Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Since my opponent talks about the United States constitution within her constructive case, it can be logically followed that we are talking about the United States of America when looking at the resolution of "should we ban guns?". And I infer that the resolution is talking about what we should or ought to do, so I will supply some analysis of the resolution if my opponent either doesn't talk about this point or accepts it as true (nothing harmful, just lets us be resolutionally-focused).Before I begin, we need to deeply analyse the question of "why do we have guns in the modern era?" -- as this is what my case will be attacking (for if there is no reason to have guns, a ban would be a logical consequence of thought!).I believe that Adam Hall had said it best in The Quiller Memorandum [10]: A gun is psychologically a penis-substitute and a symbol of power: the age-range of toy-shop clientele begins at about six or seven, rises sharply just before puberty and declines soon after the discovery of the phallus and its promise of power. From then on, guns are for kids and for the effete freaks and misfits who must seek psycho-orgasmic relief by shooting ... Jacques Lacan has done an enormous volume of work on the idea of the symbollic and the fantasy in his study of psychoanalysis of numerous patients. He finds that the phallus is a signifier of a lack of something, as well as a signifier of the difference of the sexes. (Quick note here, he talks of the phallus, not the penis; there is a difference between the organ and its symbolic representation within the analysable patient ... Lacan says 'phallus' for the symbolic representation, whereas Adam Hall had said 'penis' for both the organ and the symbolic representation -- this is just a difference of notation, I will be using Lacan's for this debate).So far, we have seen that the gun exists as a rudimentary replacement for the male phallus in the current culture of 'gun culture' within the US - any hopes of banning guns are quickly dismissed, for a ban on guns would be the castration of the male's obsession with his phallus. This fear of castration is actually stemmed from a fear of the father [1] and his authority over the son - the 'castration complex', as Lacan calls it, is the acceptance of the father's authority and the authority of the Symbolic Order (as opposed to the Real or Imaginary Orders).Thus, my first contention: 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.Subpoint A. PatriarchyIt is quite simple to see that the guns are a symptom of the patriarchy. Look above at my note on the Lacanian idea of the Castration Complex, where this fear is actually stemmed from the fear of the Father and his power over the Symbolic Order. Patriarchy is defined simply as a form of community wherein the father is the head of power [2], so we can see that this fear further entrenches the familial and societal Father.And, the impacts can be disastorous if we let the patriarchy go free -- massive, large-scale war [3], domestic violence [4], a crippling of democracy [4], and so on and so on (cue Slavoj wiping his nose).Subpoint B. Suppression of Oedipus(If you do not know the story of Oedipus, read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is useful)If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue [5]. This is the exploitation of the child into the future by the Father and the Symbolic Order - it is no different than the patriarchy's violence on the child, nor is it different than slavery, nor is it different than class warfare - the only difference is that it occurs within the family's house.When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen [5]. Let us ban guns and take the power from the Father to take away his exploitation of the Child through the excuse of Oedipus. Without doing so, we literally put into place a hierarchy that is the same as slavery - where the only difference, again, is where it is located: within the family's house.And, fascism is the path to pure destruction -- all of humanity will cease to exist as we allow this fascism to go unchecked, as humanity would cease to exist had there been no ban on slavery in mass within the world [6].Thus, breaking away from this Father-owned mindset is the only way to break out of the Oedipal suppression - it frees them from the territorialization of the psychoanalytic family and allows them to resist the dangers of fascism [7].Now, my second contention: 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.The idea of valuing private property over the community as it exists -- valuing what is 'mine' over what is 'yours' instead of seeing that we should share all, is the root cause for capitalism. And, this idea and mindset is what makes life meaningless [8], as Kovel explains: Capital produces egoic relations, which reproduce capital. The isolated selves of the capitalist order can choose to become personifications of capital, or ... have the role thrust upon them ... the almighty dollar interposes itself between all elements of experience And, the value of individual human life becomes nothing under this 'mine' vs. 'yours' relationship -- the delineation between what is mine through private property lines is what causes individual human life to become worthless [9]. This ultimately will cause human extinction as we no longer have compassion for one another or care for one another when we have private property rights -- my plan solves as it is the first step to actual reform within the system that we are within, and my plan is opening the door for future reform that will happen if we allow for capitalism to be critiqued.Thus, we must save human life and we must protect those that are oppressed by the family structure (Oedipus) and the Father. Affirm, because if you negate, you end the world.Sources:[1]. https://www.cla.purdue.edu...[2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]. Warren and Cady, 1994, Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections[4]. Ishkanian, 2007, En-gendering Civil Society and Democracy-Building: The Anti-Domestic Violence Campaign in Armenia, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Volume 14, Number 4, Winter 2007[5]. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia[6]. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1980, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia[7]. Seem, translator, 1972, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (introductory pages xx-xxi) [8]. Joel Kovel, 2002, The Enemy of Nature[9]. Paula Cerni, 2007, The Age of Consumer Capitalism[10]. Ibid.