Gun control

Anyways, assume that I am against Laws on gun restriction, and my opponent is for. Now for my argument (Next round, my opponent will present his arguments, and he may also present rebuttals to mine): I will start by generally defining gun control, which is the limitation or banning of ownership, sales, production, and use of firearms of any kind. The purpose of gun control is to prevent civilians from obtaining deadly, military grade weapons that can cause extreme destruction and mass manslaughter when used with criminal intent or used incorrectly/irresponsibly, so that the nation will be more protected from anarchy and murderers. When the second amendment of the US constitution [1] was written, firearms where simple, single shot, muzzle loading guns that could only do so much damage without numerous people using them collectively. However, with the advance of technology in the last 300 years, guns went from simple musket rifles, to assault rifles that can destroy a room full of people in seconds. It would be completely reasonable to limit the public's access to these massively destructive weapons, but gun control has been taken too far by many liberal agendas. The restriction of destructive firearms is on the federal level, but more strict regulations on less destructive, legal guns (such as handguns, traditional rifles, shotguns, etc. ) is regulated by the states. State laws can vary greatly, and certain states (CA, NY, Washington DC, and others [2]) have so strictly regulated these legal weapons, that obtaining them for any reason (legal or not) is very difficult. This infringement of the second amendment is unacceptable to our human rights, makes America a target for terrorists (domestic and foreign), and leads to a totalitarian government, such as North Korea (where all guns are completely illegal) [3]. To begin, the second amendment was written into the constitution through the bill of rights, for the protection of the people from an over powerful government [4]. It was intended so that the rights of the people were protected, their right to defend themselves, and their right to bear arms [2]. These rights are important for citizens so that them have the capabilities to defend their own selves, property, and others from those who mean them harm, rather than solely depending on the government to protect them. If citizens can protect themselves, than they will have more freedom to do what they want to pursue, without the burden of being unprotected and reliant on the government to do so. However, this doesn't mean that services such as police departments and S. W. A. T. teams shouldn't be provided, as we still pay taxes to the government for them, and some threats are nearly impossible to defend ourselves (such as terrorist attacks and mob/gang attacks). Gun control is affecting this right to the point where is becomes difficult to defend ones self, with liberals wishing to ban weapons such as pistols [5] and higher caliber rifles, which are sufficient enough to defend ones self, but not so powerful as to become weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes, even these weapons are not sufficient, in the cases of terrorist and gang attacks, in which civilians may need ready access to higher tier weapons, such as high caliber rifles, burst fire rifles, ballistic knives, etc. These weapons can still be destructive, but are mostly illegal or require federal permits. To the topic of terrorist attacks, civilians need to be able to stop these now more frequently occurring, progressively deadlier events [7] when police forces are not available at hand. If weapons were given only the requirement of a simple, but secure permit, than tragedies such as the 2015 San Bernardino Shooting may have been far less deadly. The shooters, an extremist couple, using legally purchased weapons (but illegally modified) to kill 14 innocent civilians and wound 22 more. None of the civilians at the inland center were carrying a weapon, and were completely helpless while the shooters mercilessly shot up the entire center, and (unsuccessfully) tried to plant bombs that would later kill emergency personnel at the scene [6]. This act of extreme violence may have had less severe consequences if one, or more, of the civilians was carrying at least some kind of weapon (as the terrorists ere wearing no bullet proof protection), but the gun control laws for California are some of the strictest in the nation [2], so it would be very difficult for a civilian to even own a gun, nevertheless carry one. This is a prime example of what occurs when civilians are unable to defend themselves due to laws that are "supposed" to protect us. All they really do is progressively make us easier to attack and target than in the past, were almost everyone owned a gun (because it was easy) and could pitch in to protect the country, which is exactly what America needs again to help stop such deadly atrocities. For the final portion of my claim, I would like to say that we all can agree North Korea is a rotten place, with a tyrannical communist government that has complete control, that it loves to abuse, over the people. In North Korea, all guns (even air guns) are illegal, and owning them is subject to "stern consequences" [3]. Even South Korea bans the storage of guns in the household, and they must be stored at a police station. But applying the logic that gun control increases dependency on the government (as stated before), we can assume that this will contribute to a totalitarian government, since people will be unable to defend themselves if the government wants to gain total control. The North Korean government has banned guns so that order could be maintained and society controlled. This reasoning will definitely control a society, but as we can see with North Korea and politically similar nations throughout history, the effects will be very negative for the populations human rights, and general happiness [8]. If the American government slowly deteriorates our right to own guns and protect ourselves in order to protect society and keep order, they will follow the same logic as a totalitarian government. It's quite a no brainier that ending up like North Korea, and other tyrannical nations, is a very bad course of events. Yet, if we have the right to own weapons of our own instead of only the government owning them, than the power will be balanced between the people and the government, and this will allow for "we the people" to continue governing a democracy with being able to protect ourselves from a militant take over. I understand that gun control plays a role of preventing any old chum from buying a deadly weapon, but the extent to which it is being taken and the logic behind it is flawed. We all need our rights to protect ourselves, our ability to stop terrorists, and our right to defend the free world from a government take over. Guns may seem brutal, violent, and best to avoid, but unfortunately, life is brutal. To survive in a brutal world, we need to be prepared, and able, to defend and protect. Sources: [1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]. https://www.reference.com... [5]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [6]. https://en.wikipedia.org... [7]. https://intpolicydigest.org... [8]. https://en.wikipedia.org...