Gun Laws / Control in the United States

"I personally believe that we should let the audience and voters decide what the score is, not us."The reason I gave my opponent an ultimatum was because he is now wanting to debate an entirely different issue than what his resolution and 1st post implies. It was only after I accepted that I went to the comment section and realized that he may have made a typo, but even then he stated, "I am against gun control. The end. I think we should not control people's guns." As you can see, I thought it was pretty clear what he meant, that he was against gun restriction--the word "further" didn't appear until after my reply. When I realized how impossible it'd be for my opponent to uphold his own resolution, I offered him a way out. This wasn't even an attempt to be mischievous, I genuinely realized that my opponent couldn't uphold his resolution and offered him a way out, if he conceded the first round of the debate he initially started. If my audience believes this to be mischievous or malevolent, then I am sorry, ignore the proposition. I just thought I was being fair in giving him a fair shot at winning, because in actuality, you cannot change what a resolution specifically states, after the debate has started. His next quote, "That is completely false. It is a basic fact to everyone that we do not get constitutional rights until we are a legal citizen, in which you must be 18 years of age."I'd like to point out that my opponent is clearly mistaken. You are a legal citizen of the US if you go through the process (for those who were born outside of the borders) or if you are born here. Children are legal citizens of the US of A. Secondly, at that point in the debate we were not talking about constitutional law. We were referring to the fact that my opponent's resolution and 1st post say that there should be 0 restrictions on firearms. For instance, there is no restriction on the sale of bubble gum, a 10 year old can buy. If there were 0 restrictions on firearms, a 10 year old can buy. Completely void of any constitutionality claim by my opponent. On to the attack on my opponent's 2nd round case:My opponent misses the mark.. "With stricter gun laws, you are disarming the wrong people. The only people that will follow these laws are the law abiding citizens, who are not the ones that will be using guns in a dangerous way anyway."~My opponentMy opponent is completely off. My premise was that private sellers have no way in knowing that they person they're dealing with is being truthful. Of course criminals are dishonest, this is exactly why I proposed a plan to have private sellers have to go through an FFL dealer, so that the buyer has to still undergo a background check, etc. to make sure that all of his information is valid. That's not disarming anyone who would be in the wrong, that's making sure only people who are in the right can receive the gun. He then states that gun laws are strict enough, but I have just showed where it is absolutely legal for a random person to pass the background check and sell it to another person who he may believe is an honest gun owner (non-criminal) and that person could possibly be a terrorist. Not only that, the original owner has no way of finding out if the person he's dealing with is a criminal or not. Yes, you have to be 21.No. There is no such thing as gun laws in all states. It's a state by state basis. In California, for example, you can only have a gun that holds no more than 10 bullets at a time. Criminals can not purchase a gun from an FFL dealer. TRUE.However, none of these restrictions apply to private sellers-- as they have no way in looking these things up or validating them. This is why I've proposed every private seller go through an FFL dealer. No one is trying to take anyone's guns, no one is trying to abolish the 2nd amendment & no legal gun owner is barred from ownership. These reasons above are why I prove more strict gun laws would hurt non one's "freedoms," and would help in the fight to keep guns out of the wrong hands. As I assume not to provide sources for the fact that cars have wheels, I have assumed that restriction of guns to criminals can help lower crime-- no sources needed for this round. Thanks, good hunting.