When it comes to the Second Amendment, the United States Constitution states that "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." People who are in favor of gun control and gun bans argue that the Second Amendment only applies to the "militia," by which they mean only the military and police. In other words, according to such an argument, the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual to own a weapon, but merely the right of the government to possess weapons. This is like saying people have the right to defend themselves, but only if it's the police or the army defending them; you can't defend yourself on your own. This argument is completely illogical. It is true that in exchange for living in a free country, individuals do give up certain things. For example, some would say people give up the right to determine whether or not someone is guilty of a crime on their own. Instead, people submit to the laws of their country, leaving this …show more content…
Just look at Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany in the past; Iran, Communist North Korea and Communist Cuba of today. In countries like these, it is demanded and enforced that only the government may own guns. This on its own should tell you something about the true intentions of those who twist the Second Amendment to argue in favor of its repeal for their own backwards and irrational intentions. According to a mentality such as this, rights are collective in nature. There is no such thing as individual rights in any Nazi, Communist, religiously totalitarian or any other kind of statistic society. In societies such as these, claiming any form of individual right is to defy the people in power who twist the fundamental individuality of men into the perverse idea that people are to be