Monthly Archives: May 2020

Reflective essay artifact 5

Posted on by
Reply

I chose this artifact for my English Major showcase because it is a reflective piece on art I observed and then commented on positively and negatively.  The two pieces were The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci and Man Pointing by Albert Giacometti.  I reflect on what is in my opinion the genius and beauty behind Da Vinci’s work while I critique the dullness and lack of true vision from Giacometti’s figure.  This is not so much a compare and contrast essay as more of a paper where I assert what I see and believe and then back my opinions up with what I’ve learned from the class Language of Art.  I believe this artifact represents learning outcome 6 of the learning outcomes of the English major.  It goes, “Reflect on multiple learning experiences in order to synthesize knowledge.”  These pieces of art were learning experiences that we had to reflect on, but more importantly we had to reflect on what we learned in the class to come up with knowledgeable and accurate things to say on the art in our reflections.  While I could give my opinion on how I liked Da Vinci’s work and not Giacometti’s, my comments had to be backed up by terms and information we learned from our studies of the Language of Art and synthesized well to mean something.

 

 

Josiah Titus
ERH 204
Maj. Ingersoll
April 28, 2019
HR: see works cited
Reflective Paper

I will discuss two pieces of art in this paper, one that I love and one that I am not so fond of, and I will analyze them justifying the reason as to why I like or don’t like them. The artwork that I love that we have covered is Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper 1495-1498 painting. As for the artwork that we’ve covered that I do not like, that would be Man Pointing 1947 which is a tiny little sculpted figure made by the artist Alberto Giacometti. While I think The Last Supper painting is beautiful, riveting, and significant in meaning, Man Pointing to me offers nothing very artistic or inspirational at all.
Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper is a magnificent work of art and one of the most masterful paintings done on record in my opinion, which I will justify. It depicts Jesus surrounded by his twelve disciples at their last meal, the night on which Jesus was to be taken into custody and then later crucified . For me there is a huge amount of symbolism and meaning behind the painting and the painting itself, because the way it is presented and done, has a lot to show visually. The moment the painting is supposed to be captured in is when Jesus told the disciples that one of them was to betray him that night at supper and they all started to question and debate who the foul person was to be . The paintings visuality must be discussed though to understand how that contributes to its outstanding presentation and meaning.
Part of the beauty of the visuality of this image that makes me prefer it, is that it involves multiple artistic elements. It has color, pattern, lighting, shadow and more. My favorite part of the painting is that Judas himself is the only one in shadow, with Da Vinci utilizing shade and specifically a bit of chiascuro to do it . Since he is the one who betrays Jesus which leads to his death, this is the reasoning and so it gives even more meaning to the employment of it. There is also an implied line that runs across the tables from both sides of the disciples which puts Jesus at the center. This makes Biblical sense and is suitable for the understanding of it for those who maybe don’t know the story. One of the most notable aspects though about the painting is it’s use of color. No one color vibrantly stands out, which I like because it gives a more traditional Renaissance feel. There is no vibrant use of hue that draws the observer in. Everything blends nicely, and yet there are multiple colors within the painting. The artist makes use of cool colors and warm colors. Cool colors can be seen in the majority of the disciple’s robes which are mostly blue, green, or purple with some hints of pink. There are warm colors as well though which can be seen with Jesus especially, one disciple, and the walls to a slight degree. Da Vinci also makes decent use of shading and lighting in this piece, around the table and behind. The artistic element though that sets this apart from many other works, of his time particularly, is the use of a vanishing point. This gives the painting a three-dimensional look, something it became famous for. A vanishing point takes all receding parallel lines and have them diminish onto the horizon line . And this brings in my favorite aspect of it, due to the fact that they all diminish onto Jesus who is at the center and is the focal point of the painting. I’ve always liked this as it brings attention to the reality of Jesus being the most important figure within the image and context wise.
Alberto Giacometti’s Man Pointing is nothing amazing and falls short in being a work of art in my opinion. It is a small plaster figure of a stick like man or thing pointing at seemingly nothing . He seems to almost look stone like but there is literally nothing else, no other context to go on. In my opinion it offers almost nothing to be inspired by, does not provoke intellectual thinking, and is as simplistic as can be, coming off as an object a little kid could have thrown together in arts and crafts. Alberto even says that it took him not even one night to do it, and that he ended up rushing it so badly that he destroyed it, and then redid it . It came out about as poorly, and he even planned for the figure to have its arm wrapped around another figure, but abandoned the idea, considering it complete . We can dissect this piece a bit though and find that there are quirky artistic aspects of its display that can be taken note of and analyzed.
Its design should be noted first. First off, the whole piece is representative of Alberto’s take on abstract expression. In the time period, abstract expressionism was becoming big in Art. This can be seen from the fact that it does not represent anything external for the most part except that it’s some sort of person or thing. Its effect comes from literally the weird way it looks and how it’s not much to look at at all. This also contributes mainly to why it doesn’t suit my preference as it’s just bizarre and confusing to look at. This piece is a sculpture made out of plaster and bronze. One thing that can be noted as well is that it is an in the round sculpture and not a relief sculpture. This is because it’s three dimensional and not up against or attached to some wall. It utilizes the concept of an implied line which runs across the center of his body up through his extended arm which is pointing. In art this is seen through certain elements in the piece that lead to the focal point. There is very little use of color, as the whole figure is a darkish brown tint with some grey. The whole thing is a warm color, so it is devoid of looking lively or moving. It is devoid of any creative use of hue. It was painted entirely by Alberto by hand, so that it could have a rawer yet expressive feel to it . In my opinion it is something that if it had been mightily expanded upon, it could have been much better. It could have maybe been a sickly man representing famine or the downfall of something at the time, or how war turns us all to creatures, or something along these lines. If Alberto had done what he was planning to do and added in another figure, this could have given it the context it needed to be more interesting, appealing, and understood. A better color scheme or palette may have helped it, or having a distinguishable face and body. Unfortunately to me it just looks like a poorly made stick figure toy that is pointing, nothing more nothing less.
Both works of art offer a little bit of something, mostly in my opinion insight into the world of creating art and imagery. The Last Supper by Da Vinci is an example of using various types of artistic techniques to create a beautiful painting full of commotion, history, and meaning. It was made in the Renaissance period as well, so it carries a lot significance in the way of how art was perceived at the time. Today art may not reign supreme as a demonstration of who is extremely skilled or valuable, but in those days, to be able to create works like this defined you as an innovator of the time in a way. Since things like You tube or Twitter were not around, this was the way in which people expressed themselves and their genius. As for Man Pointing, it does offer insight. But it falls short in the way of creativity and being something that resonates with you. It does not use many techniques in its fixture and has no real meaning and can’t really be clearly understood, I think. Its abstract form does it in, because it’s too simple and peculiar to be looked at as something of artistic genius-it looks pedestrian. These two pieces of art do show though, that art comes in multiple different forms, on many diverse levels of what is good or not. Someone else could look at Man Pointing and draw something from its abstractness, while The Last Supper is just not appealing to them. It’s all dependent on taste and what it offers, and both artworks demonstrate this point keenly to me.

