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

"you have yet to argue my legitimate interpretation of the resolution" I believe I have but you continue to spin it to mean something predominantly evil. The way I understood the Resolution I devised to be was that Pro would mean FOR gun rights and Con would be AGAINST Gun rights. I. Minors Minors rights lie with their parents. In my previous argument I stated this. If a child's parent has a gun or refuses to get a gun or whatever the case may be the children's right is still being represented by their parents. If we lived in a society that Minors owned property and had the right to use it, I would concede this part to you. Minors don't have any independent right to own or use arms. Minors are under the protection of their parents. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms doesn't apply to Minors until their independent. Just like the Fourth amendment doesn't apply to Minors since any property the child owns is in reality, owned by their guardian. II. Felons the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws restricting Felons from using them. You can still restrict an EX-criminals right to bear arms without it being infringed. "Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities." So your saying that a criminal that has already served his time in jail and is a citizen of the united states and has been deemed fit for for society. Should have his rights taken away COMPLETELY? If that's your thought on this then readers should Vote Pro. If Con had his way EX-criminal would have no rights and freedoms. "A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have." Now I have to be the Con guy and disagree with you their. The right to freedom of speech wont be infringed if I get sued for Defamation. III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school. Like Ive said the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons in places not deemed safe for guns. I would also like to say that their are Police officers who are in those places to protect us. while that may not always be the case, In most high schools/colleges police have been put their to protect us. why restrict a police officers right to carry a gun in a plane, building, or school? I don't know about my opponent or the reader but I feel safer with police officers protecting me in places I cant protect myself at. "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington Well said Thomas Jefferson I wish my opponent saw it that way. "BUT if you go by the constitution AND the resolution you'll see that there is no clear line between the two entities." Their might not be any clear line between the two. But I still (at least I HOPE!) believe that most people in the united states of America are law abiding citizens who care about each other and are in no hurry to die. Readers please Vote PRO If your not Pessimistic about the motives of gun owners. I can say with a lot of certainty that most(99%) of americans are not out to get you. the 1% that is can be dealt with with without EXILING them or something. Vote PRO if you agree with me on this. "(machine guns, C4, nukes)"!!!! O.O Good thing we have laws to protect Americans from these kinds of thing. my opponent seems to think that ANY law passed to regulate guns means that the right of people to bear arms is Infringed. Which is note the case. Vote Pro for a safe right to bear arms. vote con for no right at all. --The End--