Legislation needs to be passed in the US to prevent terrorists from buying guns

Hello, and thanks to my opponent for the chance to debate. Firstly, there are over a million people in the watch list currently. https://www.aclu.org... Most guns used in crimes are purchased legally. However, then it is either stolen or sold illegally. The question we should ask, when discussing any kind of gun control, is "How many crimes committed with guns are committed by legal guns obtained with all the paperwork that entails" That number is roughly 6%. So, 94% of gun crime is committed with guns that were obtained illegally, either from illegal gun dealers or stolen. However, we do have a breakdown of how these guns are obtained "We do have a handle on the source of guns recovered from persons arrested and accused of a crime. Of guns recovered from persons arrested and charged with a crime: 84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4 percent stolen from a relative or a friend. 6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a "law enforcement officer." Legalized armed robbery, in other words. 2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military. 2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service" This totals up to 94%. And, also, this would NOT have prevented the Orlando shooter from purchasing the guns he used. Are we expected to believe that this shooter actually couldn't have gotten guns from other sources? Statistics say, easily, he could have. http://extranosalley.com... Not to mention, this is a violation of the constitutional rights What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia" " http://www.constitution.org... So, are we to deny 1,000,000 people rights to guns, and expect to believe that terrorists could not obtain said guns from other sources? Not to mention, legislation can't be passed. The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government. The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government. No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution, which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the document and its amendments. Same source as before. So, in conclusion, my opponent supports denying 1,000,000 people constitutional rights, despite statistical evidence saying that such laws would be ineffective, and not only that, such legislation would be unconstitutional. And with that, I pass the buck to Pro