Definition: We would like you to assess the QUALITY of each of the following argument (discussing Gun Control) and determine if the argument is Valid or Invalid. A valid argument is clearly interpretable and either expresses an argument, or a premise or a conclusion that can be used in an argument for the topic of gun control. An invalid argument is a phrase that cannot be interpreted as an argument or not on the topic of gun control.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
Output: Valid

Positive Example 2 -
Input: guys from Australia or the Englanders that are as vehement as you seem to be
Output: Invalid

Negative Example 1 -
Input: In sum, I think it makes more sense that the second amendment applies to right to form a militia, and even when interpreted as an individual right, doesn't appear to prohibit any regulation.
Output: Invalid

Now complete the following example -
Input: Somebody even made the argument that the definition of arms in the Second Amendment was limited to 18th century flintlocks only, so no modern guns were protected, and the court rejected this argument as well.
Output: 


Output: Valid