Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

First of all, I would like to state that my opponent is completely ignorant in looking at my sources. I have shown a plethora of sources, yet my opponent somehow believes that I haven't put down any at all. So, seeing that my opponent is completly lazy when it comes to simply clicking and reading sources, I will present them all again. Sources for round 1: Here is Reagan's speech on gun control. I would like to say to my opponent that this link is right in front of you, it's not too hard to click on it and read it. Give it a try: http://www.snopes.com... Here are other sources that aided in my debate for round 1: http://www.merriam-webster.com...... http://www.lectlaw.com...... http://heedinggodscall.org...... Here are statistic on guns around the world, it is a very interesting video: https://www.youtube.com...... The Value Debate Handbook. Sources for round 2: http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Here is Maslow's hierarchy of needs: http://www.simplypsychology.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... This one is really good. This shows how nations like England used gun laws to stop crime: http://www.businessinsider.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... Here is gun statistics for the world. This also shows that Switzerland is the third ranked nation in gun violence. Let it be known to the voters that I had these sources posted for each of my debates (the first round was in the comments section to save room for my debate.) I am just posting them here again so that my opponent can have a second chance at looking at these. Hopefully, he will give up his ignorance and actually read some of these sources. I am a firm believer in God. I agree with my opponent that the government does not control our rights, but protects them. If everyone is allowed weapons of war in the United States, all of our basic human rights will be at risk. Simple arguments will turn into war zones. Like I said, there wouldn't be school shootings, there would be school bombings. Governments are instituted among men to preserve these rights. That's why they create laws to protect us. We give away liberates to obey these laws. There are seat belt laws, so I have to give up my freedom to choose to not wear a seat belt. There are tax laws, so I give up my freedom weather I want to pay taxes or not. These are all for our protection and good. Let me add this: I think that my opponent is misunderstanding my case. I do not want to take away all of our guns. Only dangerous weapons of war. If we had gun laws like England, we would still be able to protect ourselves from intruders and the government. We just wouldn't be able to get a missile launcher to bomb a school. By having weapons of war, we are endangering ourselves rather than protection of ourselves. Look at all of the mass shootings we are having in America today. If those shootings involved greater weapons, hundreds of more people would die. If this much power was given to the people, it would eventually lead to anarchy. There has to be a balance between the people and the government. If the people are too powerful for their government then there is no need for government. It doesn't matter if you shoot out into a crowd of people whom are armed. Just look at the Orlando Florida shooting. There were guards, with guns, inside that night club and tons of people still died. IT IS my business to be concerned if you can be trusted with weapons of war. How am I suppose to feel safe if I never know when you are going to come to bomb my house. If anyone disagreed with you, you could just enforce your own power to get what you want. You could become a vigilante that no government could stop. What if some day you just become mentally unstable? This is why it is my concern to know if you can be trusted with weapons of war. A single person with that much power must be very responsible to be trusted. Your source does not define well regulated. It is just opinions, no facts. It even states that it is just opinions. Read the definition of regulate again. It is to make rules or laws that control (something). Do you think that there should be rules and laws for average militias so that those militias don't become too powerful? More powerful than the government? If there were no rules, any militia could overthrow the government at any time. Even when the government has good intentions, bad people could still overthrow the government. Communists, terrorists, and gangs could take over the government. The definition of assault rifles and a regular bolt action or mussel loader rifles is completely different. A assault rifle isn't any ordinary weapon, it is a weapon designed for war. Assault rifle (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary): a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military. Bolt action: (of a rifle) equipped with a manually operated sliding bolt. Rifle (as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary): a gun that has a long barrel and that is held against your shoulder when you shoot it. As you can see, a assault rifle is meant to shoot many bullets in a short amount of time. It is actually designed for war and for killing. In short, it is meant for a great deal of damage in a short amount of time. Assault rifles are faster, deadlier, and more dangerous than regular weapons. Also, this has nothing to do with boots. We are talking about gun related violence, homicides, and mass shootings. Not homicides in general. Therefore, this claim you have about Switzerland is no longer valid. The majority of the homicides in Switzerland and the United States are preformed with dangerous weapons. You can clearly see that in my sources. How has homicide rates fallen because of gun ownership? The source that says this is majorly flawed. It's obvious in history. Go ask any person past the age of 40 and ask them how many mass shootings happened in their youth. They will most certainly say none. But since 1997, there has been over 51 mass shootings in the United States. So obviously gun violence and homicides have become more frequent in the past couple of years. Therefore, my opponent's source is flawed in saying that gun ownership has lowered homicide rates in the United States. Sure, you can disagree with Maslow. But he is just simply stating the facts of the most important needs in our lives. Me and my opponent have the same basic human needs as all of you. Some of those needs are needed before others, such as safety. I will repeat this again, 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. You have to have safety before you can have independence from anything. Like I have said many times before, we give up freedoms for protection everyday. By obeying laws, we give up our freedom and the laws protect us in return. That is the whole idea of government. Here is a source explaining Franklin's quote that you mentioned. Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Read about it. https://www.lawfareblog.com... OK... if crime does not require guns... then I could go rob a bank right now really easily right? Well, obviously wrong. Dangerous weapons are used to threaten people into obeying demands that are against ones will. So you can preform a plethora of crimes with guns. Your hypothetical scenario doesn't support your statement either. Banks can still have shotguns for protection or armed guards (as most banks do have). My opponent has done nothing to affect my case. He still does not have a well structured case of his own. Therefore, my case still stands strong. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://judiciallearningcenter.org... http://www.businessinsider.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.cnn.com...