The way that the second amendment has been interpreted has changed the argument for gun control into something that verges on the removal of rights for those who oppose regulation. The second amendment reads as follows: “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.” To some, this reads as if there is a clearly stated right for every individual who wants to own a gun to be able to exercise that right; however, the amendment, at least to me, is incredibly vague. To me, it reads as if the founding fathers wanted citizens to own a gun for the purpose of serving at the whim of a state formed militia, should that state need to defend itself. The founding fathers had no sense of the type of weapons and weapon accessories that would be available to the citizens of this country today — there was no way for them to know. Regulation should have been imposed as this country progressed, as is what happens with the advent of any type of technology. Instead, we are now scrambling to retroactively regulate these things, which appears to be a removal of rights to those who oppose it.