Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

Well my opponent has failed to sufficiently refute my contentions and rebuttals, I will state counter rebuttals for my opponent's rebuttals that are relevant to the resolution.Counter rebuttals1. Pro sees fit to "refute" clarifications which are unnecessary since the clarifications are placed to fix any misunderstanding with pro. 2. Pro believes in the propagation of military grade weapons in the US. However, citing national security, the United States does not allow the sale of military hardware to civilians, especially rich tycoons who could afford nuclear aircraft carriers. If the US allowed the sale of military grade weapons then the recent massacres would have taken a turn for the worse as the murderers have access to weapons of mass destruction (bombs, and explosives) and assault weapons that can kill many people without reloading often.3. Pro simply states "Wow, an opinion? Please inform me of where to find the translation of "Arms" in the late 1700's that reflects the terminology "civilian grade guns". I cant wait for that link." in his rebuttal to, "The First 8 amendments protect basic rights and also state a purpose in each. However to explain the purpose of all 8 amendments would lead to me going over character, so if my opponent is still adamant of knowing the purpose of the other amendments then I shall state the rest in the comments. Purpose of the First amendment is to protect Freedom of Speech and Religion. Purpose of the Second amendment is to protect the right of US civilians to own civilian grade guns" which are general interpretations of the US constitution. Civilian grade weapons are weapons available to the public and include AR-15s, Shotguns, and sidearms. Military grade weapons are weapons used by the military (does not denote that it is more powerful) such as machineguns and sniper rifles.4. ContradictionsMy opponent states "Any Law that restricts any Right of a law abiding citizen IS an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.". When I ask he clarify his statement he simply states "-I agreed with your 1-9. How is this a contradiction to your strengthening the BHVP Act? 1-9 was current. "current gun control legislation being proposed by the federal government attempt to strengthen the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. " is in fact adding to the current laws? Again, how is this a Contradiction? are they "Proposing" to make no changes? This notion of yours is completely ridiculous." I am referring to the full text of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act yet my opponent seems to believe I am honing in on Section 922g of the act. 5. My opponent shifts from the resolution demanding that I answer, "1)How is banning handguns "a legitimate infringement on Self defense and the Second amendment"?? It is now your turn to clarify something. Please, why don't you give me you list of acceptable "Arms and Ammo.", and include HOW you came up with it.2)The National Guard on more than one occasion has been taken under command of the fed govt. and sent to Afganistan AND Iraq. What State was currently in command??"Answers1a. Banning handguns is a legitimate infringment on self defense and the second amendment due to tactical reasons. First the size of the handgun allows for easy transportation while a shotgun is bulkier. Second the size of the handgun allows the user more maneuverability in an apartment or places where a shotgun is unwieldy.1b. Any sidearm, shotgun, or civilian grade rifle sold legally in all 50 states. Ammunition count 6-10 allows the gun especially sidearms to remain maneuverable and not bulky. How I determine this is through the interpretations of the 2nd and 9th amendments while weighing in risks of potential massacres.2. The National guard under the United States Code Title 10 Section 311 Militia composition and classes is an organized militia under the command of the individual states. http://www.law.cornell.edu...;So your refutation is null. Closing;Because pro does not sufficiently refute any of my arguements I strongly urge a con vote