 

Bibliography
Zelazko, Alicja. “Last Supper.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Last -Supper-fresco-by-Leonardo-da-Vinci (accessed April 31st, 2019).
South, Helen. “What is a Vanishing Point in Art.” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/
/vanishing-point-drawing-definition-1123080 (accessed April 31st, 2019).
Encyclopedia of Art Education. “The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci.” Main A-Z Index.
http://www.Arts-cork.com/famous-paintings/last-super-leonardo-davinci.htm
(accessed May 1st 2019).
MoMa. “Man Pointing 1947.” MoMa. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81779
(accessed May 1st, 2019).

 

 

Capstone Project Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Josiah Titus
ERH 381
LTC Brown
February 25, 2020

Capstone Project Proposal

Background/Rationale: I have always been interested in research on the 2nd Amendment and gun control in general. In the course Civic Discourse taught by Maj. Iten I wrote a civic action proposal on gun control giving a solution to how it could be combatted and fixed but in a peaceful way that was a compromise. I looked at the beliefs of the left and right side on the issue as well those in between or not fully on one side of the spectrum and used what I found to make a solution. A lot of this project though was centered around gun violence and preventing it but not so much the 2nd Amendment. Coming into this class I knew I wanted to build off of what I had done and do a project that focused more on the diplomatic side of gun control which is the 2nd Amendment. While at first I thought doing another civic solution proposal would be good, I changed my mind midway into the course and decided to do a rhetorical critique on rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment and to use secondary sources and the 2nd Amendment itself to support my critiques. I also made sure my primaries were opposing in view on the 2nd Amendment so bias would be out of the equation to an extent and so that both sides of the debate could be critiqued fairly. My mentor advised me this was a good decision as it was much more of an English project then a civic solution paper would be.

