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

I would like to begin my argument by stating that I am Australian and as such can state that a permissive culture of firearm ownership never existed before gun control legislation was enacted in 1996. I would also like t state that I understand that whilst Australia and the United States of America share a lot of cultural bonds, there is a vast disparity between the two countries in terms of gun ownership. Now with that stated I would like to address the last arguments of my opponent first. The statement from the Statement of Declaration: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" And the statement of Abraham Lincoln are two paragraphs of great importance to my argument: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. " Now I will argue that the above statements entrench the democratic rights of an individual to disagree with the decisions of their government and seek change through a majority of like-minded individuals to remedy the faults of their government. I will also argue that the two statements offered by my opponent are as relevant in Australia as they are in the United States of America and that there is no mention of a right to bear arms, but more a commitment to the principals of democracy and good governance. Therefore I present ‘The Orange Revolution' as a recent example of one possible scenario that is partially an embodiment of the very intention that is implied in the above statements and will also argue that a peaceful revolution of civil disobedience, rolling strikes and sit-ins can be as effective or more effective in achieving change than would an armed revolt. I will also argue against my opponent in regards to his statement that the "right to keep and bear arms is a right given by birth". I would argue that this is a right that is governed by the people and supported by the fact that it is ensconced in the constitution of the United States of America. This is in effect a right that is given by the people of the United States of America but not by the people of Australia. Therefore whilst my opponent may argue that it is a birthright I will argue that it is a right that is granted to the citizens of a particular country and not necessarily a birthright in a global sense of the word. I would also argue that my opponent's statement that "no man- armed or disarmed- has the right to keep from another this right, which in some cases is essential to self defense, acquisition of food through hunting, and/or sport" is an affront to the principles of democracy as it is the people that decide the validity of the Second Amendment. If a majority of people in the United States of America grew weary of all the violence and misery caused by firearms then it would be their democratic right to seek change; and if the end result was a referendum on the complete abolishment of firearms then that would be the right of the population to express their voice and intent. I will also argue that whilst my opponent believes that gun ownership is a birthright there are a number of factors that were enacted in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that impede on the perceived birthright that the Second Amendment afforded to citizens of the United States of America. I would seek clarification from my opponent as to whether the Gun Control Act of 1968 was attack on the Second Amendment right? I would also like to seek clarification as to what constitutes an arm, and what arms my opponent believes a person is entitled to due to there inherent birthright. Where do we draw the line and what justification do we have to impose such a restriction if it indeed actually does impede upon a persons Second Amendment right. Are fully automatic weapons included in this birthright such as an AK-47 or M-16? Is someone entitled by his or her birthright to bear a rocket launcher or chain-gun? What about armor-piercing rounds or high-powered sniper rifles? I would also seek clarification as to what my opponent deems to be clinically insane and how, if at all, this differs from being legally insane. Also what mechanisms are in place to prevent someone that is deemed to be clinically sane at the time of the issue of the firearm from using their firearm in the event that they have encountered a period of temporary insanity? And are these mechanisms sufficient to ensure the safety of individuals that choose not to exercise their Second Amendment right?