No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military

I will use this argument to rebut my opponent's points, and, in doing so, highlight my own. I will also argue on the assumption that the Topic of Debate is that no one SHOULD have the right to own guns except for members of the police and military. Obviously, the second amendment can be taken as evidence for the fact that everyone does have this right. 1)"Our first reason is protection and defense." The next line of this section is "Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home." However, this constitutional right is used as its own argument; it cannot be both evidence for an argument and an argument itself (as evidence, it must be fact, and as an argument, it must be opinion/theory). But this is not the only problem with this argument; the facts simply do not add up: "Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection." 1-Where is this poll? Without a link of some sort, we cannot assume that such a poll truly exists. 2-More importantly, of COURSE gun owners will say that it is for protection (or hunting). That a) does not mean that they were telling the truth and b) does not mean that it ACTUALLY protects them. They just think it does/will. "As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem." And the rest...are criminals? "According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year." This means nothing, simply because it comes from the NRA. If Target says that 2 to 2.5 million of its products are of better quality than similar items at Wal-Mart, would you believe them? 2)Hunting is no reason to keep guns legal. Why do we want to encourage killing for enjoyment? Also, people hunted in the Ice Age out of necessity. My opponent even states that "Hunting was how the Native Americans survived." They needed to kill the animals. It was not for sport; they considered animals to be their brothers and tried to use every single part of the dead animal so as not to waste any life. All of this aside, Native Americans and people of the Ice Age did not even use guns to hunt. "Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition." Just because something is a tradition does not make it right. The United States had a tradition of segragation until the Civil Rights Movement. So Jim Crowe Laws should have remained legal? 3)"banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun" How does a challenge for the government mean that crime would not be stopped? "If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used." Which would make mass murders next to impossible. A person can only hold so many knives at once, and they need to be in close range. If they throw them they 1) have to know how to do it in a manner such that the tip of the blade, not the side or handle, hits the target and 2) will run out. And how many school massacres would happen? Any? It doesn't seem to feasible for a student to lug an axe into school so that they can maybe hack one student up (but is murder ever really feasible?) before being seen and stopped. This statement ("If guns were banned...other weapons would be used") also undermines the argument that guns are used mainly for protection. Allow me to explain: 1)Assume that 71% of adults that own handguns really do own them for protection. 2)This means that hunting, target shooting and crime make up the other 29%; crime can only be a small part of this (according the my opponent's argument). 3)Now the few crimes that are committed will be committed with less lethal weapons, meaning fewer homicides. As stated above, bladed weapons work only in close range and can kill very few people in one instant. It also contradicts another vital part of my opponent's argument: the fact that guns prevent deaths. Why couldn't other weapons, in the "right" hands, do the same? 4)"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well-regulated militia. Not "for the purposes of sport and hunting," not for "personal protection and safety." For a "well-regulated militia." Citizen soldiers. Is this amendment not saying that the purpose of owning a firearm is to protect one's state from an oppressive government (domestic or foreign)? In other words, people can carry guns to protect themselves from potentially violent governments. The only problem with this is that today, the governemnt has so much more "firepower" on its side than it did at the time of the Constitution. No militia could stand up to a powerful government army of today. This argument goes to support the broader rebuttal of "These laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country." Slavery existed in America for centuries. That does not mean it was good. The length of a law (or anything) does not prove its value. 5)To rebut the employment of the gun industry, I must once again refer to slavery. I'm sure many slave traders lost their jobs when slavery was made illegal. Everyone in the slave industry was affected. And the country still moved on. In fact, all the former slaves needed jobs as well. And the economy did not collapse. Thank you.