Gun control legislation and deterring crime

Well to start replying to my adversaries statement "My opponent could never logically argue the fact that if rocket launchers were legal for citizens to own that they wouldn't be used in criminal activity." This statement is irrelevant because the current legislation at hand is not based on rocket launchers, it is based specifically on assault rifles, and other various provisions that infringe the right to even obtain any firearm. Also regardless of if they are legal or not for citizens to use, criminals can still be able to obtain rocket launchers illegally and use them in a commission of a crime if they wanted to from the black market regardless of the fact of if they are legal or not. My adversary also places no evidence to support the fact of why they actually support their opinion on gun control legislation. My adversary states that gun control legislation will for the most part get these guns off of the streets, but then contradicts himself/herself by saying that he/she "will not be naive and say that banning assault rifles will mean people will have no way to acquire them, because this simply isn't true. I also will not claim that banning assault rifles will solve our problem and prevent any further shootings, because it won't." The statements by my adversary are affirming my conviction of gun control legislation having no significant affect on obtaining assault rifles illegally, as he/she clearly states that legislation will not stop this. I find another contradiction with the statement, "The simple fact is that other than for hunting, there is no logical reason to own an assault rifle". Owning an assault rifle for recreational purposes such as target shooting like many law abiding Americans do is a very acceptable and logical reason to obtain an assault rifle. Also, might I add that a document that our country bases all of it's laws on called the Constitution, states in the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (1) It states clearly in the United States Constitution that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not matter that an assault rifle has more bullets than a pistol does, because it is the American citizens right to be able to obtain firearms, therefore legislation on this right to restrict your ability to obtain a firearm or the amount of bullets is unconstitutional. The amendment does not state what so ever a specific firearm that is to be obtained or not. And I for one opposed to my adversary find that placing guards at our schools is a very possible goal to reach. With 90% of teachers in America agreeing to this, I am sure instead of spending taxpayers' money on stimulus spending packages that do nothing but put the country in more of a deficit, which is a subject for another debate, this money can go towards having a few officers from police departments patrolling and guarding the schools. Our own president is an advocate for gun control legislation, but meanwhile has 11 armed guards with assault rifles protecting his children. If they are protecting his children, why shouldn't we have guards protecting our children (2)? In my point of view and evidently 90% of teachers in schools across the country share this belief of having guards at the school to protect our children. In conclusion, to be dismissive towards the statistics and facts of what is in favor of the general will of this democracy we live in is pure ignorance. (1) http://www2.law.ucla.edu... (2) http://www.buzzfeed.com...