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

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? I understand my opponent is confused, so let me explain. My opponent said that “Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.” Now he is questioning my reasoning: why, if gun control is ineffective, should it be tolerated? My answer to this question is simple; it is not part of the debate. The main clause of his resolution was: “Creating gun control in the U.S. without passing an amendment…” My opponent did not simply state ‘creating gun laws in the U.S.’ Since my opponent added “…without passing amendment…” he has clearly given a reason for why gun control should not be tolerated; this is the reason that he has specifically resolved to debate. To clarify I have dismissed his argument against gun control itself as it does not pertain to the debate my opponent has set up. I will concede to the statement "whoever is trying to change the legal status quo has the burden of proof." Is that agreeable? Yes, I find this agreeable. To insinuate that there is any class of gun that can only be used for illegal purposes is preposterous. I agree that to say any class of guns can only be used illegal activity is ridiculous. Technically anything can be used for legal purposes, an extreme example would be nuclear weapons: you could use them legally by just having them sit on your property, however, this does not mean that citizens should have the right to nuclear weapons. This is where the supreme court drew a line; “The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.” [1] My opponent does not take this statement into account. If there are guns which outdo themselves in terms of protection to the point that it is no longer viable to use them in self defence, they are not protected. For example, guns with .44 magnum and above are too likely to over-penetrate to be used for self-defense.[2] Automatic guns, which fall into this category, can spray multiple bullets per second, causing owners of these guns to do more than simply incapacitate their attacker. These gun owners are in danger of hitting others due to low accuracy, and overpenetration, this qualifies them as dangerous, and they are obvious not in common use. Guns that are dangerous and not in common use are not protected under the second amendment therefore automatic guns are not protected. 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. While my opponent may have the right to dismiss certain argument in connect to the legal use of guns, my opponent did drop one argument. I had previously said “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...” While my opponent addressed guns falling under the second amendment’s protection, he did not address people. Since I was given the opportunity I will expand upon my original statement. In the second amendment there is no mention of prohibition of universal background checks before purchasing a gun. District of Columbia v. Heller even goes out of its way to state “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,”[3] Universal background checks help to enforce the tradition of prohibiting felons and the mental ill from obtaining guns, and comply under the second amendment, showing that an amendment is not necessary to pass gun control. 1. http://www.lawnix.com... 2. http://aware.org... 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu...