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

Straight down from his last speech… I. Minors- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms doesn't apply to Minors until their independent."--> -The problem with this argument is that minors ARE people and when the constitution says people AND the resolution says people, this argument becomes void by default. My argument from the beginning has been about how taking the constitution word for word harms the society (in the ways stated in the original contentions). By passing the resolution, you harm the society but if you don't vote for the resolution then you protect the society. II. Felons- "You can still restrict an EX-criminals right to bear arms without it being infringed."--> -Quote from the resolution- "shall not be infringed." - Personally, I don't see any restrictions brought up in the resolution or in the constitution. No implication has yet been made by pro as to why the constitution interprets the exception he talks about. - "If Con had his way EX-criminal would have no rights and freedoms."--> -That's not true, if I had my way criminals (felons specifically) would have not rights and freedoms that gave them the capability of KILLING people. - "The right to freedom of speech wont be infringed if I get sued for Defamation."--> - Here is what I am actually trying to prove. Rights have restrictions and the resolution poses none. Furthermore, he offers no constitutional quotes that grant exceptions. III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school. -Here is another exception that the resolution does not grant. He says that it doesn't infringe their rights to carry weapons wherever but I feel "infringed upon" when I'm not allowed to carry my Swiss Army Knife in school. However, I understand that the right NEEDS to be infringed for everyone's safety. -The police argument is ANOTHER exception to the rule. Our "school cop" still carries a gun but when he is a citizen (off duty) then he must remove his gun on the plane. -I'm sorry but not everyone is a law abiding citizen and because of that we need the exceptions to ENSURE that dangerous people can not get dangerous weapons at dangerous times and places. - "the 1% that is (out to get you) can be dealt with without EXILING them or something."--> -HOW are YOU going to deal with them? You offer no solution to this obvious problem but yet I argue that we should take away dangerous weapons from dangerous people and dangerous weapons in dangerous places. I have a plan to take care of the bad and you don't, why should people honestly prefer your stance over mine? IV. Not all "Arms" are appropriate for the average citizen. - "Good thing we have laws to protect Americans from these kinds of thing."--> -Yeah, it is a good thing that we have these laws but it's too bad that the resolution that YOU wrote does not support these laws. "Shall not infringe" means shall NOT infringe not infringe when appropriate… that's CON's position. He says that vote CON to get no right but all I have to prove is that the resolution is not a good idea not the opposite of the resolution. The middle ground is my position (restricted rights) and that IS the CON position. In the end- You have to see that CON protects the people and PRO simply has poor wording of the resolution… Even he supports my position and because of this I urge you to vote CON! Thanks for the debate!