Gun ownership is a absolute right and should not be regulated

Wow... simply just.. wow. I'll make this easy for you. First, go to round two of my debate. Next, scroll down to the bottom where it says "Sources:". Guess what? My sources for my round 2 are there. Who knew? I would like to advise the voters to not pay attention to my opponents ignorant claims about my sources. You can perfectly find my sources in my debates and in the comments section also. Do not let my opponent fool you into thinking that I am a idiot. I did prove that Ronald Reagan said that. Why are you being so dang ignorant? I've put the source of him saying that in TWO of my debate rounds. Yet somehow you have missed it every time. Is there something wrong with your computer or something? Because I just can't figure out why you keep on accusing me of not presenting sources. I guess the third try is the charm. Here is the quote of Ronald Reagan that my opponent can't deny. Hopefully this is final time I have to post this: http://www.snopes.com...... If my opponent really believed what Reagan believed, he would believe this then. Therefore, he agrees with my debate. Well if you don't agree with my quotes, it doesn't make them irrelevant. I disagree with most of your points, so I guess according to you tactics that makes them irrelevant also. Therefore, your case no longer stands at all. My opponent seems to be desperate enough at this point in the debate to start calling me names. Don't worry, it's just sticks and stones. I AM NOT A FASCIST. Mussolini is not my role model. Stop accusing me of such things. That would be like if I said that you worshiped Hitler. Obviously, you don't. But do you know how annoying and disrespectful that is. If you could please handle the rest of this debate in a more professional manner, I would much appreciate it. I'm sorry to be mean. Your ignorance for my debate is just driving me to anger. My analogy does apply here. My opponent has made a poor attempt to prove that it doesn't apply. There are laws the prohibit vehicles in public places. But since driving is a privilege, if someone deliberately tries to run over people, that person will get his licence and vehicle taken away and will never drive again. "Say some maniac wants to blow up a school, how the hell is he going to afford a bazooka?" "People should be able to own whatever gun they want, I should be able to own an Aussalt ariffle, shotgun, pistol, AK-47, AR-15, machine guns, tank guns, WW2 cannons, missile launcher, ghost guns, I should be able to own any firearm I can afford." First of all, watch your language. You don't need to swear to prove your point. Any maniac that is committed enough to get a missile launcher will receive it in a matter of time. Like you said, people, even maniacs, should be able to own whatever gun they want. We do not want a maniac to get a missile launcher. That's why we need to have stricter gun laws so that people like that can't get missile launchers. Your bazooka maniac assumption does not work. Simply, that's not how our schools and world works. The bazooka guy didn't call ahead to the school to tell them he was coming to blow it up. The teachers and the staff wouldn't be huddled up in the corner and be like "ok let's shoot the next guy that comes in". That's just not how it works. That's not how terrorism or schools work. Your assumption is completely flawed and can't stand as a valid point in this debate. There were guards in Orlando. Hopefully you will look at this source also. http://www.factcheck.org... I can't take away the liberties of my family just so you can have a missile launcher. I'm not going to bunker up my future family and say "sorry kids, you can't go enjoy the pursuit of happiness because people threaten us with missile launchers." I don't want to live a life like that. I want to be free to do as I please without having people like you threaten me with dangerous weapons. That is not he United States that I have dreamed of. Where everyone is afraid of each others weapons. If that is a America that you want to live in then what is wrong with you? The "militias" would let that happen for 2 reasons. 1. Militias wouldn't know your intentions before it was too late. Not unless they are watching you at all times or they have guards stationed on every corner, like Nazi Germany. Anyways, it's like you said. It's none of their concern. 2. Militias can't assemble that fast to stop you. You could have caused enough damage to leave a scar on the world before they even knew what was happening. Your example with the car is highly exaggerated and kind of imaginary. This debate isn't a Call of Duty game. I have never heard of that happening either. So that's why we don't ban cars. Because the danger of that situation seems highly exaggerated and could never happen in real life. Well, actually, the government has begun to do something about the obesity epidemic. Michelle Obama has started the Let's Move program and has made school lunches healthier for the younger generation. But the older generation gets angry when the government tells them to eat healthier. But anyways, this is not the debate topic. I shall now return to the debate. Do you have facts on how separation would prevent militias from getting too powerful. This sounds more like an exaggerated guess. I'm not avoiding the question. It is just a really dumb question. But if you really want me to answer it, then I will. No, if you kicked me with a boot, that would not make it an assault boot. I'm not sure where you are getting at with the question though. But that has nothing to do with how a assault rifle is just a rifle. I have proven that it is not just a ordinary rifle. Assault rifles can cause a great deal of damage in a short amount of time. No other regular weapons can do that. So I'm not sure where you are getting with this boot question. So when there are more guns, there is a increase in gun killings huh? Weird, that seems to prove my point that an increase of dangerous weapons in the United States has lead to gun violence, homicides, and mass shootings. I don't get your question either. I know that you will be mad if I don't answer it so I guess I will go ahead. Umm 4 killings where 3 of them are by guns I guess. 4 killings is a lot less than 7 killings so that's why I think it is better. So most school shooters are brats? Well, since you have the burden of proof, can you give me at least 5 examples of school shooters that were brats? Or give some statistics or facts? "the point of the second amendment was that the Federal Government became tyrannous we could over throw it" That is simply not he point of the second amendment at all. It's like you said, it is meant for protection. Along with this, I also believe that every man should own a gun. But every man shouldn't be able to own a weapon of war. We should be able to protect ourselves with guns, but not with certain assault rifles. Assault rifles are more often used for oppression than protection. My case still stands strong. My opponent has made no effort to structure his own debate, therefore he cannot successfully attack my debate. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative case of this debate. SOURCES: http://www.factcheck.org... http://www.letsmove.gov...