Rhetorical Analysis Of Dorothy Samuels Wrong On Gun Rights

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

Taya Kyle, the author of the article “American Sniper Widow: Gun Control Won’t Protect Us”, believes that there are two sides of the argument on gun control. People can use statistics, facts, and real life examples to argue that there should be stricter control of guns in the US, but they cannot eliminate the emotional side of the story. While in the last two decades, violent crime rates have actually been reduced in the US, fears have gone up. Anyone can be a victim of a violent crime because if another person decides to do harm, they will do it under any circumstances.

Some people often have passion and power towards their subject, which has influenced our world over so many years. One person who could potentially inspire our world is Jeffery Goldberg, author of "The Case For More Gun(And More Gun Control)", published in 2012. In this essay, Jeffery displays a proper amount of charisma to persuade the reader that having a gun can be used as a tool of defense, which leads to an effective essay. Jeffery Goldberg's argument in "The Case For More Gun(And More Gun Control)" is effective because of his use of pathos and ethos in the overall article. These characteristics appeal to the reader, which in overall make it effective.

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

The political spectrum in general, have grasped manipulative rhetoric tactics in gaining the public’s support on both sides of the prominent gun possession issue. As everyone knows, the media exploits a multitude of strategies and tactics to influence the community in a specific direction, depending on what opinions they are trying to press on the people.

The topic of gun control has long been an issue that has divided our countries political alignments. Peggy Noonan's take on the whole issue of whether assault weapons should be illegal is more convincing than the other two columnists because she delves deeper into the cause of the events, her diction is more formal, and the structure of her article made a stronger case for the argument.

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

The context of the Second Amendment has frequently been debated in American history. Namely, the constitutionality of issuing restrictive laws on gun control based on the Second Amendment has caused controversy. In the last fifty years the prevalence of this topic has grown dramatically. With the increase in recent tragic events, such as school shootings and homicides, guns laws have become a common topic. Gun control activists have often sought stricter restrictions and laws to prevent citizens from purchasing and possessing guns in general. While there are many interesting arguments on both sides of the issue, it poses an important question on our inherent rights, as guaranteed

When we hear the term gun control, we think of opposing sides of the topic arguing whether citizens should continue to have the right to bear arms or not, including the possible consequences of continuing the use of the second amendment. As we know, gun violence is one a the major political issues that has caused public corruption and still continue to this day. During Barack Obama’s eight year term of presidency, he announced his thoughts and plan for change on how to limit gun control violence. He discusses how gun control can affect the lives of citizens physical and mental health, along with overall lifestyle. Barack shares past tragedies of gun violence and how gun control has played a huge role into our society. Throughout this speech Barack Obama gives on gun control, he persuades the public by using ethos, pathos, and logos to highlight the important concepts for change of this amendment.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

The motive for writing “The simple Truth About Gun Control” was to inveigle his audience in believing that without guns all shootings and homicides will decrease significantly. Gopnik elicits an angry and sympathetic mood for all those innocent people who have had to suffer the consequences of the second amendment, from the declaration of independence, the right to bear arms. He then compares those who decide not to give up there fire arms to irrational people in a persuading manner. This then directs viewers with a sense of anger towards

Second amendment rights are a controversial subject, but in her article, “A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries a Gun,” Linda M. Hasselstrom explains why those rights are important to her. Hasselstrom uses logos, pathos, and ethos to entertain readers and to inform them of why she carries a gun.

Gun control has been debated in American History for decades yet it still persists today. We need to take a step back as a nation and examine the driving force behind gun control and gun violence in America. This is becoming a serious problem, because every mass shooting takes more lives. The government continues to sit at a standstill with regard to gun control. The Republicans have no desire to restrict Americans’ second amendment right to bear arms. However, Democrats don’t intend to take away an American’s right, they seek to limit and remove high caliber guns from the market. Americans are on different sides when it comes to gun control, but there are those who try to push their opinions in different forms. American culture is and always has been represented through political cartoons. They can say a lot about the illustrator’s viewpoints and how they are representative of America through color and context.