Completely Take Away The Gun Rights

Again, thank you for your time. This round will be counter-rebuttals (defense) and summary/voter issues.DefenseI claim two things in my constructive case - first, the existence of the gun as a penis-replacement and its oppression stemming from its existence, and second, the idea of any sorts of private ownership rights is inherently flawed.My opponent simply doesn't understand my first contention whatsoever, and she doesn't address any of the individualistic impacts that I associate with my contention at all. She says that a Father wouldn't kill his child, but this oppression and suppression is much deeper than this - I give the example of how this oppression is the same as slavery, just within the house. Extend this metaphor -- a slave owner would never kill a slave, because the slave exists as a means for commodity and for wealth and status, so there is never this realised threat of death in the slave mind (even if there was some slave killing, it was not because of this oppression directly, but rather of the circumstances -- we can all agree that there are children that are killed by parents).She doesn't even address my patriarchal contention at all. Guns are the phallus in Lacanian speak, so they are this male-oriented display of power over the individual. She cites the reasoning for having the second amendment, but why do I care about what some people in the 1700s say or think, for they also justified slavery and sexism -- colored people had close to no rights, women much the same -- how can we defend either that worldview or the worldview of 'the founding Fathers say so, so it must be of value' when this 'value' that we ascribe is inherently immoral!Then, she says that abolishing private property as a total violates human rights and harms the overall public. How so -- she provides no warrants for anything, she baselessly asserts that it is True when we have no way to actually verify that this ist he overarching Truth of the situation. Further, she just meaninglessly rebuilds her black market contention that I simply don't care about -- it's irrelevant to the debate, cross-apply my example of murder being in the black market.Voter issuesIt should be clear to anyone observing this debate that the negative side of the resolution has not adequately: defended their own side of the resolution, nor have they actually rebutted against my case at all of any substance that we can evaluate this round based upon. My impacts are huge: war, marginalisation -- see a full list in one of the earlier rounds if you must, the human impacts are ginormous and far outweigh her obsession with the idea that a black market might form.Her case hinged on a flawed counterplan that her evidence rode contrary to. Her own evidence says that this counterplan simply doesn't work (no matter how much she misrepresents her evidence, it still says this), yet she somehow finds meaning in this evidence to support her claim -- I do not fault her for not reading beyond the headlines, many are guilty of that in the modern world.In the end, her counterplan failed and she didn't uphold the resolution -- my case was essentially conceded, so even if you don't agree with my stance on the issues, you have to vote for my side.