Gun Control is Good

I'll keep my first round short so my opponent can make their points first.

Government programs are notorious for achieving results that are the exact opposite of what they intend. If advocates of gun control get their way, there will be no better example of this principle. Gun control would result in a less peaceful, more dangerous society.

The answers to your points are fairly brief.

"Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under chapter 47A of the Military Commissions Act of 2006" (Section 1, Subchapter I)

The important words in this section are "alien" and "unlawful"

The Act defines alien as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States". This means that as long as you are a legal citizen of the United States, none of this applies.

The term unlawful enemy combatant means –
A.a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces)

So, as long as you are not as you are not trying to overthow the US government, you should be just fine.

To sum it up, under the Military Commissions Act the only people who will lose their rights are unlawful enemy combatants (aka terrorists) who never really had any rights in the first place.

Don't take into account my round two arguement. By mistake I posted another arguement in this debate.

My opponent forfeited again so I will repost the arguement I put in the comment box There are two major reasons for the right to keep and bear arms: so that citizens can protect themselves from the tyrannical acts of their own government and so that they can protect themselves from violent people. Proponents of gun control suggest that the first justification is baseless, since we live in a democracy. And by disarming everyone, the argument goes, violent crime against innocent people will plummet.

Let's address the second argument first. This argument for gun control is based on two alternative assumptions: either that violent people would obey gun-control laws or that gun-control laws would prevent violent people from acquiring guns. This argument does not make any sense. If a murderer intends to break a law against murder, why would he have any more respect for a law prohibiting him from possessing a gun? What would really happen would be that good law abiding citizens would not have guns and the criminals would have guns and not have to worry about potential targets having guns. As they say, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

The right to keep and bear arms actually makes everyone safer, even those who oppose it. If violent people do not know which people are carrying arms and which are not, they are much less likely to take a chance. The reason a mugger on the street feels safer than a burglar of a home is that the mugger knows that he is less likely to encounter an armed defender. So I think that people that are for gun control should put signs in front of their homes that read "Gun Free Home"

The reason that people with guns can protect themselves from the tyrannical acts of their own government pertains more to people in foreign countries. So I encourage people to watch this youtube video - http://youtube.com......

Sloppy debate, but he didn't even post anything.