Gun Control

I will organize my argument into the following sections:The Second AmendmentGun Violence in the United StatesGun Control MethodsConclusionI will now begin my argument: The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. It is indeed true that basic weapons for self-defense are acceptable, but I do not believe the amendment to be valid in other respects. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [1] We no longer have a need for a militia due to a risilient and couragous United States Military. Also, I will point out the amendment's original intention. At the time of the Constitution's framing, there were still many issues in the country. An issue was the lack of a strong military force. Due to this lack, the founders decided citizens need to be able of defending themselves. I agree with this view, but you cannot deny that an AK-47 in a typical American household is excessive. There are many ways the amendment can be interpreted, but I will point out that it has been misinterpreted for quite some time. I will rewrite the amendment in the way many citizens interpret it:"A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied." Deny what I just wrote. Please, I welcome the debate. I don't, however, want to hear anything based on misinterpretations. I want facts, which many people opposing gun control surely lack. "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2] Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount. "The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults..." [3] The Second Amendment must be enforced, but it must not be misinterpreted. Gun Violence in the United StatesAs stated in my above argument, violent crime has increased in the United States. This is due to a lack of background checks, limited ammunition, etc. You cannot deny the crime that has occured in this country. And now I will tell you why these crimes occured: lack of gun control. Gun Control is mandatory. No assault rifle should be in the hands of any ordinary citizen. Only law enforcement and military members should have such a weapon. I recognize I am being a little biased, but I can't help it. I believe that guns for self-defense should be pistols and maybe shotguns. I do not agree with rocket launchers, sniper rifles, and assault rifles for self-defense. I believe in the Second Amendment, but I will never have a gun myself. The best defense for a household would be a home security system and a guard dog. That is my view. Please respect that. If you can deny what I said in this argument, I would be glad to hear what you have to say. I welcome the debate. I am afraid, however, that you may go too far with your view. Nothing is impossible. Gun Control MethodsThere are multiple methods of regulating guns. I would like to focus on background checks, limited ammunition, and the regulation of gun production. Background checks should be expanded so that we can ensure that people with a history of crime and/or mental illness to not receive a gun. Alongside background checks, there should be limited ammunition. What if the background checks were conducted incorrectly? What if this person did in fact have a history of crime and planned to use his new rifle to kill innocent children at a school? Each magazine should include a limited amount of ammunition, depending on the exact type of weapon and the damage level of the ammunition. Also, the level of gun production should be reduced. I have a simple math equation for you that I came up with:more guns available = more guns soldmore guns sold = more guns in the hands of violent citizensmore guns in the hands of violent citizens = more violencemore violence = more deathsI have an alternative for you:less guns available = less guns soldless guns sold = less guns in the hands of violent citizensless guns in the hands of violent citizens = less violenceless violence = less deathsI have a challenge for you when you write the next argument: Deny it. Prove me wrong. I have another simple equation:Gun Control + Reform of our Court System = UtopiaConclusionThe facts are the facts. The truth is the truth. "In religious and in secular affairs, the more fervent beliefs attract followers. If you are a moderate in any respect - if you're a moderate on abortion, if you're a moderate on gun control, or if you're a moderate in your religious faith - it doesn't evolve into a crusade where you're either right or wrong, good or bad, with us or against us." - Jimmy Carter [4] Let's put our political affiliation aside. I am a Democrat, yes, but that does not distract me from the facts. The facts are these: Gun Control will positively influence the crime rate, both domestic and foreign. The Second Amendment can be interpreted in many ways, and many of these interpretations are incorrect and unjust. When Democrats say that guns must be regulated, hardcore conservatives - the TEA Party members especially - claim they want to take their guns away. These misinterpretations of the facts must end. Justice must be served. References & Sources[1] http://www.archives.gov...[2] http://www.lectlaw.com...[3] http://www.cnn.com...[4] http://www.brainyquote.com...This first argument is limited due to me not having much time to be online on debate.org. I have many other things to do. However, I will resume making points in the coming rounds. Now, it is my opponent's turn to make his main argument. In the rounds after that, we will make rebuttals. I look forward to that. Also, I would like to point out that I have limited time. Therefore, I may post my next arguments close to the deadline.