Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Firstly I would like to address my opponent's contention that the ‘Orange Revolution' was the weakest example of government tyranny and would like to rebut that argument by stating that the example was by no means an argument of government tyranny but was merely an a fitting example of ‘the people' exercising their democratic right to bring about change in a peaceful manner. I would also argue that the implication that the act was "perpetrated by someone seeking power, not someone in complete control of the country" is misleading. The government of the day, which was in control, was supporting the candidate seeking power and it was actually a mechanism of preserving power by keeping the status quo. Now I do not want the debate to divert from the topic at hand, but I will state that the ‘Orange Revolution' was an excellent example of people exercising their democratic right to ensure change through peaceful means in current times. I will also argue that my opponent has confused the issue of whether the Second Amendment entitles everyone to bear arms for the purpose of their own protection or whether the initial wording was intended to maintain a right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia. This is evidenced by the fact that my opponent has used fighting Nazi Occupation as an argument to support his case in support of the right to bear arms. I would then like to contend that my opponent has stated that "what type of firearm is an issue for regulation" and I would argue that if my opponent is arguing for the right to bear arms to fight off a tyrannical government, then isn't the regulation of weapons undermining that ability? I would also like to argue the point that my opponent stated that I raised "issues of violence and misery as a reason for the people to oppose the law, but does not provide any statistics, references, or any reason other than his statement as to why we should believe violence and misery in the US is associated in any degree to the right to keep and bear arms". I would argue that misery is not a quantifiable measure that can be easily be represented by a statistical presentation. Any person that has lost someone and experienced the misery associated with such a loss would agree that it is undefinable in terms of numbers. I would also argue that my opponent has in fact provided the evidence. The stated "477,040 victims of violent crimes" in 2005 is evidence that firearms are a tool used to perpetrate crimes in the United States and furthermore that any reduction in the number of violent crimes would provide immeasurable benefit for the people and the community as a whole. I would also argue against my opponents assertion that "clearly there are laws in place to control gun violence, which has dropped drastically within the past 13 years" as the statistics that my opponent provided prove that gun related crime is far from "controlled". I acknowledge that ultimately it is the person that commits a crime that is responsible for their act, however measures and mechanisms to reduce the availability of firearms is the responsibility of the people as whole. In response to my opponents desire to see statistics I will state that the United States has the highest rate of child deaths by firearms of any industrialized nation and in addition to that over 90,000 children and teenagers were killed by firearms between 1979 and 1991 (1). This is evidence that something is fundamentally wrong with the current system in the United States and I would argue that the 90,000 children that died never got to the age where they could decide if they wanted to exercise their Second Amendment right or to exercise their democratic right to try reduce the availability of firearms in the United States. In addition to the horrendous amount of child deaths the number of firearm suicides in the United States is a matter of great concern. In 2005 there were 17,002 firearm suicides. Now whilst firearms are not always the underlying cause of suicide they are a quick means to an end and it is highly likely that of the 17,002 people that did suicide that there would be a significant proportion that would not have resulted in a fatal outcome if firearms were not so readily available. In 2005, a total of 822 young Americans ages 10-19 committed suicide with a firearm. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm (2). I would argue that regulations that forbid people that are an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" or "anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution" are mechanisms that prohibit gun ownership but are not mechanisms that provide community protection from someone that has lawfully purchased a firearm. I would also argue that these regulations do nothing to protect the community after a firearm has been legally purchased. So I will again rebut my opponent's original claims: 1)The right to bear arms is a right allowed by the government and is the consensus of the people. In Australia the consensus is that we do not need firearms to protect ourselves. In the United States the bearing of arms is still allowed by law, this does not make firearms ownership a birthright but merely a right allowed by a democratic government with the consensus of the people. 2)All clinically and legally sane people may have the right to bear arms but that does not provide a safe mechanism for preventing the usage of firearms by people that are in legal possession of a firearm in times when that person is experiencing a period of (temporary or permanent) clinical and legal insanity. My opponent's argument that "If a sane person purchases a gun, and later goes insane and commits a crime with a gun, how is the right to keep and bear arms at fault?" I would argue that having firearms so easily and readily available increases the likelihood of firearm fatalities at times of mental instability. 3) The right to bear arms is not a birthright but merely a legal right that is given by some countries and not others. I would also add that whilst some people believe that gun ownership works in their country others can counter that argument by showing that the virtual abolishment of gun ownership works better than the system in the United States. I would like to close out my second round argument by addressing my opponent's comments on democracy. My opponent agrees that in regards to gun ownership that "legally it is a right afforded by law, but laws are written to reflect a natural consensus" but then my opponent goes on to state that "My opponent would also have you believe that rights are democratically given, and can be democratically taken away. First let me inform you that the Constitutional process in the US requires for an amendment to go through various levels of law, and a constitutional amendment rescinding an amendment contained in the Bill of Rights would be almost impossible to pass". This is a contradiction of immense proportions. It is basically saying that even if the people of the United States of America were to decide that they no longer wanted people to be able to buy firearms that they virtually have no choice because the process to rescind such a right is virtually impossible to navigate, yet initiate change. (1) http://www.neahin.org... (2) http://www.ichv.org...