s don't, then inequality is present. The "Laws ofNature" state, that one has a right to defend himself/herself (within reason). Is the use of a gunreasonable? In light of the fact criminal's have guns! The answer is YES, one has a Right to defendtheir "Life" with a gun which allows for the "Pursuit of Happiness--". Keep in mind that "freeman owngun's slaves don't!"Here are some of my oppositions views: Gun control advocates say, gun control is a humanitarian issue, it saves lives. My rebuttal is: 1st off, if gun control advocates were such humanitarians theyshould be pushing legislation to ban motor vehicles, because in 1990 there were 4 times more deathsfrom auto accidents, than gun homicides of that same year. So I ask. "Who will give up their motor vehicle to save lives?" So why should gun owners give up their guns?Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, when the Constitution was written, the gun only shotone bullet at a time, thus it was not intended for Americans to have assault rifles. My rebuttal: The musket was the weapon of assault in it's time period, just like the AK-47 is today. Equivalent weapons for equivalent times.Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will keep guns out of the hands of Crimin-als. My rebuttal: Well, if you don't want criminals to have guns, keep them behind bars. Punish thecriminal act, not the law abiding gun owner!Oppositions view: Gun control advocates say, children should not have guns. My rebuttal: I have one question and one statement. First the question. "Do children have a right to protectthemselves?" Yes, they do! Now the statement. "I had guns as a child, and I grew up to be ok".Opposition view: Gun control advocates say, gun control will reduce the hazards to law enforcement. My rebuttal: Many times law enforcement is the problem. Remember Rodney King? Waco, Texas?Thomas Paine once said, "The balance of power is the scale of peace." Oppositions view: Gun control advocat...
