I'm anti Gun Control change my mind

"The constitution can and should be amended"- Again you have to give me a reason as to why you wan't to amend it. In a civil society with inalienable rights, This one being the right to defend yourself, We should always go with the presumption of liberty. If you wan't to take away or encroach on someone else's rights, You have to have a solid reason for it. You can't say no one needs an AR-15 or a bottle of soda, Or no one needs a Zelda CGI game although of course you could argue that those games were disasters. But either way, If you wan't to take away someone's liberties you have to have a solid reason for it. Every reason you gave to take away the second amendment I comprehensively debunked in round 2 with empirical evidence. " Its original intent was to give states the power to form miitias it was never an individual right never"- You keep regurgitating the same point. I already did a comprehensive debunking of these arguments in round two, Do I really need to do it again in round 3? Again the Justification clause does not modify, Restrict, Or deny the rights clause. Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " Source: Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA This is backed up by historical evidence because you have to remember James Madison, Considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, Wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never excluded the Second Amendment from this statement. As far as the term "states" you're using equivocation, Equivocation is fallacious reasoning when you use an ambiguous definition of a term to make a misleading argument. The ambiguous definition you're using is the definition of the word "states", In comparison to the original intent of the word state when it was written within the constitution. The original intent of the word "state" when it was used in the constitution was synonymous with the word country. This is shown by the original drafts of the bill of rights when they used the terms "free country" instead of the finalized version which was "free state. " This was the first draft of the second amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. " This was the second draft of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Being the best security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. " See how they replace the terms free country with free state? They're synonymous with each other. Also through out the constitution they refer to states by using terms such as power of the states, They never once use the term the power of the state. It's significant to understand that difference. "power to form miitias"- "We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, Limit the federal government"s power to maintain a standing army, Or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, Like other parts of the Bill of Rights, Applies to and protects individual Americans. " source: U. S. V. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331. Historical context backs this up as well as, Allow me to quote George Mason, "I ask sir who is the militia, It is the whole people except for a few public officials. " "It was never an individual right never"- "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? , Tench Coxe "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334, [C. J. Boyd, Ed. , 1950] "The right of the people to keep and bear. . . Arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, Composed of the body of the people, Trained to arms, Is the best and most natural defense of a free country. . . " -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 "The great object is, That every man be armed. . . Every one who is able may have a gun. " -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, P. 3:386 The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. " -- Zachariah Johnson, Delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6 It's always been an individual right. This is hardly up for debate "Experts interpreted it that way till heller which was a fabrication"- Really, Which experts? Your committing another fallacy called the anonymous authority fallacy. Which experts? Do you give any empirical data to support your claim. If you say you heard from x that y is true you have to first identify x, Then give historical data to back up your claim because even if you identify x you still have to prove empirically or historically that y is true or else it would be known as an appeal to authority. "The second amendment is obsolete"- No one is claiming it is, In fact the people who wrote heller didn't even claim it was, Your basically straw manning me here because I never claimed that it was. In fact why are we even arguing about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment? My conclusion is that gun control is inefficient and immoral, Not that the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership. But since you wan't to argue that, I have to duty to prove you are wrong because I'm also a 2nd amendment supporter. "And makes us unsafe and unfree. "- Our government hasn't gone fascist in over 300 years I'd say that pretty good progress. As far as unsafe, The CDC estimates that every national survey indicates that guns are used defensively at the lowest 500, 000 times and at the highest 3 million times. Even at the lowest number it's higher than offensive gun use, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, With estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500, 000 to more than 3 million, In the context of about 300, 000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. " Source: https://www. Nap. Edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence I already proved that gun control was inefficient in my previous arguments now let me touch on the immoral argument. Me owning a gun doesn't inherently put you at risk. The mere action of owning a gun doesn't put anyone at risk. However, Taking away someone's gun or making it harder for the person to get a gun, Which is used as a tool for self-preservation could put me at risk which directly encroaches on my inalienable right to life. If i'm a single mother with no intention to aggress on anyone else's right to life, And I live in Detroit in a crime infested area with a high risk of rape, Murder and robbery and you take away my concealed carry permit or gun, You're directly increasing the risk that my right to life may be taking away, As well as my right to property if you assume I could get robbed. Compare that to the situation of a gun owner with good intentions just owning a gun. That doesn't inherently put your right to life at risk. However, If I were to go and shoot you with that gun that would be murder and murder is already illegal. See the difference?