banning all guns is wrong

"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." Such a quote brings me toward my ultimate resolution. We don't have a well-regulated militia. In fact, the militias we do have are largely based upon irrational fear, leading them to be not militias of the state (although their names may claim to be) but militias of collective individualistic ideologies. There were less than 150 radical militia groups before President Obama took office and now there are more than 1,400, an 800% increase. The irrational fear of a communist dictatorship and broad racism fuel these anti-government groups. They are not for the people or the state. And since there is no such well-regulated militia, then any binding laws that cooperate with such a decree are void."the reason why we have this amendment is to protect ourselves, mainly from the government."False. Our founding fathers gave the civilian the right to bear arms (not restricted to guns) for two current motives in their time: to hunt food and in fear of another British invasion. And as said before, it was intended for those in a well-regulated militia--one in which he do not have. "THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU. it is up to you and only you to protect your self from an oncoming attacker." Your arguments are not only inconsistent but contradictory as well. You say the right to bear arms is against the government, yet you use a citizen versus citizen example. As to your example, the "best" way for someone to protect themselves is to place field mines across the lawn, barbed wire fences, posses light-machine guns, and an air-to-ground missile system, yet those are banned... To what limit are we confined? And what if that mentioned criminal was in possession of a gun? Will he not be just as effective, if not more so as he came prepared and you aren't? "banning all guns always leads to evil dictatorship." I usually remain formal when debating but that line made me chuckle. Is Australia an evil dictatorship? Or maybe Canada? Japan? The U.S. is leading the world as the highest gun-related death rates in industrial developed societies, and those deaths are virtually never in the name of freedom from tyranny. "if we ban all guns, that could lead to this country becoming a communist country." Coincidental I mentioned such an irrational accusation is my first paragraph before I even read this sentence. How peculiar. Either you're trolling or you know nothing about Communism. With that said, I'm not sure on how I should necessary approach this statement other than by saying that Communism has no correlation towards gun control thus making the statement false. Ultimately an amendment is just that: an amendment; something that is able, and should, be amended to fit the current societies technological advances and social fallacies. It is quite obvious that our founding fathers could not have predicted that assault rifles with high penetration, high accuracy, and a quick loading time that can be mass produced in the hundreds of thousands would ever come to existence. Also to "bear arms" is not restricted or directed strictly towards firearm ownership. My claim is that with the lethal advancements of weaponry, the vagueness of the amendment, the lack of a well regulated militia, the lack of decent identification needed to purchase a weapon and ammunition, the high crime rate, and the fact that governments who ban gun are functioning perfectly fine is reason enough to ban are guns aside for the use of authority.Sources: http://www.usatoday.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...