Gun Control

I'm going to keep this short, as there's not much else that needs saying.Let's look at my two rebuttals once more, keeping in mind that if just one of these is true then my opponent's argument is sufficiently debunked:1. It's impossible for American citizens to win a war against their own governmentMy opponent has now provided us with a rather long list of relatively recent, successful revolutions in other countries. This list, which provides very few facts besides the names of countries, has taken up the bulk of his previous round. I stated earlier that my opponent must provide us with good reasons to believe that modern day American citizens, using legal firearms, can theoretically win a war against their own government. Instead, he's given us this list and I'm quite disappointed.Again, these other countries are irrelevant. One CANNOT assert that X is possible based merely on the fact that Y is possible when X is many times more difficult than Y. This holds true even when you add that A, B, C, D, all the way through W are possible too, when all of those are also individually easier than X.I would have liked to hear my opponent explain how citizens could effectively incapacitate the 14,000 military aircraft or the 6,000 combat tanks the US military currently has, or how they would combat potential nuclear bombs and high-tech military-grade missiles. Instead we got more errors in inductive reasoning. (Did the citizens in these revolutions have to fight against 6,000 combat tanks? Or 14,000 aircraft? Or anything even remotely comparable to the strength of the US military? Who knows? My opponent has left us in the dark on these facts.) The successes of the revolutions in my opponent's list prove nothing relevant to this debate. It is merely a list of the same error in logic repeated many times (that is, the logic which states that because a particular task can be accomplished, a much more difficult version of that same task can therefore also be accomplished). Unfortunately, even a list of 100 logically invalid arguments do not equal one good one. Again, the USA spent 611 billion dollars in 2016 on its military, making it the world's number one leader in military spending, and not by a small margin either. In fact, the USA's military budget is larger than the world's second largest military budget combined with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth largest military budgets. [1]The claim that it is possible for American citizens, using legal firearms, to win a war against their own government has never been sufficiently proven by my opponent, and therefore I assert that this rebuttal stands strong.2. The cornerstone of my opponent's logicMy opponent does literally nothing new to defend himself against my rebuttal. He initially objected to the syllogism I provided, but has failed to offer any alternative way to deductively reach his conclusion. To review, my opponent's logic is this: "Firearms should be publicly available because they help deter potential government tyranny (and, he adds, potential foreign invasion)." Therefore, his deductive reasoning must form a syllogism such as this:Premise 1: Firearms can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion.Premise 2: ?????????Conclusion: Therefore, firearms should be publicly available.There is literally no other possible premise we could plug into this argument to make it logically valid other than "Everything that can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion should be publicly available." Without this second premise, the conclusion does not follow. It must be precisely this premise or it doesn't work. Note that similar premises, such as "Some things that can help citizens deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion should be publicly available," does not work; we'd be left wondering whether firearms belong in the "some things" category or not, or how we can decide. In other words, the syllogism itself would be logically invalid and leave us with more questions than answers.Because my opponent failed to explain why this premise is not the hidden premise that was initially missing in his deductive reasoning, because he failed to produce any alternative premise or syllogism to substantiate his conclusion, and because he failed to give any explanation for why we cannot use his same logic to conclude tanks and nuclear bombs should be publicly available (despite that they can help deter government tyranny and/or foreign invasion), I feel confident that this rebuttal stands strong as well.Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...