the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one." --> Perhaps I 'misunderstood you', but the fact of the matter is that I interpreted the resolution in a completely legitimate way. However, you have yet to argue my legitimate interpretation of the resolution and until you do that, the round goes to CON. The TRUTH of the matter is that I would MUCH rather spend my time arguing about how the right to bear arms taken word for word actually endangers the welfare of society. "I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense." --> YOU may only be talking about citizens that can handle themselves properly... BUT if you go by the constitution AND the resolution you'll see that there is no clear line between the two entities. Therefore, pro MUST argue BOTH ideas. Furthermore, I HAVE argued his idea as well extending that certain arms (machine guns, C4, nukes) should not be owned by ANY citizen. Also, I argued the interpretation of the constitution and how there is an exception to every rule. "the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." --> Ok... I'd like to extend the argument made about felons that they do not deserve to KEEP them after already proven as people who can not handle responsibility. Also extend the arguments about how to "bear Arms" NEEDS responsibility and appropriation. "not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully." --> If someone were to start making his own nuclear weapons, would he be appropriate under the law? NO, because even that weapon with the MOST responsible people is still dangerous. But yet, it is an arm... What does this lead me to conclude, that ALL laws have certain exceptions and that the right to bear arms must be taken into SAFE context in order to protect this nation. Therefore, I do fit under the interpretations of the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress. --> 1) This proves nothing... 2) I would like to point out that I am not saying getting rid of ALL arms but simply that the right to bear arms should sometimes be infringed when the safety of America is at risk... I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict. --> Ok... but you still have to see that there are exceptions to the rule. MOST people will be able to still own "arms", but only when it is a safe person AND a safe weapon. Otherwise, civil conflict MAY occur by following this part of the constitution WORD for WORD (so instead of stopping it... it creates it.) Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense. --> This argument doesn't make any sense. The REASON that children can't own a gun is for purposes of them having an "accident"... NOT to prevent them from going hunting with their buds. The REASON that felons can't own a gun is to prevent them from going on some random killing rampage... NOT to prevent them from "protecting" themselves in their home. To be honest, if a felon has a gun and says it is only for self defense, I would have a lot of trouble believing him... As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs. --> Ok, I already covered this to be honest but simply put... A child can really use something that their parent has BUT a child can also have an accident with something their parent has. ALSO a child could be a 12 year old who thinks that he can own a gun and get a gun. Responsibility must be put into the law. In the end- The side that achieves the most safety and protection in this round is CON. I prevent inappropriate people from owning guns and thus prevent inappropriate accidents that did not need to occur. Because of this, I urge a CON vote! Thanks!