banning all guns is wrong

"Now let"s[sic] say we get rid of the second amendment. What are you going to do if the others were also starting to be taken away? .. . Without guns, the government has no reason to fear us. .. " Which brings me to another point. The American population, including yourself, do not understand their true power nor what it is in. The American power is in the dollar, not the gun. Instead of clamoring in the streets or threatening violence--which only provokes and gives legal reason for authority to use more aggressive action--the citizen should learn how to spend his/her money and where to do so. As I said, a gun is nothing against the arsenal of the government, and with the advances in machinery and other technologies we really do not need actual people doing physical labor. The only reason we current have people doing labor is for profit and a steady flow in the economy--but that is another topic. My point here is guns are not only unnecessary but ineffective. "So what"s your point? I gave you examples of both. Field mines and air to ground missiles are not part of the constitution, and I shouldn"t[sic] have to explain that. If you want to understand what I"m saying, go take a history class. " My point is that your argument is void. It was under the objection that if the citizen was armed then he would have been better off, my rebuttal was that if the criminal was armed as well then the citizen would have been in an even worse position, thus the only way to truly defend oneself is with mines and other extreme security procedures. Such an example was to stress the unlimited yet limited meaning of what it means to bear arms. And in what will reenlisting into school and taking an entire year of vague U. S. history benefit me when I can simply look for such information online? If you're going to insult me, do it properly. "Now ill say this. The marines, army, navy, air force would never turn on us. They fight for America, not the government. " Such is debatable. You do know what propaganda will be used to influence their minds. Many servicemen regret joining, or at least taking an active role, in the mission that they did. They don't know what their doing, they just do as their told. A year ago I was in high school and every now and then I would see someone from JROTC. And after a year of being around them I have came to multiple conclusions: 1. ) They know nothing of government or it's policies, 2. ) They just want a thrill (I can even show you the twitter account of a current 18 year old Marine who I want to school with and he wants to do is "be in tha sh! t"), 3. ) Most are poor and are looking for money, 4. ) They believe the military will help them in college, and 5. ) Their siblings or parents are/were in it. I list all of this not to discredit the military establishment but to let you know that not every military personnel is this bold, die-hard patriot who wishes to fight for "freedom and democracy", and I use those two words loosely. In fact, out of every person I physically knew wanted to go into the military most of them were/are gangsters. I have yet to physically meet an American who claims they have thoroughly studied the history of the United States, it's laws and relations with other countries and chosen to lay their life of the line to defend it. Never. Not even on the Internet, and the Internet is full of tales. Although I have typed a lot for this one rebuttal, it is all moot because I have stated before that the government possesses high-tech unmanned weaponry. The military is just as useless as the militias. "China, North Korea, Hitler did and then was able to kill millions of his own people. .. Japan is not a great example. They listen to what their "owner" says. They don"t[sic] need guns because they could attack us in a flash of a second. They did it before, they could "try" it again. Italy, example WW2. " I truly mean no offense to what I'm about to say (honestly) but you're either trolling or have no rational input about. .. anything, especially in foreign areas. A person of yourself would have been an up-standing citizen in the McCarthy era. Japan has a fair government just as we do (may the word fair be used loosely). As for your second sentence, it made no sense. "They [Japanese citizens? ] don"t need guns because they [Japanese citizens? ] could attack us in a flash of a second. " WTF? Do you realize that the Japanese are our closest allies in the Asian region? And when Imperial Japan bombed Pearly Harbor, the U. S. was warned by Britain and other others of the invasion but refused to act upon the knowledge. Not to mention the numerous military bases we have in Japan. "Italy, example WW2" What? What does modern day England have to do with with colonial England over 300 years ago? What does an invasion Canada have to do domestic gun policy? "Also a good example of gun control in affect is Chicago. Take a look at that and you will see what I mean. " My previous examples of countries not only neutralize but overpower Chicago's statistics. Conclusion. My opponent is either trolling or has so much anti-communist fear installed into him to prevent him from forming a rational opinion about foreign entities. Gun control has proven more positive effects than that of what the second amendment can offer. It is the irrational fear of tyrannical government, and that fear alone, which persuades my opponent into accept current gun "rights" and thus causing the death of many American civilians, a number that at times can override the number of gun deaths in a other foreign countries by over 1000% (even more). And don't even get me started about the massive drug cartels that thrive from our gun rights, which also kills hundreds and thousands of Mexicans per year, not including death by the massive amount of drugs being sold.