Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.

"Regardless of whether or not people agree with the second amendment, while it is on the books it needs to be respected. " My opponent said that the second amendment needs to be respected, but does not provide an example of how gun control disrespects the second amendment. As my opponent did not provide a definition I will provide one: Respect: high or special regard[1] My opponent assumes that gun control laws somehow lower the regard of the second amendment, however I would argue that gun control laws have no correlation with respect to this amendment as it does not decrease the regard with which the amendment is held, and follows the ruling of the amendment. My opponent goes on to state that gun control infringes on the people's right to have and bear arms: "For people who desire to infringe on citizens' right to bear arms. .. " My opponent seems to believe that any sort of gun control infringes on the right the bear arms: "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. "[2] Gun control does not infringe (defined as: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. "[3]) on the right to keep and bear arms, it merely limits the kinds of guns or the process by which guns may be purchased. This interpretation has been supported in multiple situations: United States v. Miller's ruling stated gun control is acceptable saying "that the sorts of weapons protected [in the Second Amendment] are those “in common use at the time”[4]. "The Supreme Court defended this position in District of Columbia v. Heller by saying that "there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons”"[5] This tradition is important in interpreting the implied meaning behind the second amendment as it shows the amendment's attempt to protect gun rights was not to advocate completely unchecked gun laws. "Even if people want to utilize the correct method of changing law, they should not want to. People who want to control guns, typically have a lack of understanding of how guns work and what benefit they yield. While guns are used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop them. With the use of guns, a 100 lb female would be able to defend her house and family from a 200 lb male, something that would not so easily be done with any other type of self defense, regardless of the amount of training. Guns level the playing field giving Americans equality that is clamored for in so many other aspects of life. The net number of lives saved by guns is higher than the net number of lives lost by guns. On top of this, there is no reliable data that shows increasing gun control will reduce the amount of gun related homicides. " Despite my opponent neglecting to provide any evidence to prove his claim, it is in inconsequential as he argues against gun control while the resolution was "Creating gun control laws in the U. S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated. " His argument therefore did not support his proposition that an amendment needs to be made to pass gun control laws. 1. Merriam-Webster:. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. Merriam-Webster:. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... 5. The Constitution of the United States Analysis and Interpretation (pg. 84):. http://www.gpo.gov...