An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

In this round I will refute my opponent's previous argument: First of all, just because the owner of one of these "gun free zones" isn't the one whose life is at risk, this doesn't justify governmental mandating of security guards on their property. Anyone who eats at a restaurant, shops at a store, or watches a movie in a theater that is a gun free zone is doing so at their own risk. It might sound harsh, but in this day in age people are expected to be mindful of their own situation, and if something makes them feel unsafe or nervous, they don't have to do it. A perfect example of my point is airline companies. Every single time a citizen steps foot on an airplane, they are aware (or they should be) of the risk that they are taking to get from point A to point B. The owner of Southwest Airlines (for example) isn't personally in danger of losing his life when someone steps onto a plane owned by his company, it was their choice. At the same time, one could argue that the owner of Denny's (another example) is making his property more dangerous by deeming it a gun free zone, while the owner of Southwest Airlines has done everything (hopefully) in his power to make his company safe. To this argument my only response is: There is a sign on the door that says "Gun Free Zone", if you feel unsafe, don't enter. No one is forcing anyone to spend time in a gun free zone, and people who do so are making a choice that they are responsible for. My opponent makes a strong argument by saying "the government has already infringed on our "right to private property."". His examples of how the Government has violated our rights are "Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can [we] own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope". All of these are valid examples, however, they differ from my point that the government cannot force property owners to hire armed guards because none of these "infringements" ,as my opponent classifies them, cost a property owner money. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed a second story without a permit? No. Does it cost someone money to NOT be allowed to own a tiger? No. The simple point I am making is that the Government of the United States cannot force a property owner to hire someone to guard their property, it's unconstitutional. And as to my opponent's next argument that I provide no proof that the government can't afford to hire armed guards for gun free zones, this could quite possibly be the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Our government (and education budget) is in a financial crisis. Teachers are getting laid off left and right, yet my opponent thinks we can afford full time security guards at all government regulated gun free zones? My opponent then moves to say "I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it" which could not be more false. His/her entire argument is that the government should "require" security guards in all gun free zones. My opponent must not be aware that schools, airports, public libraries etc. are ALL gun free zones, and they are also ALL government property. So if my opponent believes that armed guards should be mandated in all gun free zones, then he/she also 100% believes that "government property would have to have security guards on it".