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.

Like I said before, claiming that semi-automatic rifles get a lower level of constitutional protection than handguns because they are less useful for self defense seems absurd from historical point of view.
Valid

Even though he says he's neither in the collective or individual column he is clearly in the collective column simply by suggesting that the right to bear arms requires you to be in the militia (which SCOTUS disagrees with.)
Valid

When we factor in the usefulness of guns for self-defense against violent criminals, it's clear that normal gun owners are at less risk of criminal victimization.

Valid