The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms

Extensions Extensions Extensions time!!!!!! I thank my opponent for his last speech, and refutations. Now let's go ahead and look towards some unaddressed arguments by pro.1- Links argument. He's not linking the constitution to anything, this ties in with the Status Quo argument. Extend this argument, he hasn't shown any benefits whatsoever once again (and no sources on top of that aside from citing a website that has the constitution) So let's go to his first attempted refutation. He states without weaponry in small businesses 224 YEARS AGO, The U.S would not be here. Con is not saying anything from that period judges, con is refuting through the Status Quo! Pro is basically misunderstanding cons entire argumentation! In no way does he address this day and age, instead his immediate attacks rest on the assumption that i am talking about the past (Clearly Status Quo, So no). Extend point 1- Impact- Without showing a link between benefits of a right, and the right itself, pro is not being moral by trying to enact a right that causes more bad than it does good. 2- Status Quo!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray for the Status quo! We now look into the modernization of such rights and amendments, and this has gone thoroughly untouched. As i stated in my last speech, this is where the heavy argumentation begins!! My opponent failed to address this! His attempt at a refutation was quote "The very fact that the Founding Fathers put the Second amendment into the Constitution shows that they believe it to be right.". He completely misunderstands this argument!! I am in no way looking towards 224 years ago, i'm looking towards the 21st century, the century in which we currently live. We have no idea how the founding fathers may react in this day and age if they were to see the 21st century, and if they would still enforce the constitution.Extend Point 2-Impact- My Opponents resolution is centered around having the right to bear arms NOW in this present day and age, without government restriction. Con is disproving the benefits of such a right through the Status Quo, which was not touched once as my opponents refutation was a founding father reference that does not apply now. This heavily impacts the round because cons sources and arguments stand, meaning that the right to keep, own, and bear arms is indeed harmful. My opponent is basically advocating harms through guns.3- Moral Agents- Not touched once, Extend please.Extend Point 3- Impact- We have no way of knowing how people, may react with guns. Statistics show people don't use guns in good ways, hostilities become shootouts, simple arguments become deadly. This shows giving guns is counter-intuive to preciesely the reason we give people guns- for protection. My opponent will not argue against the fact that guns were made for protection (more or less). Thus you can see moral agency is a big part of this case.4-Self Defense- My opponent simply tells you to read sources on self defense. He then says if i kill somone trying to kill me it is fine. Proportionality is key in this. If a man were to try to punch me, i could use the same argument "He is trying to kill me" and pull out a gun to shoot the man. This was in no way proportional. Stephen and Walter Wink state the cycle of violence escalates by using disproportional force.Extend Point 4- Impact- The cycle of violence is counter-intuitive to the reason we use guns in the first place. It would create a disproportional means of using self defense. We cannot sit here and allow this. This is both immoral and illegal, unless proven. The fact of the matter is, a man coming at me with his fists in a small fight does not have the means to kill me. The means beats the ends in this occurrence, because he dies in the end, yet i go away free knowing the man wasn't going to kill me. This is an abusive way to enforce self-defense and should not be tolerated.So as you can see, all 4arguments against this right go cleanly extended by con. Con even gives each impact, so please vote con, pro never really refuted a single argument nor provided a credible source, rather asking you to read a book to understand. I suggest pro summarizes this book and puts it on his next rebuttal. As no new arguments can be made, you will see Point 3 already hasn't been touched, so you already have 1 100% voter for con. Based on this i stronglurge a con ballot. Sources easily to con as well.