Methodology: I will be using two texts for my primaries that are rhetoric on the second Amendment. One will be in support of it and the other will be against it. Since I am doing a rhetorical critique it is important that they are opposing so that my rhetorical critique can be unbiased and fair. My research on secondary sources will be focused in on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment, seeing what peer reviewed authors speak to on the 2nd Amendment and discussing it’s interpretations, meanings, and different audiences. Sources also that key in on the historical context of the legislation and then relate the rhetoric to that will be helpful as well as they can help to explain and or examine the stems that cause much of the bias against the law. I want one sided sources so finding these is key, but I also want more general sources that take a broader more encompassing look, possibly being defined as neutral. The 2nd Amendment itself will also act as a secondary source for my critique. These secondary sources are vital because I need sources with credible authors who speak to the rhetoric in the 2nd Amendment from all perspectives so that I can use these viewpoints with my own critique and assertions on the rhetoric in the primaries.

Outcome: This paper should come out to be a full and thorough rhetorical critique of both primary sources that focus on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment. It will address the audiences and how the author’s use certain language to appeal to their audience’s motives, values, and beliefs. The rhetoric critiqued within these primaries will be supported or not supported by assertions made in my secondary sources. My secondary sources will be used primarily to backup statements and facts made or associated with the legislation. These secondary sources speak on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment and rhetoric used by its different audiences in reference to the law, supporting it or not. The paper will also include support from the 2nd Amendment itself which will be a huge secondary source used. The final product will be a paper that shows rhetoric on both sides of an issue and demonstrates how the rhetoric is used to be effective, what it’s influence is, and what it means.

Abstract: The discourse used by big firearm officials being mainly the NRA and public officials presents a wide range of opinions about the Second Amendments. This discourse is one important part of the larger national debate over issues coming out about the Second Amendment. Most scholars in rhetoric have usually not adequately or clearly attended to the discourse surrounding the issues coming out of the Second Amendment. My paper offers a close analysis of some of the discourse coming from more so traditionalists, people who interpret the Second Amendment and it’s influence and meaning with maximum literalness and defend that position and explanation. In my project, I will conduct rhetorical criticism of two key texts in the larger discourse surrounding issues coming out of the Second Amendment, these texts being “The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe, and “Why it’s time to Repeal the 2nd Amendment” by David Cohen. I argue that although the tone and overall style of the two texts differ to an extent, the rhetorical effects on the intended audience are the same and center on the audience’s motive of what they believe the Amendment is really saying, upholding and doing for the country. By closely examining these two texts by Tribe and Cohen and their rhetorical functions, this project sheds new light on the themes and strategies of rhetorical discourse used by Second Amendment traditionalists to appeal to the broader public.

Cornell, Saul. “A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment.” Law and History
Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 2004, pp. 161–167., doi:10.2307/4141668.
Cornell’s main point is to introduce a new model for looking at the second amendment and understanding how we got to what we think of it today by looking at it’s history. Cornell’s primary subtopics are introducing Konig’s new paradigm for the second amendment, explaining typology, showing other paradigms, and then showing histories influence on interpretations. Other specifics he writes on is his desire to express through other credible sources and historical analysis new models for the second amendment and he wants to demonstrate how right to bear arms is a civic right not an individual right.
Cornell’s source offers a look into a whole new diagram for presenting a new outlook on the 2nd Amendment. His methodology is credible as he references history, as well as other schemas made up previously in order to create his new model for the old as time law. What it seems he really wants to accomplish and communicate in this journal article is the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms is not something that should be regulated by the people but instead the government. He does not seem to be on one side completely being the left or the right, and while he seems more left wing sided, his ideology preaches the necessity of guns and their role in society underneath the 2nd Amendment. This source works well for my paper because although it shows a more conflicting side on this 2nd Amendment issue in opposition to my own beliefs, what it does do is present a whole new way of looking at the amendment itself in terms of this issue which is information I’ll need for finding a solution.

