Individuals should have the right to own a gun in the United States.

C1: 2nd Amendement Says SoIn this round, my opponent states: "But the constitution is shite, it's old and outdated, it was made back when Muskets where the most common weapons". I will agree that the constitution is old, but most of the things stated in the constitution are still used commonly nowadays. I will name a few Amendement stated under the constitution, and would like to point out how they are still used nowadays. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (1).Freedom of speech is still used nowadays, and anyone can say something; yet do we abandon this law because of it being old a vague. No, we do not. And here is another example:"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (2).Everyone still has the ability to vote nowadays, but does this change? No it does not, and the same can be giving the right to bare arms. Just because it is old does not mean it means its different from the present day.C2: Country Found On was Becaue of GunsMy opponent agrees that this country was found by the use of guns, but argues that it doesn't mean guns should be kept. My opponent states: "A countries past should not be what defines its future". I will disagree with this statement because like William Moorse once said: "The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future which we are now helping to make". The quote is basically that things in the past make the future, and the fact is we used guns to make this country a democracy. Getting rid of this will impact the future.One example of how it can impact the future is with the event in Germany during the Holocaust. Before the Holocaust happened, Hitler initiated a plan on Gun Control by taking the population's guns away. They agreed because they thought it was for the greater good, but didn't realize this was Hitler's plan. The Holocaust then initiated, and no one was able to defend themselves. With a gun, they at least had a possible fighting chance (3). Now imagine if this occured to the U.S. It would be bad, and infringe upon the promise made when a democracy was formed.C3: Criminal CrisisIn this round, my opponent quotes the following: "If a criminal didn't have a gun in the first place than it would put the victim in less danger". My opponent clearly didn't read my first argument where I stated under C3: I; I stated: "And even if the idea of getting rid of the right to own a gun is passed, we must ask the common sense question. Do we think that criminals are going to listen to laws? The definition to criminal is: 'A person who has committed a crime'. A crime is the breakage of a law, and a criminal won't listen to these laws so he will be able to get a gun from the black market and such". Even if you did ban them, the criminal would still find a way on getting a gun.And for whether or not having guns or not having guns reduce crime, there will be both positions for this debatel; but would like to bring up one fact. Even when Britain banned guns from their country, homicide rates stayed consistent and there was no major change. Stated under this graph (4): Even after the law was passed, homocide rates still stay consistent. So in reality, nothing really changed truly.Sources:1. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...2. https://www.law.cornell.edu...3. http://www.nationalreview.com...4. http://crimeresearch.org...