This brief analysis will seek to consider the debate from the perspective of the pro-gun control movement. In such a way, it will be the express goal of this author to relate to the reader some of the most powerful arguments in favour of favourer gun control and the rationale behind these. As such, it is the author’s hope that the reader will gain a more nuanced and complete understanding of the main arguments for further gun control by an analysis of the following 4 arguments: the Second Amendment does not, nor did it ever, provide for individual gun rights, the high rate of gun-related violence and death, as well as the societal needs for reasonable gun control laws, and whether or not further testing should be put in place for those individuals that have a propensity to instability. Finally, an examination of an even more vehement argument with regards to gun control will be entertained and discussed. The first, and perhaps most contentious of the issues that this analysis will seek to discuss, is the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution sought to convey individual gun rights to the citizen. Although the law has long been interpreted to mean just this, the fact of the matter is that when one reads the Second Amendment from a literalist perspective, it is quite clear that the Second Amendment is speaking to the needs of the states and individual regions of the newly formed United States to form a militia as a means of protecting the Republic. In such a way, the Second Amendment can and should be interpreted as little more than the admission from the Federal government that it promises not to infringe upon the rights of the militias (Kiger 1) to maintain a stock of weaponry for the purpose of defence and securing the borders of the new nation.