Lunceford, Brett. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 333., doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.
Lunceford’s main point is that armed confrontation to the public by open carry advocates will not lead to any reasonable dialogue concerning the role of firearms in America. Lunceford’s primary subtopics are if rights are ever really settled and identity correlated with open carry and gun rights. He writes on that open carry advocates actually hurt themselves by trying to push the 2nd Amendment rhetoric into society along with a right winged agenda. Gun control activists are demonized so that open carry citizens are allowed to be victims who just want their guns.
Lunceford writes a great analysis piece here for this topic because it takes a look at the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment from the right winged perspective and view. It is not exactly a biased source but it paints the right wing’s views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment in a more negative light and plays devil’s advocate in a way. Open carry citizens who just want guns for their protection may not be all that innocent after all and their agenda of pushing their version of what they think the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment into society could be being their downfall. They are egotistical and forward in their agenda but then act the helpless victim. This source works well for my paper as a secondary source because it provides a look at the 2nd Amendment rhetoric being displayed by right wing activists and how the left is combating it.

Eddlem, Thomas R. “The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws.” New American
(08856540), vol. 30, no. 18, Sept. 2014, pp. 35–39. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98050682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Eddlem’s main point is that America’s gun control laws ultimately have racist backgrounds. Eddlem’s primary subtopics are America’s first racist gun control laws, Black Codes after the Civil War, and Some relief under the 14th Amendment. The stakes and values addressed is Eddlem attempting to enlighten ignorance on gun control, saying it is done to disarm minorities, so they are killed easily with no defense. Gun control must not be supported, and lives are at stake as well as evil agendas if it’s allowed. Value must be placed on protecting the citizens, and not giving the government so much power which gun control has been seen to do.
This source is one of the most straightforward historical sources that I managed to find on the issue of gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. It is credible seeming as the author who does a journal, cites history and specific events throughout history that trace the origins of possible racism embedded in the making of this law. Through this perspective a more left winged view can be evidenced while at the same time remaining relatively in between on the political spectrum whereas history is concerned. Eddlem comes at this from a unique angle as he tries to use history as a tool and anchor to make his point on gun control and the 2nd Amendment but it is interesting to note that the points he makes are all rooted in fact. This source contains testimony from blacks back then who validate how gun control and the implementation of the 2nd Amendment was bad for them. This is where the controversy is highly discussed as this law back then was not all inclusive and some of it’s tenants worked against minorities who suffered due to it. That is why this source is good for my capstone as it provides medium ground on the issue from which I can use to possibly find compromise on the controversy of the meaning and connotation behind the 2nd Amendment.

COLLINS, LAURA J. “The Second Amendment as Demanding Subject: Figuring the Marginalized Subject in Demands for an Unbridled Second Amendment.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 2014, pp. 737–756. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0737.
Collins main point in this journal article is about the rhetoric found within the US public that deals specifically with what rights are granted and or protected by the 2nd Amendment. It keys in on the politics that have to do with the legislation’s main focus, which is the right to bear arms of course, so as a result many controversial points including different side’s views on it are established and covered. In particular it spends a lot of time on individual rights with guns, an unbridled 2nd Amendment, and the discrimination that gun carriers face as the main points Collins covers. An unbridled 2nd Amendment is the basis of Collin’s argument, being the belief that everyone is not only entitled to owning a firearm but that every citizen is responsible for owning one and supporting the 2nd Amendment.
This source provides a look at a more left winged spectrum, but it also covers what the right face from the aggression given on the left, as with gun carriers being harassed or targeted. The 2nd Amendment here is posed as demanding, especially when group uses it as primarily their sole basis to support the claim that all people are responsible for owning a firearm as an American citizen. Collins extensively covers the pushback on this and parallels it with the belief of gun ownership being an individual right and not a civic right. The best part of this source though is that it gives the right wing a face of credibility which many of my other sources do not, only choosing one position or spectrum to agree heavily with. It will be a reliable source for reference to right winged propaganda, policies, and cases. It is not extensive on material and is the broadest out of all my sources relying mostly on beating down the concept of an unbridled 2nd Amendment believing it is corrupt to expect such responsibility and obligation from the people, but is a good source for showing educated criticism on one side towards another.

