Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

Let me clarify myself on several points before moving on to rebuttals.Clarifications1. I have not explicitly nor implicitly branded you, my opponent, as an NRA affiliate or a conspiracy theorist. However, I have shot down the plausibility of a possible Government take over on the Second Amendment.2. The NRA is currently the most active gun organisation arguing against gun control and they are used as examples in the context. Once again they are not meant to "label" my opponent but are examples of gun advocates.Rebuttals:1.My opponent's interpretation of the 2nd amendment following the criterion of the 9th amendment which dictates how the constitution is to be interpreted is flawed. My opponent states, "MY interpretation is this. A regulated militia (an organized group of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers ) being necessary to the security of a free state (being necessary to the protection of a free state), the right of the people (the RIGHT of the Citizens of the United States of America) to keep and bear arms (to own the same weaponry as our military including ammunition), shall not be infringed (shall not be taken away, in any form)."Flawed portions of the argument have been bolded.To keep and bear arms does not mean to own the same weaponry as the US military including ammunition.An American citizen does not have the right to own nuclear warheads, machine guns, tanks, battle ships, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, Fighter-aircraft, B-2 bombers, ICBMs, modern artillery pieces, and other weapons that could potentially cause mass murder with a single use. (excludes side arms, shotguns, bolt action rifles, and antiquated weapons (due to ammunition being rare) 2. The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments.Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion.Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns3. "To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority. If the 9th Amendment is not the defender of the Constitution, then what is? Unarmed citizens, or maybe the Government? In charge of defending it from....Government?"The definition of imply is to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated. Again, like I stated in the previous round, the 9th amendment merely states how the constitution is to be read in order for the reader to understand the constitution. Also, the 9th amendment is by no means the defender of the constitution as that responsibility falls with the POTUS, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the people of the US. Also my opponent's statement, "To "Imply" is a matter of translation, and shouldn't be argued either way as neither one of us is of authority." Is the fallacy an appeal to authority– where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it, or in this case where an assertion is deemed false because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. My opponent also argues that scholarly interpretations should not be used in debates. However, such thinking undermines the first amendment, but I digress.4. ContradictionsMy opponent contradicts himself by agreeing to the provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by saying, "I agree with this. A Right should be taken away if there is a valid reason. But by restricting people who do not abuse their rights, is well....not right?", and then says, "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". Would my opponent clarify his statements as current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. 5.Red HerringMy opponent's last rebuttal, "Something else to consider, If the governments primary objective (getting back to the debate) is to save lives, children's lives, then why would we ban assault weapons, and not Handguns? Handguns are semiautomatic, concealable, faster to reload, easier to change positions, and shoot a larger diameter on average than "Assault Weapons". Assault Weapons are glorified rifles that you cannot conceal, cannot shoot any faster than a handgun, takes longer to aim, and restricts field of vision while aiming. Could it be because they are a larger threat to government forces at a further range? The Government has already made Machine Guns Illegal for citizens to own. This already compromises a balance in powers of the people versus government forces, if The People were to ever revolt." is a poor argument undermining Pro. First attempting to ban Handguns is a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment, especially in homes where shotguns would be too bulky to use. Second Assault weapons have a much higher magazine capacity than handguns. Third the so-called balance between the people versus the government is still the same as the National Guard, a state (not federal) run militia/reserve force following the second amendment as a regulated militia, is given the same equipment except nuclear weapons and other unconventional weapons of mass destruction.