No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

I just realized that this is a 5 round debate... this is gonna be fun ;) My opponent points to the fact that when the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written, weaponry was significantly different than today. He also argues that the forefathers would have not have written the amendment "if the weapons were able to kill 10 people in 5 seconds" and that "The rifles took about 30 seconds to reload for one shot and they were not even accurate enough to aim for a target 200 feet away" First of all I would like to clarify that this assumption is based on pure speculation on the part of my opponent. Furthermore, the Second Amendment doesn't say "guns", "rifles" or "firearms". It uses the more generic and broad term "arms". There were plenty of "arms" at the time of the implementation of the Second Amendment that were able to "kill 10 people in 5 seconds". Those arms include but are not limited to rifles that could be fired every 15 seconds and were accurate to up to 300 yards and lightweight, mobile cannons with a range of over 800 yards that could with one shot "destroy an enemy company". [1] The most important issue that my opponent seems to miss, is the fact that the Second Amendment creates a balance of power between the civilian population and the forces of the government or between the civilian population and an invading army. The Second Amendment clearly states that the right to own and bear arms is necessary to the security of the State. Weapons technology has improved for everybody. An invading army of a dictatorial domestic force would without any doubt be armed with more that manual weapons, therefore, in order to keep the balance of power intact, it is necessary to make sure that law abiding citizens can lawfully arm themselves with equally sophisticated weapons. In the attempt to discredit my first point, my opponent states that "by this reasoning, ... law-abiding citizens have the right to kill a non law-abiding with a semi-sutomatic weapon if he/she tries to steal a hat off out head" and that according to my reasoning "we can say to the police, "I shot him 5 times in the back because I was defending myself from him." Police says, "Oh, what did he do?" Citizen, "He tried to steal me hat." " This is a complete distortion of my argument. My opponent does not recognize the difference between being technically able to engage in an act of self-defence with the aid of a weapon that is technologically equal or better to an aggressor's weapon and the abuse of self-defence. The semi-automatic weapon is not relevant in this attempt of argumentation, as a person who would seek revenge after being robbed of a hat could easily use a different tool, like an ax or a hammer to wrongfully kill the robber. On the other hand, a person who needs to act in self defense after being assaulted by somebody in possession of an automatic weapon would find himself in an asymmetrical situation if armed with a manual firearm or not armed at all. Allow a citizen to lawfully own and bear a semi-automatic weapon does not condone nor encourage the criminal use of it. Trying to discredit my second point, my opponent states that "It will never be socially acceptable for a citizen to fire upon a leader" This statement clearly seems to ignore that in a democracy the people are sovereign, and that if a leader becomes subversive and dictatorial, it is not only socially acceptable but morally necessary for the people to use force to reinstate a democratic form of government. This is a core element of the Declaration of Independence, which states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive ... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." There are several examples throughout the course of history of democracies being hijacked by leading figures with dictatorial aspirations. Before the Roman Empire, there was a Roman Republic. Before the French Empire there was a French Republic. Before the Nazi Germany, there was the Weimer Republic. It is interesting to note that those democracies were subverted because the people did not have the means to dispose of the new dictatorial governments who held a monopoly of force. It was the official policy of Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler, to deny citizens legal gun ownership unless they were government workers of members of Hitler's NSDAP. Coup D'etats are not rare events, but a fairly spread phenomenon [2] My opponent continues his argument by stating that "A militia has not been used or even remotely needed in the US for hundreds of years. Again, not socially acceptable. It will never be socially acceptable in the US for a group of people to roam the streets with semi-automatic weapons ready to kill another group of people." Throughout the history of the United States, militias have been replaced with a standing army. The most powerful standing army the world has ever seen. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Presser vs Illinois of 1886 that while citizens had no right to create their own militias, it is within the States authority to regulate and implement Militias. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated in District of Columbia v. Heller of 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago of 2010 that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of every citizen of the United States. I would like to note that my opponent keeps mixing up the right to own and bear arms with the unlawful killing of people. These are two very distinct issues. In his last point, my opponent states that "just because it is just as easy for a serial killer to kill people another way" allowing the legal ownership of semi-automatic weapons gives "him/her another option". This statement completely misses the point of the debate, because legislation against ownership of semi automatic weapons will only be effective for law-abiding citizens. A person who wants to commit murder will not be held back by a law that prevents anybody else to be lawfully allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon. On the contrary, stripping away from law abiding citizens their ability to efficiently defend themselves with technologically advanced weapons would just make them an easier target for criminals. The Second Amendment is the backbone of a free society and a democratic form of government! Don't give up your hard-earned freedom! VOTE CON! 1] http://www.doublegv.com... 2] http://en.wikipedia.org...