Gun Rights

Thank you WAM for accepting and good luck! Case/Rebuttal: 1: Natural rights Pro quotes Sir William Blackstone. “auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state." Essentially it seems to be argued that Self Defense is a natural right and the right to “bear arms” is the supporting legal right to this natural right. I mentioned in round one that I wanted to know if gun rights were “natural rights.” This quote by pro seems to concede this point. Natural rights “are rights that all people have at birth. The government does not grant these rights, and therefore no government can take them away. The Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (1) Other than asserting that the right to defend yourself is natural, pro does not provide any reasoning and leaves this as a bare assertion. More importantly, it is not argued that gun rights are natural. Certainly I accept the obvious empirical evidence that gun ownership is granted by U.S. law, as it is not against the law to own many types of guns, though not all types. 2: “Bear Arms” This is part of why I wanted to have this debate. The second amendment does not say “guns,” it says “arms.” Now before I get accosted, Yes I agree that guns can be described as arms. However, so could a sword, or club. Did it include Cannons, and explosives? What about grenades? Do we have a right to bombs and drones? What constitutes arms in the ambiguous phrase “bearing arms?” The Constitution grants the right to “bear arms” however, the term arms is not clearly defined as specifically guns. As there are several types of “arms” how are we to know which are rights to own and which are not? What is the determining factor? We cannot conclude that Guns of all types (of guns, or arms.) are specifically protected by the second amendment without defining “arms.” If it is reasonable for the government to restrict the ownership of bombs, other weapons inclusive of some guns, then it follows that the right to own a gun is not a natural right. The so called “right” to own a gun is not a natural right, nor can we conclude that the second amendment protects the right to own guns specifically. 3: Deterring tyrannical government/repelling invasion? Pro claims about the right to bear arms that “the reason is, as already stated above, as well as valued by early English Settlers under the English Right to bear Arms, deterring tyrannical government, repelling invasion and some more.” I accept the notion that guns could curtail a corrupt government in the 1700’s. Heck perhaps even in the 1800’s. Today there are drones, bombs, missiles, jets, helicopters, satellites, etc. It seems to me outdated to think that a private citizens firearm could be used to curtail an aggressive government. If the U.S. Government went this direction, I don’t think it plausible to say you rifle with stop the government. The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt government is outdated. It is no longer a valid reason to support the of owning guns. Conclusion: We have seen thus far in this debate that Gun Rights are not “natural.” The right to “bear arms” is ambiguous as to not be solid support for gun ownership. We live in an era that is past the plausible overthrow of a corrupt government by gun wielding citizens. Sources: (1) http://www.crfcelebrateamerica.org...