Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Again, thank you sir for taking on this debate. I will begin my second round by pointing out that though my opponent has asked some good questions, he has not provided a rebuttal to my premise. A rebuttal based on established laws is not a rebuttal against ideology. I will, however, address your concerns with my argument: My opponent responded that my quotes "entrench the democratic rights of an individual to disagree with the decisions of their government and seek change through a majority of like-minded individuals to remedy the faults of their government". I agree- but he fails to acknowledge the context in which these statements were written. The statements are, within their context, fully supportive of the right to bear arms, and are used in arguments in favor of the right to bear arms in court, and have set precedence in their being mentioned in nearly every case, though they are neither the main argument nor the exclusive arguments. My opponent implies that the "Orange Revolution" of Ukraine amounts to something similar as the above statements, but they are not even close. The Orange Revolution was concerning election fraud, was supported by the parliament, and resolved by the Supreme Court. There was no change in government structure, no threat to the dismemberment of the government, and the disenfranchisement of the people was perpetrated by someone SEEKING power, not someone in complete control of the country. My opponent tries to oppose my position that the right to keep and bear arms is a birthright by stating it is a right afforded by law. Yes- legally it is a right afforded by law, but laws are written to reflect a natural consensus. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights- to which the Second Amendment pertains- there was a natural consensus that there were a few rights given to each person at birth that should be protected by the government. The Bill of Rights by it's very existence supports this position, unless my opponent would also argue that the the freedoms of speech, press, and religion, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition, the right to due process of law, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and/or the freedom from being compelled to self incrimination are also not birthrights protected by law, rather rights give by man to man under the law. My opponent would also have you believe that rights are democratically given, and can be democratically taken away. First let me inform you that the Constitutional process in the US requires for an amendment to go through various levels of law, and a constitutional amendment rescinding an amendment contained in the Bill of Rights would be almost impossible to pass. However I would like to point out that the people have constantly ratified the validity of the Second Amendment, and those who oppose it do not generally do so in it's entirety. Regulation of the law is not abolition of the law, and this debate is not about regulation. Furthermore my opponent tries to bring up issues of violence and misery as a reason for the people to oppose the law, but does not provide any statistics, references, or any reason other than his statement as to why we should believe violence and misery in the US is associated in any degree to the right to keep and bear arms. I refer the reader to my initial argument which denounces the ability and willingness of criminals to break the law. I will provide statistics: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun. On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years. Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm. This is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Clearly there are laws in place to control gun violence, which has dropped drastically within the past 13 years, and it is clear that at least 80% of these criminal acquired a firearm illegally. Rescinding the law might decrease the number of legal gun owners, but it will only increase the amount of illegal gun-owners. My opponent mentions the 1968 GCA, and asks if this is an affront to the Second Amendment, but I see no wording in the GCA that contradicts my premise. The right to keep and bear arms is not rescinded by either the GCA or the Brady Bill, rather regulated. Again- this debate is not about regulation. My opponent asks what is an "arm", but I specified within context- firearms. What kind of firearms is an issue of regulation. There are different levels of clinical vs. legally insane, and that is irrelevant to my premise, as that determination is for the courts to make and falls under regulation. I will, however, cite the GCA's specifics on this issue: These people are prohibited or restricted under the GCA to posess firearms (among others): Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. My opponents question following the above answered one has already been answered in my first argument, as I stated "we cannot condition the liberties of regular citizens according to the actions and desires of criminals. There is a fundamental error in the school of thought that tries to save society from itself by identifying a problem, and rather than treating the personality of those causing the problem, the instrument is attacked. You cannot get rid of crime by getting rid of guns..etc". If a sane person purchases a gun, and later goes insane and commits a crime with a gun, how is the right to keep and bear arms at fault? The person is INSANE, and my opponent implies it was their insanity that led to the crime- not the gun. The gun was the instrument, and I have already responded to that. My opponent brings up the issue of democracy, and appeals to democracy as the right of the people to rescind rights. Earlier in his argument he asks "where do we draw the line"? I ask the same question- where do you draw the line on the right of the people to rescind their own rights? The right to keep and bear arms, amongst other things, protects democracy by ensuring that the government does not overpower the people by arming itself. My opponent brought up the Orange Revolution as an example of government tyranny, but that is the weakest example. Democracy was founded in America under the right to keep and bear arms. Democracy, and the end of apartheid in Africa was due in large part to the Armed Resistance Movement. One of the leaders' sons later became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under Tony Blair in the UK. During WWII armed resistance movements played a large part in fighting off the Nazi occupation. Armed resistance, and the RKBA played a major role in the American Civil Rights Movement with groups like Deacons for Defense, Black Panther Party for Self Defense, and others. The right to keep and bear arms, readers, is not the enemy of democracy.