Gun Rights

This is a debate about gun rights. The parameters are to be set for Californian law, society, and customs. My fellow debate resides in California so this would account as common knowlege and assumed conditions for both of us.

Definition set for gun rights: The legal right to posses a gun under proper licensing in California.

First round is acceptance.

Challenge Accepted.

There are 3 arguments that justify my argument:

Reason 1: Constitution 2nd Amendment shows current standing of gun rights. As the wisdom of founding fathers has created a complete American nation, the wisdom of our Founding fathers in creating these amendments is proven, thus being logic behind decision of the provisioned rights.

Reason 2: By allowing guns to be owned under lawful measures, the safety of people is secured because guns are used for peace-making measures such as protecting oneself.

Reason 3: Legally holding guns attributes to history of one where no past illegal acts were committed that prohibiting firearm possession for a person over 18. This legal "trust" shows that gun rights are carefully decided for wise and good use.

I thank Con for debating with me. However, his argument has many flaws:

Rebuttal 1: My opponent stated the case of a crazed man with a gun. However, Con has failed to recognize my point that anyone owning a gun must be legally licensced (Support 3). Therefore, the absurd point that a crazed man owns a gun (legally) is wrong.

Rebuttal 2: Con stated having a shotgun/rifle as plausible. However, California law gives strict requirements for gun owners such as restricting felons from owning rifles.

Support: The rebuttals highlight a support for my reasons in that the laws require gun owners to have a clean history (Reason 3) and use guns wisely such as to defend oneself.

Sources:
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

As a summary, I would like to take note of the following:

Con centered his entire argument upon the hypothetical situation of a normal man just happening to turn crazy on an arbitrary day and start shooting people.

1. My opponent failed to make valid connection between the highly unlikely case of the crazy man to the gun rights debate, thus making the situation be almost of no relation to the debate.

2. Con always stated his core support as a "say say" condition and did not state any real life example as to this condition thus regarding it as a "mythical" situation in this debate.

3. Almost all of Pro's (my) points were disregarded by Con thus conceding to each and every one of my supports.

Based on everything, vote Pro!

I lose, MOOOOOO. Vote me, I have mad cow disease.