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

My opponent, again, dedicates an entire paragraph to the "Orange Revolution", and still fails to prove it's relevance to this discussion. This debate is not about whether or not "change can be brought about peacefully". He has failed to prove any parallels between the Orange Revolution, and any armed struggles I have mentioned, and he has failed to prove how this affects the human right to keep and bear arms. My opponent would have you, again, believe that my premise is based on the US Constitutionally afforded right to keep and bear arms, and tries to turn the debate into one about the Second Amendment. I would like to remind the readers, and my opponent, that though I used the Second Amendment as an example of a government backed right to keep and bear arms, my premise is based on this right being a birthright. My examples of Jews fighting the Nazi occupation in an underground rebellion is a perfect example of the human right to keep and bear arms, and the human right to defend yourself. Also, my opponent attempts to distract the reader by bringing to their attention the issue of regulation which I believe to be another debate entirely. You can't argue about regualation when you first have to accept the right. Regulation is acceptance of the law, and imposing other laws with the intent, amongst others, to protect citizens. The level of regulation is a state issue, and should be debated by the individual citizens of each state. This is a different debate we can have at a later time. My opponent argues that "misery is not a quantifiable measure that can be easily represented by a statistical representation", and fails to provide any relevance of his previous statement, as well as this new variation, to this debate. I don't see the connection between "misery" in the US or any other country and "the right to keep and bear arms". My opponent attemtps to use my own statistics against me, but fails to address the complete statistics which imply that #1- most violent crimes in the US do not involve a firearm, #2- 80% of violent crimes involving a firearm were perpetrated with firearms acquired illegally, and that #3- I originally argued that stripping law abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms will not reduce crime, rather it will raise the number of firearms acquired illegally in many ways- including (though not limited to) formerly law abiding citizens opposed to the law will now be criminals. My opponent attempts to turn my argument and statistics proving the recent reduction in violent crimes in the US involving firearms into an attack that violent gun crimes are not "controlled" because they have not been prevented. Do I have to point out the difference betweent he definitions of "controlled" vs. "prevented"? You cannot prevent violent crime by stripping law abiding citizens of the right to bear arms because violent crime is commited by criminals- 80% of which acquire firearms illegally to begin with. Reducing the availability of firearms is not a noble cause, rather reducing the availablity of firearms to CRIMINALS is- THIS is the responsibility of the people as a whole. My opponent points out statistics implying firearms is the problem in the US, yet does not provide statistics from other countries with the same laws. In implying it is the right to keep and bear arms that is responsible for these statistics, you ignore the fact that other countries with similar population sizes also provide for the right to keep and bear arms, but do not have those same high statistics. Again, my opponent in providing statistics in favor of his position ignores the already pointed out statistics regarding illegally acquired firearms in violent crimes in the US. He points out the high amount of suicides committed in 2005 in the US, but fails to address recent problems in the US, whether or not these firearms were acquired legally or illegally, how many of these suicides were committed by people under medication for depression- some of which have been blamed for suicidal thoughts, how many of these people were related to military members in Iraq and Afghanistan (which has affected the number of suicides in the US drastically), and other factors. I will oppose these statistics with the same sources: Whilst 52% of suicides committed in 2005 involved a firearm, 39.8% were caused by suffocation or poisoning. 63.7% of suicides by children ages 10-14 were by suffocation. How do you prevent suicide by suffocation by limiting and/or illegalizing the right to bear arms? 81 deaths compared to 186 who killed themselves through other means. If 81 is a problem, 186 is much worse, and getting rid of firearms won't alleviate the issues these children are facing. The problem here is suicide, not firearms. 46.6% for young adults (15-24), totalling 1,962 deaths out of 4,212, the problem is still suicide and not firearms. More than half of these young adults and more than two thirds of children committed suicide in 2005 by means which cannot be controlled. My opponent claims that "nearly two thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm", yet I have provided evidence to the contrary. The numbers are similar throughout the age demographics, but are lowest amongst children and young adults, and jump dramaticall to 58.7% for people aged 55-64. Again, this is obviously a problem of suicide rather than firearms as there is no way- if any of you know people over 55- to prevent people of this age demographic from doing what they have made up their minds to do. Can a person regret having killed themself after doing so? No, that is impossible. Can a suicide be prevented by removing access to firearms? Yes, and there are laws in place to HELP prevent this, though my opponent would have you believe that a complete repeal of the law will actually completely prevent this. Will these people find another way to kill themselves if they did not have access to firearms? Of course, and this is backed by the statistics. My opponent, again, fails to note that suicide rates in the US had dropped by about 30% from 1990-2003, and jumped by about 9% from 2003-2004, the year the US invaded Iraq. During the period of 2002-Present many factors have contributed to the rise in suicide rates, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and all associated family/friend deaths, injuries, or lack of presence), drastic job loss during this period, the rise in prices of commodities, etc. MANY factors not involving firearms have contributed to this rise during this period, but the right to keep and bear arms has only been more restricted during this time period, not less. My opponents next statement is redundant, and so is my response. So I will not address it. My opponent, again, tries to claim the the right to keep and bear arms is a government afforded right in the US, and not a fundamental right, yet fails to acknowledge the significance of the "Bill of Rights", where the Second Amendment stands. The "Bill of Rights" was amended into the Constitution in response to claims that "the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the BASIC PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN LIBERTY". It was based on George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights", the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215). My opponent goes on to discuss regulation, which I have already addressed. He misinterprets my statement of the difficulty of rescinding an amendment because he does not understnad the process. I was not saying it was virtually impossible to amend the Constitution because it was a difficult process, rather because it is a democratically controlled process- as he himself claims- and a Zogby poll showed in early 2007 that 66% of the American public were opposed to new gun control measures. I ran out of room...