Resolved: The United States should enact an assault weapons ban.

Introduction:Hi! With the recent mass shooting in Parkland, gun control has had a rapid spike in media coverage and there have been an increased number of political protests. This makes it a primary issue for political debate. One common argument by people in support of control is the desire for an "Assault Weapons Ban". This is where I draw today's resolution. In fact, I will draw it specifically from the MarchForOurLives website. The full text of the proposition can be found as point #1 here [1]. While the other two are also common pro- gun control positions, this debate will focus EXCLUSIVELY on the idea of assault weapons ban.Debating begins in round one, there's a very loose structure. So, with that out the way, good luck and I'll begin to present my arguments.1. The Second Amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."An assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.No, the second amendment does not exclusively give the right to the militia. The government does not need to give itself the right to own arms. Historically, the milita was the entire people (well, all citizens at that time). The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens have the right. This is why the amendment includes the right of the people phrase ("the right of the people to ..."). Otherwise, this could've been removed.No, the second amendment is not outdated. Historically, private citizens were granted the right to arms equal with that of the military. Also, the founders could never have predicted FaceBook or Twitter, back then just pen and paper was used, however our right to freedom of speech extends still to these previously unimaginable platforms.Yes, the second amendment is still important. The first step of any tyranical regime is to remove the right to bear arms. Historically, the has happened in Nazi Germany, but it is also visible in a place such as North Korea. The amendment is essentially to protect not only against invading threats, but a tyranical government at home.It would be unconstitutional. The weapons which are usually encapsulated in the loosley defined term "assault weapons" are among the most commonly used for self-defense purposes by law-abiding citizens. While the right is quite obviously not unlimited, federal circuit courts have rules that the usage of the weapon can be a determinate in its protective status under the amendment. This amicus brief provides the nitty gritty details [2].Self defense is an important private right that should not be understated.2. Definitions:Generally, no one provides a definition as to what is being banned, including this petition from the MarchForOurLives website. Most of the time, people just determine based on how scary looking the weapon is. For obvious reasons, this is a bad metric. For PRO's arguments to be consistent and since they would be proposing this ban that doesn't currently exist, it is their burden to provide a rigid, objective definition of what constitutes an assault rifle.3. Unenforceable:Firstly, try taking guns away from southern-hearted people that don't want to give them up. Good luck.Secondly, registry would be neccessary and fail. Currently, there is, generally speaking, no reigstry which ties firearm owning citizens to firearms. To take guns from everyone, you first need to know who has them and how many they have. Currently, the government has no idea of this fact.Thirdly, simply too numerous. There are over 300 million guns in the United States. For refernece, Australia's buyback program confiscated around 650,000 and still left over a quarter million from people who refused to turn them in. The problem would not disappear for an extremely long time, if ever, even if the incoming legal supply would be substnatially restricted.Fourth, at the end of the day, it only risks hurts the law abiding owners. Of course, some owners would in fact turn in their guns. I'd argue this number is very small. However, zero criminals would turn in their guns. The buyback would only risk putting the most intense law abiding citizens at a greater risk.4. Handguns:Handguns account for a way larger percentage of gun homicides than assault weapons. Even if the instances used of assault weapons had higher numbers of deaths per instance (which I'm not sure is actually true) it doesn't make sense to exclude the overwhelming majority of deaths from the ban. It seems that passing a ban would be the perfect slippery slope to then justify handgun bans.5. Australia:I don't quite understand why gun control advocates always cite Australia's program, as it was a complete failure and seems to often lean in the negative direction. The program was a massive failure, as hundreads of thousands simply ignored the direction. It also experienced a lesser drop rate than in the U.S. during the same period of time. Australia doesn't have the same "gun control" as the United States anyway, which would suggest the result could be drastically skewed more negative [3].I love debating, let's make this an interesting and good one! Honestly, I'd like to be convinced to the best side if your arguments are better.Citations:[1] https://marchforourlives.com...[2] http://www.scotusblog.com...[3] https://bearingarms.com...