You're just chock full of logical fallacies, aren't you! That's known as the fallacy, the "appeal to the majority." A majority of Southerners supported Jim Crow laws in the past, a majority of residents of Kali, New York, Taxachussetts, Chicago, and other places support gun prohibitions, and a majority of US voters (but, fortunately, not Electoral College voters) supported Al Gore for president in 2000. That doesn't make any of them right, and it doesn't make you right either.
you might want to try to disprove it yourself.
Since you are the one who wants to violently deprive others of rights, the burden of proof for the necessity of doing so rests on you. Here's the Presumption Of Tyranny again, coming from you: All laws, however tyrannical they might be, are assumed valid unless people can PROVE they should be repealed. A situation that is much closer to the founding father's intent is that all laws should sunset, unless there is a clear and convincing argument to continue some of them. How would you argue against those supporting Jim Crow laws, again? You have never answered that question. In your answer, remember your support for majority positions, the presumtion that laws are valid, and the significance of statistical relationships between crime and the subjects of laws in question. (This is going to be good!)
You can hold out on me doing days of research, but I frankly don't need to, to win this argument, and I don't think any statistic on this is capable of changing your mind.
On the other hand, if you had statistics from a non-interested party, with solid research, showing that only 3% (for instance) of crack users ever committed crimes to pay for their drugs, then I would find that very compelling toward legalization,
Well, how about this for a statistic:
Why do you suppose the murder rate dropped after Prohibition ended? If alcohol leads people to the path of criminality and violence, as the Prohibitionists did claim, then allowing "easy access to alcohol" (as the gun grabbers would say) should lead to escalation of murder rates at the end of Prohibition. But that isn't what happened, is it?
even though I still wouldn't consider it a right.
Yes, it's obvious that consideration of rights plays a miniscule role in your thought process, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms, which you would revoke if, as the gun grabbers claim, guns lead people to commit crimes!