Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

No, you did not cite any sources, besides, even if you did, your source needs to provide a place and time where Reagan said that. In response to your first argument, you assume that it is the government’s job to decide what rights the people should have, and that the government is somehow like the parent to the citizens. This is not so, the government is a servant of the citizens, not the master, the government does not grant us rights or regulate them, it merely enforces these rights, which are granted by a higher power- G-d. This is very obvious if you read the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that to preserve these rights governments were instituted among men.” A police officer doesn’t get to decide what laws to enforce, he just enforces them, the government does not get to decide what liberties to secure; its job is only to secure them. I also found it interesting that people who were against and wrote against totalitarian regimes such as George Orwell and Thomas Jefferson were in favor of second amendment rights: “That rifle on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson This is because if the government decides to take away our rights and force us under totalitarianism, our last and greatest defense is the right to bear arms and to form militias. If the people are armed, the government will fear the people, and when the government fears the people there is liberty, but when the people fear the government there is tyranny. This is when the government is armed and the people are not. It is not the government’s job to decide whether I am responsible or not, it is our job, the citizens, to decide if the government is responsible enough to govern. It is also none of your business to be concerned whether or not I can be trusted with an AK-47, if I went to shoot a crowd of people who were armed, I would certainly die, and not too many rational people would do this. “The government does not need to know about what we are doing. We need to know about what the government is doing. We need to turn the cameras on the police and on the government, not the other way around." - Ron Paul Well regulated is defined here: http://americanmilitiaassociation.com... An “assault” Riffle is just a riffle, if I kick you with my boot, does that make that boot an “assault boot?” I also want to point out that your statistic for Switzerland having such high gun violence is thoroughly absurd. First of all you provided no source, second of all these numbers are impossible because Switzerland only has 52 homicides annually; assuming that all of these are gun related your numbers are still mathematically impossible. {1} granted they only have a population of about 8.2 million, but this means that they have 1 homicide annually per every 157,700 people, whereas we have 1 homicide annually for every 25,600 people, and Brittan has 1 homicide per every 96,970 people. So the US has a homicide rate of 6 times Switzerland, and Brittan has a homicide rate of 1.5 times Switzerland. Third of all, I am measuring violence in regards to how many homicides in general they have, I couldn’t really care less if the criminals kill people more with guns than with knives, it just needs to stop. And a good way to do this is to arm our citizens. Comparing gun ownership to homicide rates is a little tricky since each country may otherwise have different homicide rates. So you can only tell by comparing high gun ownership and homicide rates in the same nation, since 1993 gun ownership has rose, and crime has reduced. {2} I couldn’t care less what Maslow says, but even if I did this was a psychological theory; it has nothing to do with human rights. Like I said, those who would give a little liberty to receive a little security will deserve neither and lose both. The most important need is independence and individualism, and the definition of liberty is the right to do anything which does not infringe someone else’s rights, which in their most basic form are life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. The government is not supposed to take away freedom for protection, this is absurd, the government is there to preserve our liberties, which means that it is supposed to have no involvement whatsoever save a military to defend against foreign threats and a police to defend against domestic threats. “If you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer this way, but what would you be giving up? Perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law to protect our liberties." - Ron Paul Your argument that reducing guns reduces crime is insane, crime does not require guns, I could commit a crime with or without a gun. But let's create a hypothetical scenario, a criminal named Frank wants to rob a bank, if he lives in Washington DC, he knows that he can jut buy a semi-automatic from his criminal friend Joe who doesn't really care that guns are illegal, and shoot everyone in the bank, the police take 30 minutes to get there, and when they do, Frank and Joe are already in Mexico enjoying their new stolen wealth. In an alternative scenario, Frank lives in Texas, walks into a bank and pulls out his AK-47, so the bank teller pulls out a shotgun and blows his brains out- no one gets robbed and no one dies save Frank. Which bank would you rather be in? {1}. http://www.nationmaster.com... {2}. http://www.cnsnews.com...