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.

Example Input: To guarantee a right means to guarantee it against laws as well as private criminals, the best they do is guarantee it until someone gets enough political capital to make a law or control the supreme court of the land.
Example Output: Valid

Example Input: I wouldn't mind it as much if there was a law that required some level of training for guns to be purchased, so we know that whoever buys these will no how to defend themselves.
Example Output: Valid

Example Input: Is it to somehow imply the the right to own a gun, as the other rights GUARANTEED :) by the constitution are somehow natural rights?
Example Output:
Valid