) run militia/reserve force following the second amendment as a regulated militia, is given the same equipment except nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons of mass destruction." -Wow! 1)How is banning handguns "a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment"?? It is now your turn to clarify something. Please, why don't you give me you list of acceptable "Arms and Ammo.", and include HOW you came up with it. 2)The National Guard on more than one occasion has been taken under command of the fed govt. and sent to Afganistan AND Iraq. What State was currently in command?? Please answer the questions. Please, beyond copy paste. Take this 3rd round to defend what you have stated, as I have done myself. And Thank You!