CHARLES, PATRICK J. “The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Three: Critiquing the Circuit Courts Use of History-In-Law.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 197–266. EBSCOhost, searchebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=137739967&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Charles’s main point in this journal article is how the law, which mainly includes how the government and the courts specifically, have used history as the main arbiter in gun policy. This is in reference mainly to the 2nd Amendment as the primary piece of legislation used. The article does this in three separate sections and parts the first being on the 2nd Amendment’s influence in and outside the home, part two being the benefits and burdens of using history-in-law as constitutional interpretation, and lastly part three offering advice on this method for the future. This is a biased source introducing a new type of paradigm for looking at the 2nd Amendment through history and as a law.
This source is right leaning but mostly independent politically speaking as it advocates the history that allows use of this Amendment, but also critiques the ambiguity in what the law itself says and that this consequently but not surprisingly leads to the problems encountered today between the left and right. What this source doesn’t do though which I noticed is explain these problems on the other side. It listed them out in a broad sense but did not give the other side or spectrum analytical expression or dissection on where they are coming from in terms of the issue of ambiguity with the 2nd Amendment. The history-in-law approach though is interesting for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a tactic because as the courts claim it does not impede on any democratic process and is factually backed. The article spends a lot of word count explaining what the method looks but does not give digression as to how or when it’s failed, what other problems arise from it and what could work not in it’s favor. Bias is included, but the other side is not explored which limits the cpapcity of use for this source. It will be a good source though for introducing yet another paradigm of trying to interpret the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment from a more independent political stance.

HARDY, DAVID T. “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Collective Right’ Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 59, no. 3, Sept. 2011, pp. 315–359. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102134752&site=e
host-live&scope=site.
Hardy’s main point in his text is arguing and more actually showing that while many people claim the 2nd Amendment has been and is a collective right, that this interpretation of it doesn’t really work and has failed. He makes this case through a very detailed timeline of history, going through every era from the revolutionary war up until about modern day and scrutinizes various events and acts within each that relate to gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. His data goes over what it exactly meant to have the right to bear arms at the time as well as any legal cases or laws passed that were trying to change or impede in on the legislation.
Hardy’s source seems to be made for this type of argument I’m trying to make as historical context is scrupulously analyzed and at the same time an argument is almost subtly made through the factual evidence provided. It seems that this could potentially be a more conservative right winged platform of argument, but at the same time Hardy demonstrates absolute fact in everything and bias is not easily seen. What this source as a whole seems to do is show the rise and fall of a way of thinking that the author believes in short just doesn’t hold up, and that if the 2nd Amendment was ever actually a collective right, it is not now. This is a doubtful source for use in a overall sense because for this paper sources with heavy bias and political affiliation work extremely well. Dissecting information given from the left or right on what they think gun policy should be is the main goal of this paper, and this piece does not deliver too well on that. While it does tell us for example why the left came to believe the right to bear arms was limited to the military, it doesn’t elaborate on why this is supposedly better for America from someone or some group’s view. In the end though this source works for my capstone because it provides a base of reference material to back up assertions made from biased sources and can be to bring up old laws or old gun policy cases.

Literature Review

Posted on by
Reply

Literature Review
Josiah Titus
Faculty Mentor: Maj. Iten

Research Topic: For my research topic I plan to take a look at two primary sources that are rhetoric from two different authors giving statements and opinions on the 2nd Amendment. Both sources will be opposed, one saying to repeal the 2nd Amendment and other saying repealing it would be a bad idea. After analyzing their rhetoric deeply, I will convey their differences, similarities, and methods in how they speak to their intended audience. I will compare how they appeal to motives, how they sway their audience, what support they use, their credibility and how they rhetorically reach their conclusion and what it means for their audience. The point of this is analyze how they use rhetorical means to take a stance on their position and how they defend it and give reason to their assertion.

Research Questions: What type of rhetorical critique would work best for tackling this paper? What type of secondary sources would be good to use for a rhetorical critique paper? How is bias not going to be involved at all when working through and completing this project? What exactly are you looking for the authors to be saying in the primaries? What’s the difference here between doing a rhetorical analysis and a critique and how will it be applied to this paper? How will biased secondary sources be incorporated into this project? How should you go about choosing them?

Research Methodology: I will be using two texts for my primaries that are rhetoric on the second Amendment. One will be in support of it and the other will be against it. Since I am doing a rhetorical critique it is important that they are opposing so that my rhetorical critique can be unbiased and fair. My research on secondary sources will be focused in on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment, seeing what peer reviewed authors speak to on the 2nd Amendment and discussing it’s interpretations, meanings, and different audiences. Sources also that key in on the historical context of the legislation and then relate the rhetoric to that will be helpful as well as they can help to explain and or examine the stems that cause much of the bias against the law. I want one sided sources so finding these is key, but I also want more general sources that take a broader more encompassing look, possibly being defined as neutral. These secondary sources are vital because I need sources with credible authors who speak to the rhetoric in the 2nd Amendment from all perspectives so that I can use these viewpoints with my own critique and assertions on the rhetoric in the primaries.

