Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

I need to apologize. I'm sorry for my arrogance in the last round. I was having a bad night. This led me to treat my opponent like an idiot. I am truly sorry for that. I treated you like a dumb child and that is not right. My opponent is brilliant, and I hope he can forgive me for my arrogance. To be honest, I forgot to put my sources in the initial debate. I clicked the submit button then realized that I forgot to put down my sources. That is why I put it in the comments sections. I am sorry for the confusion. I guess I copied and pasted the link to much. That's why I didn't go to it. I'll post it again, and I promise it will work this time. This Ronald Reagan quote is relevant because it helps me with my debate. The debate on if he really said that is irrelevant. If you don't mind, I would like to post it in it's entirety. "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home." -Ronald Reagan. http://www.snopes.com... Here is the full source. Sorry that the last one didn't work. But I promise you that this one should work. Here is a letter sent to congress that Ronald Reagan signed. May 3, 1994 To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47. The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons. Sincerely, Gerald R. Ford Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan Please stop calling me a fascist. You have never met me before; how can you judge one so harshly for advocating for gun laws. It's really disrespectful. I know that if someone ran over a bunch of people they would get arrested. I was just saying that getting your licence taken away and vehicle was the consequence. I thought jail would be obvious. The part that I really meant to be contradicted was "People should be able to own whatever gun they want". It can be very dangerous if any man can own whatever gun they want. Remember, there is still bad people out there, with our without weapons of war. Also a gun salesman is not a secure enough defense against a maniac getting a missile launcher. Look at the Orlando shooting. The gunman was investigated by the FBI twice and he was still sold an assault rifle. Teachers would be doing their jobs, which is teaching. Not surveying the area outside their windows 24/7. If they did that, i'm pretty sure their wouldn't be school shootings. Mass shootings usually take people by surprise. Retired or not, he did try to protect the citizens in the club. But yet, anyone in that situation (well except maybe Jason Bourne) probably would've been overpowered. Well, choosing to lock up my family should be my choice. But when you pose a threat to my family, then that choice becomes a absolute necessity to protect my family. Therefore, I get my freedom of choice, my pursuit of happiness, and many other liberties just so that you can own and threaten me with a rocket launcher. That doesn't sound like a free society to me. You could have the ability to take the law into your own hands, leaving the need for government no where to be found. The balance between the people and the government wouldn't exist. So in reality, we are not trying to confiscate your freedom, you are trying to confiscate mine. So having the militias already in assembly would give the people too much power. There would be no need for laws or the police force, because the militias would make their own law. Like Nazi Germany, there would be guards stationed on every corner. That doesn't sound like a free society. There would be no liberation, because we gave up that extra sense of security to the militias. Therefore, extra precautions would have to be made in the possible moment that someone would decide to blow up someones house. So this is my opponents secure tactic to make sure that people don't come and blow up my house and that the militias would stop him from doing that. This doesn't sound like a very happy tomorrow to me. My opponents sources are invalid. No one was killed by a hit and run driver crashing through their home. Only a elderly couple was killed... by a fire that happened after the crash. So that's why people driving into houses is exaggerated. I know about France, it was such a tragedy. I was just saying that you were exaggerating it a bit by driving into peoples houses. It would have been nice if my opponent had a source on the militia thingy. But that is exactly how Vladimir Lennon and Joseph Stalin took over Russia. They got funding from Germany to start a revolution, they got some people together and some weapons, and took over the government of Russia. That shouldn't happen that easily. But if we allowed to much power to the people, then militias could take over the government like Lennon Stalin did. This would be good in a time of tyranny. But extremely bad for today's government. Yes, living in Switzerland would be nice. But it's homicide rate is less than the UK's because of population and population density. Switzerland has a lower population and population density than England. But if you were to put Switzerland homicide rate in England's shoes, they would be roughly the same. Hmm... well I guess this doesn't solve anything for both sides of this debate. I guess I proved that more guns and more restricted guns creates the same amount of homicides. Switzerland does have more guns per capita than the UK. Maybe different parts of the world is just more violent than others. I don't know. This is one source of one school shooter being a brat. I asked for five. So I guess my opponent can't prove this point. Yes, the point of the second amendment is to protect us from tyranny. The point of the second amendment is not to let us become more powerful than the government to the point that there is no longer a need for government. There needs to be a balance between the people and the government. I'm not saying that the government is better than the people or visa versa. But that the government needs to be equal to the people. I would like to remind the voters that my opponent has not at all destroyed my case at all. For his case is not a case at all. He has no structure. My opponent has also rebuttaled every round, not bringing up any stand alone points of his own. All of his points are in contradiction to my, therefore my opponent relies on my debate to make his unstructured case. Therefore, without my case, my opponent wouldn't have a case at all. Ultimatly, I am the only one in this debate with a valid structured case. I shall now review my case. Value: National Security. National Security, as defined by the Value Debate Handbook, refers to the protection of a state from aggression. National security is important because it preserves fundamental American values, such as safety. So when we use unneeded weapons that are originally designed for war, we are endangering our basic human value of safety and our national security all together. Contention 1: Not needed. Assault rifles, missile launchers, and tanks are of no use or need in our communities. There is no use for guns like this in any place that isn't a war zone. You literally can't hunt with a missile launcher (imagine that). Ammo is expensive, so you have to be filthy rich in order to even operate these weapons. Contention 2: Responsibility. Responsibility, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is to be able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required. In the past 20 years, our nation has shown to be very irresponsible when it comes to gun ownership. Contention 3: Safety. As I said in my Contention 2, our nation is not responsible enough to own weapons of war. This would ultimately result in the destruction of our safety. The government is protecting yours and others basic human value and need of safety. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment to the extent that it allows us to preserve rights. Weapons of war can give great power to anyone, especially to those that would misuse it. There needs to be laws and restrictions so that people with bad intentions cannot even begin to taste this power. That is why it is to my knowledge that certain gun ownership should be regulated. I would like to thank you for your time. I would also like to thank my opponent for this great debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you.