Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.

"While I concede that I must not only prove that an amendment is not necessary; I must give a reason for why we should not have to make amendments to create gun control (assuming we have equal burdens of proof), my opponent is mistaken if he believes I must advocate gun control. My opponent's statement was: “Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.” This statement means that I do not need to prove the effectiveness or the benefits of gun control; I need to prove that there are benefits to allowing it without passing amendments."I agree that my opponent does not necessarily need to prove the effectiveness for gun control, but I can't imagine that there is anyone out there, who would agree that laws that aren't effective should be tolerated, so I'm not sure why my opponent would want to go that route in this debate. If gun control laws are not effective, then regardless of their constitutionality, why should they be tolerated? That is my point. I am going to continue to debate the constitutionality because I still believe that it is questionable as far as the second amendment is concerned, but even still, without proof of effectiveness, I find unnecessary laws to be a burden on society, and thus "should not be tolerated." "My opponent made an arbitrary statement that the burden of proof is in the hands of those supporting laws without any reason or conventional set up. The burden of proof is usually either: always affirmative [1], or it is equal [2] Seeing that my opponent did not specify at the beginning of the debate by default I have assumed the argument contained equal weight on both sides, however using my opponents logic: Using the same example, if my opponent was in support of banning silver cars, it is not on me to prove that silver cars are not a hazard " it is on him to prove that they are. If I was in support of making a change in government, I must hold the burden of proof, therefore since he is changing the law, he must maintain the burden."Perhaps we are viewing this differently. I am looking at this from the point of view that people passing gun control laws need to prove the law will be effective, it sounds like my opponent is thinking from the perspective of a law having already been passed. So since that is the case, I will concede to the statement "whoever is trying to change the legal status quo has the burden of proof." Is that agreeable?"My opponent has admitted that people would be willing to commit crimes with guns. That means that not all guns are used legally and are therefore not all guns or gun owners fall into the Second Amendment protection of “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...[3]” This makes gun control constitutional, and therefore there is no reason gun control should have to amend the second amendment."I think this is the most important section as it sums up the main difference in opinion. I agree not all guns are used legally, but I disagree with my opponent's logical path. Yes, not all guns are used legally. And in those cases, that particular use is not protected by the second amendment. But I would not agree with the statement that therefore not all guns are protected by the second amendment. Those uses should not be protected, but to argue that the guns aren't, is a step that I simply don't understand. To continue on this point, my opponent also said:"Gun control is used to protect people from guns that cannot be used legally'I maintain that ALL guns can be used legally. To insinuate that there is any class of gun that can only be used for illegal purposes is preposterous. For example, "sawed-off shotguns" are typically thought of as a criminal weapon, but if you wanted a shotgun to protect your family (which many people legally choose to do), a long barrelled shotgun can be difficult to maneuver inside the house. A short 16 inch barrel would be much preferred to legally protect your family, but it is widely made illegal. I can give you a rationale for any gun you want as to how it can be used legally, and as such, I cannot agree to go from the idea that since some guns cannot be used legally, that they are open to gun control without the protection of the second amendment. If my opponent could adequately prove that any gun could only be used illegally, then I would concede its lack of protection by the second amendment, but until she can do so, I will not agree to the legality of said laws. Essentially the other arguments my opponent makes are all based on the notion that some guns cannot be used legally, which has not been proven to my liking, and as such I cannot accept the claim or the subsequent arguments.