Cornell, Saul. “A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment.” Law and History
Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 2004, pp. 161–167., doi:10.2307/4141668.
Cornell’s main point is to introduce a new model for looking at the second amendment and understanding how we got to what we think of it today by looking at it’s history. Cornell’s primary subtopics are introducing Konig’s new paradigm for the second amendment, explaining typology, showing other paradigms, and then showing histories influence on interpretations. Other specifics he writes on is his desire to express through other credible sources and historical analysis new models for the second amendment and he wants to demonstrate how right to bear arms is a civic right not an individual right.
Cornell’s source offers a look into a whole new diagram for presenting a new outlook on the 2nd Amendment. His methodology is credible as he references history, as well as other schemas made up previously in order to create his new model for the old as time law. What it seems he really wants to accomplish and communicate in this journal article is the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms is not something that should be regulated by the people but instead the government. He does not seem to be on one side completely being the left or the right, and while he seems more left wing sided, his ideology preaches the necessity of guns and their role in society underneath the 2nd Amendment. This source works well for my paper because although it shows a more conflicting side on this 2nd Amendment issue in opposition to my own beliefs, what it does do is present a whole new way of looking at the amendment itself in terms of this issue which is information I’ll need for finding a solution.

Lunceford, Brett. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 333., doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.
Lunceford’s main point is that armed confrontation to the public by open carry advocates will not lead to any reasonable dialogue concerning the role of firearms in America. Lunceford’s primary subtopics are if rights are ever really settled and identity correlated with open carry and gun rights. He writes on that open carry advocates actually hurt themselves by trying to push the 2nd Amendment rhetoric into society along with a right winged agenda. Gun control activists are demonized so that open carry citizens are allowed to be victims who just want their guns.
Lunceford writes a great analysis piece here for this topic because it takes a look at the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment from the right winged perspective and view. It is not exactly a biased source but it paints the right wing’s views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment in a more negative light and plays devil’s advocate in a way. Open carry citizens who just want guns for their protection may not be all that innocent after all and their agenda of pushing their version of what they think the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment into society could be being their downfall. They are egotistical and forward in their agenda but then act the helpless victim. This source works well for my paper as a secondary source because it provides a look at the 2nd Amendment rhetoric being displayed by right wing activists and how the left is combating it.

Eddlem, Thomas R. “The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws.” New American
(08856540), vol. 30, no. 18, Sept. 2014, pp. 35–39. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98050682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Eddlem’s main point is that America’s gun control laws ultimately have racist backgrounds. Eddlem’s primary subtopics are America’s first racist gun control laws, Black Codes after the Civil War, and Some relief under the 14th Amendment. The stakes and values addressed is Eddlem attempting to enlighten ignorance on gun control, saying it is done to disarm minorities, so they are killed easily with no defense. Gun control must not be supported, and lives are at stake as well as evil agendas if it’s allowed. Value must be placed on protecting the citizens, and not giving the government so much power which gun control has been seen to do.
This source is one of the most straightforward historical sources that I managed to find on the issue of gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. It is credible seeming as the author who does a journal, cites history and specific events throughout history that trace the origins of possible racism embedded in the making of this law. Through this perspective a more left winged view can be evidenced while at the same time remaining relatively in between on the political spectrum whereas history is concerned. Eddlem comes at this from a unique angle as he tries to use history as a tool and anchor to make his point on gun control and the 2nd Amendment but it is interesting to note that the points he makes are all rooted in fact. This source contains testimony from blacks back then who validate how gun control and the implementation of the 2nd Amendment was bad for them. This is where the controversy is highly discussed as this law back then was not all inclusive and some of it’s tenants worked against minorities who suffered due to it. That is why this source is good for my capstone as it provides medium ground on the issue from which I can use to possibly find compromise on the controversy of the meaning and connotation behind the 2nd Amendment.

