Things I would have said if I was debating:
1. Where exactly does the second amendment say "bear in your dwelling"? I don't recall seeing the word "house" or "home" in the second (it is in the third though).
2. If you need a house or home to carry, do homeless people have fewer rights than property owners? Doesn't that violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
3. If you're worried about gang members open carrying, why not make a law preventing that?
4. I'll start addressing you as assemblywoman the second you stop violating your oath you took to defend the constitution.
5. So if tough gun regulations are so good at preventing gun crime, then if AB 1934 becomes law then we'll all experience the peace and calm of Chicago, right?
6. It's great that you think people should be forced to produce identification for police officers. I seem to recall some radical party in a European country doing something along those lines last century...can you help me out with what I'm thinking of Fraulein Saldana?
The debate overall was good. I'd like to see more discussion about how our rights are being violated and less on how more guns in the hands of the law abiding equal a safer populace. I personally don't care if that is true (although it obviously is), our rights are our rights, and cannot be violated.