Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

Ronald Reagan did say that, I put my sources in the comments section after my debate. Go check them out if you like. I agree with JFK, the founding fathers, and the second amendment. I love JFK. But JFK's and the founding father's generations both respected and were responsible for their guns. Today's generation obviously is not. When JFK and the Framers gave these many statements, they were saying it to their generations. Obviously, they couldn't have known how out of hand our gun responsibility would eventually become. I agree with JFK, but it is to my opinion that his speech does not apply to our nation at this moment in time. Americans are too irresponsible with their guns to defend their nation. Lets compare a gun to a phone. If you are responsible with your phone, then your parents will let you use it as you please. But if you are irresponsible with your phone, like looking at pornography or such, then your parents take it away to protect you from the harms of pornography. It is similar to guns. If we are responsible with are guns, then the government lets us enjoy the right as we please. But if we are irresponsible with guns by killing and taking away others basic human rights, then the government should regulate those guns to protect others basic human rights. The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens basic human rights, even when they are disrespecting their own rights. Like the spider man quote "with great power comes great responsibility", the same applies to guns. If my opponent wants every gun that the military has, how can we trust him with that much power and responsibility? A civilian with that power has no checks and balances like a government, so what could stop a power like that from doing harm? My opponent doesn't know what "well regulated" means. Like I said, regulated, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to make rules or laws that control something. My opponent doesn't know what the founding fathers meant by "well regulated", unless he has met and has known the founding fathers personally. They certainly didn't mean well trained because the definition of regulate has nothing to do with training. I would like my opponent to know that Switzerland is actually ranked the second to third highest nation in gun violence. And they still have significantly less guns and people than the United States. I do not know where he is getting his facts from. But, since we are talking about other nation, I would like to mention that other nations with stricter gun laws have less mass shootings, gun related homicides, and gun violence all together. Such as Australia and England. England's laws regulated Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited. England has shown to have less gun violence. But they didn't take away all of their guns, they can still have shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles. So they can still have defense of their homes and enjoy sports. There is a great amount of difference between a mass shooting with a assault riffle and these weapons. Assault riffles and other dangerous guns, obviously cause more damage in a decreased amount of time. That is why they are so dangerous when used by the public. But the guns that England allows makes it difficult to preform mass killings. These same laws and other are used in many other countries as well. They have all shown to have less gun violence. Let me add this in real quick. My opponent believes that freedom is of more value than safety. It is to my knowledge that he is wrong. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety comes before freedom. Therefore, like I said before, since safety is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy freedom and liberty. Safety is therefore the superior value standard. I would like to ask my opponent to define his version of freedom for me also. Well, yes, people could kill others with knives, crossbows, and poison. But all those weapons are of no equal value to weapons of war. If they were of equal value, as my opponent suggests, then we would have no need for the second amendment, or to own a gun. But obviously my opponent is wrong. Weapons of war are of much greater power than any other weapon. These weapons are used by conflicting nations to kill multiplier people at the same time. But when they are not used by conflicting nations, they can be used with the same consequences. Weapons of war are meant to kill multiple people, the person using it doesn't care if you are a solider, civilian, or anything. Can I get some statistics or facts that show that gun related homicides (or any homicides) are caused by the reasons you mentioned? You can have nothing to do with the unemployment rate, the drug epidemic, violent video games, and poor education and still preform a mass shooting. Anyone can have terrorist intentions. Many mass shooters were educated, employed and thought to be just people. Just look at the Dallas shooter from recent attacks. Also, all other nations have the same problems as we do, some even worse. Like I said, countries like England have managed to avoid gun violence through problems like this through gun laws. I am not advocating fascism. The photograph only includes men who were dictators. They were all leaders of communist nations. But last time I checked, the United States is not a dictatorship. We are a democracy. Our government is built in such a way that it can never take control of the people. Even when the people is without deadly weapons of war. I like Benjamin Franklin, but I am confused with his statement. Isn't the idea of government to give up liberties for protection? This has been the purpose of government for thousands of years. For example, I give up my liberty to go 200 mph on the freeway to the government. The government makes laws that regulate the speed limit for my protection. So this makes no sense. Although my opponent has attacked my case, my case still stands strong. My opponent does not have a well structured case. Only statements and opinions. Therefore, my opponent can in no way successfully attack my case, for he has no organized case of his own to back him up. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.simplypsychology.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... This one is really good: http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.oregonhikers.org...