COLLINS, LAURA J. “The Second Amendment as Demanding Subject: Figuring the Marginalized Subject in Demands for an Unbridled Second Amendment.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 2014, pp. 737–756. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0737.
Collins main point in this journal article is about the rhetoric found within the US public that deals specifically with what rights are granted and or protected by the 2nd Amendment. It keys in on the politics that have to do with the legislation’s main focus, which is the right to bear arms of course, so as a result many controversial points including different side’s views on it are established and covered. In particular it spends a lot of time on individual rights with guns, an unbridled 2nd Amendment, and the discrimination that gun carriers face as the main points Collins covers. An unbridled 2nd Amendment is the basis of Collin’s argument, being the belief that everyone is not only entitled to owning a firearm but that every citizen is responsible for owning one and supporting the 2nd Amendment.
This source provides a look at a more left winged spectrum, but it also covers what the right face from the aggression given on the left, as with gun carriers being harassed or targeted. The 2nd Amendment here is posed as demanding, especially when group uses it as primarily their sole basis to support the claim that all people are responsible for owning a firearm as an American citizen. Collins extensively covers the pushback on this and parallels it with the belief of gun ownership being an individual right and not a civic right. The best part of this source though is that it gives the right wing a face of credibility which many of my other sources do not, only choosing one position or spectrum to agree heavily with. It will be a reliable source for reference to right winged propaganda, policies, and cases. It is not extensive on material and is the broadest out of all my sources relying mostly on beating down the concept of an unbridled 2nd Amendment believing it is corrupt to expect such responsibility and obligation from the people, but is a good source for showing educated criticism on one side towards another.

CHARLES, PATRICK J. “The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Three: Critiquing the Circuit Courts Use of History-In-Law.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 197–266. EBSCOhost, searchebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=137739967&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Charles’s main point in this journal article is how the law, which mainly includes how the government and the courts specifically, have used history as the main arbiter in gun policy. This is in reference mainly to the 2nd Amendment as the primary piece of legislation used. The article does this in three separate sections and parts the first being on the 2nd Amendment’s influence in and outside the home, part two being the benefits and burdens of using history-in-law as constitutional interpretation, and lastly part three offering advice on this method for the future. This is a biased source introducing a new type of paradigm for looking at the 2nd Amendment through history and as a law.
This source is right leaning but mostly independent politically speaking as it advocates the history that allows use of this Amendment, but also critiques the ambiguity in what the law itself says and that this consequently but not surprisingly leads to the problems encountered today between the left and right. What this source doesn’t do though which I noticed is explain these problems on the other side. It listed them out in a broad sense but did not give the other side or spectrum analytical expression or dissection on where they are coming from in terms of the issue of ambiguity with the 2nd Amendment. The history-in-law approach though is interesting for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a tactic because as the courts claim it does not impede on any democratic process and is factually backed. The article spends a lot of word count explaining what the method looks but does not give digression as to how or when it’s failed, what other problems arise from it and what could work not in it’s favor. Bias is included, but the other side is not explored which limits the cpapcity of use for this source. It will be a good source though for introducing yet another paradigm of trying to interpret the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment from a more independent political stance.

HARDY, DAVID T. “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Collective Right’ Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 59, no. 3, Sept. 2011, pp. 315–359. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102134752&site=e
host-live&scope=site.
Hardy’s main point in his text is arguing and more actually showing that while many people claim the 2nd Amendment has been and is a collective right, that this interpretation of it doesn’t really work and has failed. He makes this case through a very detailed timeline of history, going through every era from the revolutionary war up until about modern day and scrutinizes various events and acts within each that relate to gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. His data goes over what it exactly meant to have the right to bear arms at the time as well as any legal cases or laws passed that were trying to change or impede in on the legislation.
Hardy’s source seems to be made for this type of argument I’m trying to make as historical context is scrupulously analyzed and at the same time an argument is almost subtly made through the factual evidence provided. It seems that this could potentially be a more conservative right winged platform of argument, but at the same time Hardy demonstrates absolute fact in everything and bias is not easily seen. What this source as a whole seems to do is show the rise and fall of a way of thinking that the author believes in short just doesn’t hold up, and that if the 2nd Amendment was ever actually a collective right, it is not now. This is a doubtful source for use in a overall sense because for this paper sources with heavy bias and political affiliation work extremely well. Dissecting information given from the left or right on what they think gun policy should be is the main goal of this paper, and this piece does not deliver too well on that. While it does tell us for example why the left came to believe the right to bear arms was limited to the military, it doesn’t elaborate on why this is supposedly better for America from someone or some group’s view. In the end though this source works for my capstone because it provides a base of reference material to back up assertions made from biased sources and can be to bring up old laws or old gun policy cases.