Round 1. intreped v.s. Valhall: Gun Control, page 1

I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to participate in this debate and thank all who gave me the opportunity. Much respect to my extremely capable opponent, Intrepid.

Guns are inherently unsafe. The sole intent of a gun is to discharge a projectile at a velocity adequate enough to penetrate a target. In the case of firearms, with the exception of competition or training, that target is usually either an animal or a human. Safety of guns has been addressed, and legislated. There are laws governing the minimum required age to obtain a gun, the training requirements to qualify to use a gun, background checks to ensure the purchaser’s history does not preclude ownership of a gun, and waiting periods for handguns to delay possession in times of passionate anger. There has been legislation that has placed locks on guns, and that regulate the transportation and shipping of guns. And laws constrain the carrying of guns on a person without a further licensing process and more stringent background check. Further legislation for the sake of “safing” an inherently unsafe device would result in further infringements on the right to “bear arms”.

The question is not whether the laws attempting to enforce safety of guns are firm enough, but whether the current gun control laws are adequate, or strict enough. But since it has been shown above that the futile attempt to make an unsafe device safe through legislation has been repeatedly attempted, it can also be shown that further attempts in this arena would result in infringement of the ability to purchase, possess and bear (use) arms. For this reason, it does become, at the fundamental level, a question of the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

- Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The obvious intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure an armed militia to stand against an invading force. It can also be argued, based on what the Founding Fathers had removed themselves from in England, and what they hoped to constitutionally prevent happening in their "New World", that this armed militia would be available to stand against any internal oppressive government as well. Since a corrupt government, once installed, inherently cannot control its own malfeasance, the Second Amendment was a preemptive measure taken to tie the hands of any possible oppressive administration that could ultimately attempt to usurp the ability of the populace to defend the rights of the nation as a whole against either an external invading force, or the corrupt, oppressing internal government itself.

There has been great debate, both in and out of the legal system as to what right the Second Amendment preserves. It will be the point of this side of the discussion to show that the Second Amendment doesn't as much preserve an individual's right to possess firearms, as it prohibits the government from infringing on the ability of the individual to be armed for the sake of the nation. In other words, where there may be inherent individual rights implied elsewhere in the constitution, the right to bear arms and protect oneself and one's country is an explicit right named to be protected from government restriction - for the good of the nation as a whole. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment must be viewed as an amendment focused at “the good of the many” versus the good of the few. And it is for this reason that further restricting gun controls, even for the sake of the safety of the few, cannot be allowed to restrict the intended defense of the many.

It is also the intention of this argument to show that any gun control restrictions cannot, constitutionally, issue from the federal government level, but must be relegated to the state level or lower. It will be shown that when the intention of the Founding Fathers, as reflected in their own words, is taken into account, there is a threshold of gun control measures that can be taken at the state or local level for which once crossed can no longer fill the requirement of an armed militia for the good of the nation. And finally, it will be shown that we border on that threshold at the state level, that the federal government has over-reached its constitutionally defined boundaries, and that instead of being in the position of requiring further gun control measures, should have all federal gun control laws repealed on the basis of unconstitutionality – including any directed at safety issues that result in encumbering the citizen’s right to purchase, possess or bear arms.