Gun Laws / Control in the United States

Thank you, here we go again.Firstly, I offered my opponent (in the comment section) the chance to revamp his position if he decided to concede the first round in my favor. Being that he has revamped, I'm assuming that he has agreed to the terms. The score is now 1 round to my opponent's 0. Very brief side argument:"..a ten year old has no constitutional rights, so that comment at the end was completely irrelevant."~My opponentNonsense, it was to point out that he had 0 limitations on guns, a flawed premise. If my opponent didn't establish limits, he can't then pick at my argument that points out the flaw in his premise. Especially considering that it was a very important concern in regards to his initial (inevitable) stance. We are talking about the Constitution of the United States. Firstly, my opponent has set up a straw man in order to take him down and appear the clear victory; he is debating himself. I never made the claim that I wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment. But even then, he's run face first into a straw man he has accidentally made from brick..In this debate, my opponent is attempting to uphold the US constitution as someone would the bible--as if it is the infallible word of God. It isn't, and things can be changed and added when reason is sufficient. For example, we no longer follow the 3/5's compromise, nor the 18th amendment (in it's originality).He states: "And if you lose one amendment why not another? And another?"This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Did we lose amendments in domino fashion when we excluded the 3/5 compromise or prohibition? No, this argument is nonsense and a clear copout--I'm very aware of which amendment it is, we're to be talking about if it should be changed.The proposition of more control.As it stands, in Missouri (the state in which I reside) one does not have to go through an agency to sell his firearm to a private person after it has been purchased from the store. [1] In fact, it states, "It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one." Problem is, there is no way for the average citizen to ensure that he is not selling to someone who is unlawful. Anyone can possess a fake ID that says they're overage, there are people with mental handicaps that can seem normal for a reasonable enough time to buy the gun from you, and every, and there is absolutely no way of knowing if a person is a felon or has any of the other disqualifying characteristics. This undermines the basic principle of safety. The reason for these steps (Background check, show driver's license, register the firearm, etc.) is to help prevent guns from being in the hands on criminals. Is it truly unreasonable to create a law that makes it mandatory for private sellers to sell to private parties through an FFL dealer? Of course not. Without these specific laws being followed, the sanctions currently on gun control are undermined. Missouri is not alone, there are only a select few that don't allowe an open sale of firearms between private parties. My opponent must stop with the baseless assertions. I have no interests in abolishing the 2nd amendment, I collect guns. Soldier are not dying specifically to protect our second amendment, they're dying to protect our free society-- something that exists with or without guns. [1]http://crime.about.com...