Other than the exceptions outlined below, arms should not be regulated

I hope you don't mind that I copy and paste the argument I had in the original debate to this one. You didn't rebut anything specific before in this, and I don't know if there's anything else I can say about this. I suppose I could have re-worded everything, but this is easier. We'll see the real debate after this round since then we can rebut what the other has said. I am going to add at least one thing to my argument from last time though. The second to last paragraph is new. To begin my argument for why guns should be regulated very minimally, I will present two quotes: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." R32;- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938 "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let"s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." -Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 What these two quotes show, is that tyranny most easily comes to power when arms are taken away from the people. By only allowing the state to possess arms, it means that they now have all of the power and the people are powerless. What can people do against such a government if they disagree with it? Liberty can only be defended by arms. When some people are allowed arms and others are not, that puts one group above another in power essentially, for what can the people who are unarmed do against those who are armed? In addition, if the general populace is not allowed to have guns, but some people illegally obtain them and then go shoot at a group of people, that group of people has no means to defend themselves. So not only do guns protect us from the government, but also criminals. The police can only investigate a crime after it has occurred, they can't prevent them from happening, so they can't prevent you from dying from a criminal's gun, but your own gun can. I believe that the reasons listed in round 1 for regulating guns makes sense. It should be self-evident that a child should not have access to guns, as they are inexperienced and may not know how guns work and can easily hurt themselves or someone else. A child can't understand the reasons why someone would need a gun either, such as a need to overthrow a corrupt government or system. The same logic applies to someone who has mental handicap that makes their mind equivalent to a child's mind. Prisoners should not have access to guns because then they can potentially come out of prison or kill people in prison as well. So, other than those reasons, I believe there is no reason whatsoever to regulate guns for the honest law-abiding citizen, and I would even argue that for criminals arms should not be taken away either, since they should still have a right to potentially overthrow a tyrannical government and defend themselves against other criminals. However, if they are a murderer, they would most likely be imprisoned for life anyways so wouldn't be able to use a gun anymore to harm anyone anyways.