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 (Stevens). This is the United States Constitution Second Amendment on gun control. Every person has the right and responsibility to of owning a gun. Some individuals think that this is what destroys the United States but to others owning a gun was the foundation that the United States was founded on (Stevens). Recently, in 2016, the United States has no federal law that ban semiautomatic assault guns, handguns, military rifles, and ammunition magazines that increase the lethality of some rifles (Masters). From 1993 to 2005, there was a federal banning on magazines and assault weapons, however, congress enabled the restrictions to die (Masters). The arguments about gun control are a very controversial topic in the U.S.
Who Is John Paul Stevens?
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment? By John P. Stevens was written on February 20th, 2014 (Stevens). John Stevens is an associate justice who is retired in the United States. He retired as the oldest justice and the second oldest justice who has ever served in the United States history. His arguments explain how to show the manner in which a person can get a gun easily. Stevens demonstrates that the legality of owning a gun was created to build a civilian army across America when Britain’s army threatened the development in America. Therefore, people even presently have guns and weapons because they need protection while on the streets.
Why Is Gun Control an Issue in the United States?
The issue of gun control is a boiling topic and it is mostly heard in political debates, on the radio, and on television. Almost 37% of the U.S population owns a weapon or firearm for home use, whether it is for defense, sport, or hunting (Richard). The advantages of having a gun are clear however there are also several disadvantages owing to it by allowing people to use freely guns without having strict regulations of controlling their use. Some individuals believe gun control laws should not allow the sale of guns to regular citizens. Some individuals also believe gun control is only a restriction put on the sale of firearms. Most political debates have resolved that gun control should be increased because of shooting-related tragedies, for example, the shooting that occurred at a school in Colombia High School was frequently used by pro-control individuals (Richard). However, the people who are not for gun control argue and reason on common logic and the constitution by explaining that the rights to gun possessions make people safer while walking in the streets and while in their homes. Most politicians in the U.S advocate for the abolition of gun control because it is against the constitution. Such people use phrases like guns do not kill people, people kill people (Richard). Stevens’s article speaks to individuals who mostly go out and live a life far away from their homes. Whenever an individual leaves his or her home, they put their lives in danger as no one is capable of controlling what other individuals can do. Most people in the U.S own a gun for self-defense (Stevens). The more people are allowed to possess a gun, the more there are rates of increased homicide. Moreover, there is no restriction by the federal law on the number of guns that can be owned per individual, and also that can be bought at a time. Some states like Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and California limit citizens to the number of guns that can be purchased by an individual in one month (Richard). A person is limited to one gun every month. The age that an individual is allowed to purchase a gun is 21 years and above (Richard). Many people under the age of 20 years having a firearm may have stolen their parent’s guns. Similarly, it’s hard to determine individuals who buy guns illegally. The topic of gun control is very rough because the Constitution states that people have the right to possess guns.
How Does the Second Amendment Affect Gun Control?
Stevens thinks that the second amendment authors were mainly focused on the threat posed by the national army to the sovereignty, and he believes that the situation can only be fixed by amending the second constitution (Stevens). He describes that if given a chance he would do that by the addition of five words to the amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed (Stevens). He claims that the right to own a gun is critical as it is protected by the constitution and proposes legislation that can reduce the homicide resulting from the gun prevalence in the hands of private people (Stevens). Gun control as a critical matter needs to be discussed to change the weapon policy in the future. Since cultural and political ideas evolve, so do the constitutional interpretations. No matter what happens in the United States, guns have a representational meaning to which Stevens provides short shrift.
Rhetorical Analysis of Stevens’s Article
The article utilizes the rhetorical application of ethos and little amount of pathos and logos. Stevens uses ethos typically as he relates the issue of gun control and the issues happening in the real world. For example, he says Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands (Stevens). Steven also uses pathos by the use of statistical data to enable the reader to understand how the number of civilians buying guns have increased leading to the increased number of homicide, for instance, the number of guns produced by U.S. firearms makers in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011 (Stevens). Logos is introduced since some of his data is the things he thinks are logical, for example, he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. Hed does that by adding five words 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 when serving in the militia shall not be infringed. This shows that only individuals who serve in the army will be allowed to possess guns because of their requirement and responsibility to the security of the state. The pathos comes in when he discusses the restrictions on some states like Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and California limit citizens to the number of guns that can be bought by an individual in one month (Masters). A person is limited to one gun every month, and the age that a person is allowed to purchase a gun is 21 years and above. However, people under the age of 20 years having a firearm may have stolen their parent’s guns, and it is tough to determine individuals who buy guns illegally and who are likely to buy guns for unlawful intentions. The fact that the guns to be in the possession of the wrong person makes it very dangerous. Stevens’s article unites the real world on the importance of stabilizing gun control.
The article clearly describes the controversial issues of gun control, and it speaks out to the reader. The fact that most individual buy and use guns for self-defense is not logical as the government provide protection and security to its citizens and owning a gun does not give an individual more protection (Masters). Therefore, a gun does not give a person the necessary protection. Firearms can be legalized only for sport hunting processes.
However, bearing weapons is very essential in human life. The moment you do not use a particular weapon correctly, you will be putting the lives of other people at risk. There are also individuals who do not care and worry about the issue of firearms since to them it is not relevant to their lives. However, the problem of controlling the buying and use of guns is very essential in American society. More restrictions in the U.S should not be put on gun possession since the current restrictions put on guns are secure and fair, for example in Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and California where citizens are limited to the number of guns that can be bought by an individual in one month. A person is limited to one gun every month, and the age that an individual is allowed to purchase a gun is when you are 21 years and above. Such restrictions do not infringe the constitutional rights on the legality of owning a weapon. In case criminals use this process to get guns it is not the fault of the process. As long as an individual can legally buy a weapon there is no reason to deny them their rights if they feel that owning the guns is the only way of feeling secure. The ideas of Steven are also good as he has nothing contrary to making guns safer for people who buy and use them and the individuals around the user. Some individuals believe gun control laws should not allow the sale of guns to regular citizens while some individuals also believe gun control is only a restriction put on the sale of firearms. Maybe making the guns a little less complicated may assist in cutting down the number of accidents caused by the guns and weapons in the hands of private people.
Masters, Jonathan. U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons. 12 January 2016. http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735. 8 February 2016.
Richard, Perezpena. Gun Control Explained. 7 October 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html?_r=0. 8 February 2016.
Stevens, John Paul. Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment? 20 February 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment. 8 February 2016.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: