Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Thank you Lexus for your speech.In this debate round, I will be refuting the 2 contentions of my opponent.To begin, my opponent states: guns are patriarchal tools meant to oppress the child, and are used to suppress the Oedipal Complex of the son as a means of social repression. My opponent first established how the gun is a "replacement" for the penis and how the show superiority. And the guns make the father feel as the head of the family and therefore oppress the children.However, I am failing to see why the father would oppress and threaten his own family with a gun? He would never threaten to kill his own child.In addition, my opponent states how they can cause trouble in our society.Actually, its quite the contrary, guns protect the citizens of US from an oppressive government. Let be once again extablish why the founding fathers added the second amendment to our Constitution.[1] The Second Amendment is the most important right, because the Second Amendment keeps the government from being able to impose tyranny. Also the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, without the government being able to take the right away. Last without the Second Amendment all the others are useless, it is a guarantee to the people that we have the right to bear arms, it keeps the government from taking a way our rights, because we can resist.The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist. Stated in the Cuba Constitution, “When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution." This is what our Second amendment gives us the right to do—protect our government. With the second amendment we can fight tyranny, but without it our government could be over thrown.The opponents next contention was: a ban on guns and gun rights is the elimination of private property rights -- a ban on private property rights is the only way that we can critique and attack capitalism directly.In this contention, I feel that my opponent is directly attacking the sheer ownership of property. So, under that point of view, it seems that my opponent is looking to abolish the ownership of property completely.It really seems that my opponent is against ownership as a total. That includes something as simple as a pen and as expensive as a car.However, we can not abolish private property as a total, since it will violate the human rights and harm the overall public. In addition, the abolition of guns only will not solve Capitalism.Actually, the abolition of the gun rights will cause a black market to cause. Let me clarify, [2]Black markets, also called shadow markets, come about when people want to exchange goods or services that are prohibited by governments. Black markets skew economic data, as transactions are unrecorded. Black markets also arise when people don't want to pay taxes on the transaction for legal or illegal goods or services. Some black markets exist simply because people don't realize there are laws they aren't following, such as bartering and not reporting the taxable value of the transaction, or hiring a regular housekeeper or babysitter, but failing to pay employment taxes. The licensing restrictions that governments impose on numerous occupations cause some workers to enter the black market because they don't want or can't afford to invest the time and money to obtain required licenses. For example, in New York City, one must purchase a license called a medallion in order to legally operate a taxi business. These medallions cost more than $600,000, making them prohibitively expensive for most entrepreneurs. As a result, some people may choose to operate black-market taxis without a license - at least, until they are caught. Thank you. Vote con.[1]http://www.teenink.com...[2] http://www.investopedia.com...