Americans Should Only be Allowed to Own Guns if They are Properly Trained

I thank Con for their response. I was expecting to debate a Pro-gun person who favors unlimited application of the Second Amendment. I did not wish for this to be a strict guns vs. no guns debate. That is my fault for not structuring the debate properly. I still disagree with my opponent's position though, so I will continue with my rebuttal and conclusion. First, Con suggests that the Second Amendment was meant keep states safe and is now obsolete. As an example, Con explains that 18th Century America required a rapidly deployable citizen army for its defense, which is no longer needed now that we have the US Military. Con overlooks the fact that 18th Century America had an established Army, Navy, and Marines (obviously no Air Force) at the time the Constitution was drafted. Early America did have armies and navies to protect it, yet the founding fathers still saw it necessary to protect the right of the people to bear arms. As part of this argument, Con suggests that the US is no longer threatened by attack as it once was, and therefore the Second Amendment is obsolete. This is untrue. America faces just as many, if not more dangers than it did in 1787. There is neither room nor time to describe them all here. Even if my opponent's claim was true and the US faced no danger, that is still no reason to surrender your rights. The NSA used a similar argument to justify their wire tapping operations - "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from us monitoring your cell phone." Con's argument can plug along the same line - "If you have no reason to defend yourself, then you have nothing to fear by abolishing the Second Amendment." Rights exist to protect us in unanticipated circumstances. Just because you have no reason to protect yourself now does not mean you won't 5, 10, or 50 years later. Just because you have nothing to protest right now doesn't mean you should forever surrender your right to assembly. I propose therefore that Con's first argument does not make a convincing case why the Second Amendment is obsolete, nor does it accurately represent modern threat levels. It also does not convincingly explain why we should abolish this right, even if it was no longer immediately necessary. Second, Con suggests that the text of the Second Amendment applies to the security of the state, not individual people. I propose the correct interpretation of the text is that a state's security is directly linked to the people's right to keep and bear arms. It therefore follows that a state's security is at risk if its people cannot keep arms. For that very reason, I advocate mandating proper training and qualification for all citizens who choose to bear arms, which is what this whole debate is supposed to be about. Finally, my opponent suggests that if we really need to defend ourselves we should just carry knives or use karate. The problem with this is that knives and karate will not protect you against a bad guy with a gun. If the right to own guns is abolished, bad people will still find ways to carry them. Telling citizens to protect themselves with martial arts is not very comforting in a world where bad guys still have easy access to illegal guns. I would also propose that having a society where everyone carries knives, daggers, and swords around does not seem like a satisfying alternative. In conclusion, this was not meant to be a debate about whether people should own guns. It was meant to be about whether people who choose to own them should be required to undergo stricter training and qualifications. Nevertheless, I believe my rebuttals have successfully addressed and countered all of Con's arguments. Thank you.