"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

"I defined "outlaw" as "outside the law," which you agreed to. Thus, anyone who is outside the law is an outlaw for this debate, whether they are a bandit or not." What you've conveniently failed to mention about my acceptance of your definition is the context with which your definition was presented. You said in Round 1: "People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns." This CLEARLY puts your definition of 'outlaw' into the context of somebody who must "continue to resist the law as always." This obviously was not meant to include policemen, who presumably don't break the law and who will have no need to 'resist' the law change. When I brought up policemen in Round 1, you twisted your definition of outlaw until it no longer meant what it actually does mean. You equated 'democracy' with 'popular government', and concluded that every government party in America is popular. You can call policemen immune from the law, above the law, beside the law, 3 ft. from the law, inside, outside or beneath the law. However you twist these words, policemen are not outlaws by the very nature of them being immune from the law's reach. -------- "Let's say that the law is some random 3-D shape, a cube. If a person is above this cube that is the law, then they are not inside the cube, and instead on the outside. If they were just above the center of the cubic law, then they would just be within the upper extremities of law, not above the law. It doesn't matter if the federal government is involved or not; the police are not required to follow a law; thus, they are above that law; thus, they are outside the law." More of the same stuff from my opponent, once again trying to prove that all lovers of wisdom are philosophers and all governments in a democracy are popular. Twist the words however you will but the fact remains that police officers are not outlaws by virtue of their occupation. ----------- "Not in this debate. I defined "outlaw" so that it would include federal officers who remain with guns even after they are made illegal." Right, you posted a semantically-based debate for which you presumed you'd covered all your bases in the resolution so you didn't actually have to do any work. Unfortunately, your entire case rests upon the faulty logic that police officers are all outlaws, which, by your own definition and the context in which it was presented, is absolutely false. "It was the only source I could find that would define "above the law" without referencing a hip-hop group, blog, film, or TV series. It is also an acceptable source for Debate.org; I have seen many debates that use them. http://www.debate.org...; It is essentially a joke website. You may as well have used Uncyclopedia. Voters, my opponent has clearly tried to pull the wool over your eyes and mine by setting forth a definition in Round 1 and placing it in context of his argument, and then, when the obvious hole in his argument was brought up, changing the definition beyond all meaning so that we end up with garbage like "all police officers are outlaws". I have shown, theoretically and with a real-life example, that in societies where guns are outlawed, it isn't ONLY outlaws who have guns. Therefore, vote CON. Thanks to my opponent.