"It seems we've been operating with different definitions of what a right is." Pro
The importance of descriptions in debates.
"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
"When the Founders created our Bill of Rights, they saw two primary reasons for the need to keep and bear arms. First, there was the inalienable right to self-defense that all people enjoy. Second, this right was deemed essential as a bulwark against oppression by the government.
Samuel Adams stated the Constitution should never be interpreted to “prevent the people from keeping their own arms”. Additionally, Theodore Sedgwick declared “a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands” cannot be oppressed. "
https://www.americanacorner.com/blog/bill-of-rights-second-amendment#:~:text=First%2C%20there%20was%20the%20inalienable,from%20keeping%20their%20own%20arms”.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
https://portal.ct.gov/sots/register-manual/section-i/declaration-of-independence-us-constitution#:~:text=We%20hold%20these%20truths%20to,and%20the%20pursuit%20of%20happiness.
Liberty, which we achieved by free men with guns.
"The Founders believed that natural rights are inherent in all people by virtue of their being human and that certain of these rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be surrendered to government under any circumstances."
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/the-declaration-the-constitution-and-the-bill-of-rights#:~:text=This%20note%20was%20a%20promise,also%20a%20promise%20of%20liberty.
Even taken legalistically,
"Although the 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech,[25] the Chinese government often uses the "subversion of state power" and "protection of state secrets" clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China#:~:text=Although%20the%201982%20constitution%20guarantees,those%20who%20criticize%20the%20government.
"The Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and press; however, government application of law, bureaucratic regulation, and politically motivated criminal investigations have forced the press to exercise self-censorship constraining its coverage of certain controversial issues, resulting in infringements of these rights."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#:~:text=The%20Russian%20constitution%20provides%20for,issues%2C%20resulting%20in%20infringements%20of
Try legally curtailing free speech in America as much as they do in some other nations, and then try telling people they still have the Rights of free speech.
In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570
Unfortunately society and technology has developed in such a way that guns are less effective in resistance against tyranny.
Drones, missiles, aircraft, satellite, the loss of states power and identity as countries in their own rights.
While guerilla defense 'can be impressive, when 'needed weapons can be required. Home made and abroad.
But in peace, they are more a danger to the people than a benefit.
And so the time for guns 'not to be the Right that they once were in America.
The need for accountability and further limitations of availability and firepower.
To the point, that what few guns remaining, cannot be considered the right of gun ownership.
See again the examples of 'Free 'Speech in other countries,
Consider whether limiting guns to hunters, limiting gun abilities to such as one sees in Japan.
Are these the gun Rights of our American ancestors?
Using the source Pro supplied under Supreme Court,
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570
No. And though we once had them, we've had and lost rights before.
Slave ownership for example.
State sovereignty.
"I think there should be a protected base of firearms, such as simple hunting rifles and basic handguns due to their being paramount for the lives of many Americans." - Pro
If America 'heavily regulates guns and removes the 'Right to guns, we complete with Canada and Mexico. Guns will next fall out of criminals hands, available only due to the glut of American guns.
Look to the UK and Japan, gun homicides.
Consider the militarized American police fearful of guns everywhere.
Compare them to UK constables generally without guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20Kingdom%2C%20police,by%20specially-trained%20firearms%20officers.
A decrease of guns in America can further improve public interactions with the police, as it demilitarizes.
"I think there should be a protected base of firearms, such as simple hunting rifles and basic handguns due to their being paramount for the lives of many Americans." - Pro
Crime prevention
It's difficult to find unbiased numbers on such a polarized topic, thankfully though I found the American Journal of Public health. (2) They estimate 61,000 - 65,000 defensive firearm incidents per year in the U.S, just a touch short of the NRA's millions, but still a significant number. - Pro Round 1
Whether a person defends themself with a handgun or their fists, it would count as self defense.
What encouraging firearms as a defense encourages, is accidents, suicides, criminals emboldened by the 'seeming power of guns.
Refer to the definitions above. Legal rights can be managed without destroying them.
See China and Russia examples.
Consider the 'Right to vote being discussed in America currently.
Trump and Voter ID, limiting the number of days voting is possible.
"single day of voting, something Trump has said he would like to see happen,"
"voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-has-pressed-for-new-voting-requirements-republicans-in-congress-will-try-to-make-that-happen
Depending what type of ID, perhaps Real ID.
The more hoops and barriers to entry, the less something is a Right, until it's not. Even if 'technically one 'might be able to achieve it.
"Prohibition
As you are not arguing for the prohibition of guns I see no utility in continuing to try to prove this point. I agree that the guns we don’t want, such as assault rifles, can be effectively phased out over time considering the environment of the U.S." - Pro
See earlier arguments on guns in America being a Right to fight tyranny.
Pro agreeing to remove assault rifles, means a butchering of the Right to resist tyranny, thus no right at all.
No 'Right to guns at all, which 'is my argument.
I 'too am for removing assault rifles in this debate, the difference is I acknowledge it for what it is. No Right to Guns, as is understood by American history.
Japan disbarment
Japan was full of guns, then it was not.
In June 1945, Japan established the “National Volunteer Combat Force,” a civilian paramilitary corps. All males age 15-60 and females 17-40 were required to join. They received training from the army on whatever weapons were available, notably bamboo spears and hand grenades.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/japans-last-ditch-force
Every weapon available was getting out to the public, spread about the country. After WW2 they were removed over time, until Japan is as it is today.
New York is among a half-dozen states that had key provisions of its gun laws invalidated by the high court because of a requirement for applicants to prove they had “proper cause” for a permit. Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday that she and her fellow Democrats in the state Legislature took action the next week because the ruling “destroyed the ability for a governor to be able to protect her citizens from people who carry concealed weapons anywhere they choose.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-york-creates-gun-free-zones-after-supreme-court-ruling#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20—%20Amid,a%20“Gun%20Free%20Zone.”
That does not match with the 'American idea of gun Rights. To have to beg, fill out forms, have proper 'cause. What cause? Perhaps being a police officer, on active military duty?
Only the 'government having a 'Right to guns?
Well, such 'is what I argue in this debate.
No repetition of sources used in round this round, as I am out of characters. 17 left.
Pro
#1
