Reflective tag: Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment has always been a very interesting topic to me for study. Although I have never owned a gun, I intend to soon and believe that every citizen should seek to do so as well. After ding all this research my eyes have been opened to how many different opinions there are out there on this debate. With such a wide spectrum of beliefs and methods surrounding how this conflict should be resolved I decided myself that I wanted to have a firm base of knowledge on the matter. If I am to own a gun one day and serve in our military, or even if I end up not doing so, I feel it is important to be knowledgeable when it comes to understanding why all sides feel torn, scared, or confounded on how to interpret and then handle the 2nd Amendment. Writing this Capstone though has allowed me to realize that it is such a privilege that we can live in such a country where these type of outlets for voicing one’s own attitude in such a rhetorical way. Due to this I felt it would be interesting to look at what different people have to say about it so that my own comprehension of what makes this divide so prevalent would be expanded upon. It makes me proud to not only examine how these people justify their sides, but to see how they intelligently do it. This in turn I hope will assist me in crafting intelligent arguments to back up my own claims on gun culture along with my other social and political issues.
Capstone Project: “Dealing with rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment”
COL McDonald
ERH 481
Josiah Titus
Help Received: Cited works so far, Peer Reviews, Maj. Iten and COL McDonald’s feedback, eclectic method
Up to this point in history countless publishings, records, and articles have been made on the 2nd Amendment, coming at it from every angle, scrutinizing its details, and trying to get a better sense of everything that stands behind it. Bearing arms in the US has always been a controversial issue so it is no wonder that the amount of words and publication that are a result because of the law, is beyond many. Guns will always be present and there always will be people using them, people hating them, people banning them, people taking them, people illegally purchasing them, and people terrified of what they are. Rhetoric on them in turn will never cease to exist we can suppose, and that means any and all types of rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment. It is always being debated. Take for instance an article recently published in 2019 in the New York Times by Adam Liptak titled, “Supreme Court will Review New York City Gun Law” that opens with “The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would review a New York City gun law that limits residents from transporting their guns outside their homes, its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade and a test of the court’s approach to gun rights after the arrival of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in October” (Liptak). Surprisingly enough this is noted here as the first 2nd Amendment issue tackled in over nearly a decade, yet that is just it. Another article by Linda Greenhouse titled “Gunfight at the Supreme Court” talks about how “A push to expand the Second Amendment produces some judicial contortions” (Greenhouse). The problem never ceases to return and cannot be fully resolved to please all sides and ideologies on it. Our Constitution houses no doubt a large array of debated laws made long ago but this one in particular stands out as an amendment that never fails to divide many in thinking.
Saul Cornell in his journal article “A New Paradigm for the 2nd Amendment” writes, “Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such a simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate. The individual rights view serves the interests of gun rights advocates, while the collective rights view serves the goals of gun control. While this neat dichotomy furthers the interests of those involved in modern political debates about gun policy, it is not particularly useful for understanding the eighteenth-century world in which the Second Amendment was drafted and adopted” (161). So what exactly does this mean? Let’s begin by explaining this issue and its importance so what we explore later has a basis and purpose behind it. Our country is one of varying beliefs, ethics, and moral principles. The grounds the 2nd Amendment was made on in 1791 may not apply to today as part of what this paper will touch on. Simply put, there is a large majority who do not agree at all with it’s premise or what it was made for and because of. These individuals want it repealed. There is another spectrum of people though that do agree full heartedly with what it established and still establishes today. This group does not want it repealed and in fact thinks that if that were to happen our country would be in serious danger, destroying the framework put in place by the founding fathers. This argument though over what to do with this law is in no way black and white and there is no easy answer nor will there probably ever be in a world where some people see it fit to carry automatics into the grocery store and others see a gun as a machine crafted by the devil himself. It’s almost as if the problem isn’t so much needing more rhetoric but more so scrutinizing the rhetoric we have so far and looking for what the issues are and what pulls people into it. This issue, gun control and such at the root of it, cannot be solved today and there is much ground to cover for the long future of attempting to finally settle this dispute. But perhaps the first step to be taken in this long road is not to write even more or to take immediate action. Maybe it is to look at what it is that gives people that sense of opinion, whichever side it is that they’re on and how it is aspired, motivated, and justified. What rhetoric is being pushed forward and written that encourages each side to stand on what they think is sacrosanct, what they think makes our country most safe, or what they believe is the only sensible way to go about guns and their meaning? This is where we must first start to grasp what and understand what rhetoric and rhetorical strategies are used and how they capture as well as spur their audience into action.
In the article “The Rise and Demise of the Collective Right Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment” by David Hardy, he writes (starting out with the Amendment itself), “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. As late as a decade ago, the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment was simple. Every circuit that had ruled upon it had held that it did not guarantee an individual right to arms for individual purposes. Rather, it reflected some form of “collective right,” either (1) a right of states to have militia systems, or (2) a right of individuals, but only to engage in state-organized militia activities” (317). Throughout most of history, as Hardy here references, the two sides just covered on this issue, has been prevalent. The 2nd Amendment is viewed from a collective right and an individual right, but neither one can solely be agreed on by everyone. Dozens upon dozens of publications has been made backing up both of these different sides. It is no wonder though an issue has as much division as this one considering that our whole country, to a great degree, rests upon its premise and conclusion. We are a nation built by guns to a large degree and they factor largely into our history as a nation, from a safety, diplomatic, and just all-around political perspective. Brett Lunceford in his article titled, “Armed Victims: The Ego function of the Second Amendment Rhetoric” gives a broad statement describing how this situation has come to be copacetic, “Collins suggests that ‘if it is a settled matter that the right is protected and that all are free to exercise that right, the political movement around it collapses. In this sense, a politics oriented toward the preservation of a right requires the perpetuation of that tension rather than the achievement of a goal or purpose.’ This is not, however, news since rights are always a rhetorical construction” (334). What is suggested here by notable scholar Lunceford is that this issue remains because it has been boiled down to the political level. It is no longer about young children getting killed or banning the NRA. Rather it is s debate of rhetoric and rhetoric alone. The 2nd Amendment, as stated, obviously is a rhetorical base for different sides to go off of. Since it’s meaning in our country today appears ambiguous to many, this leaves room for the different sides to create their interpretation of what it means and what should be done with it, as in whether it should stay or not. This is the reasoning behind why this issue discussed here will not be examined in terms of gun safety or gun control between people and the government. This has been done countless times and has been seen as in vain approach mostly. The focus will instead be on conducting a rhetorical criticism on the rhetoric given by different viewpoints on this issue. When this is completed then we will look at what can be surmised and pulled out on this 2nd Amendment and gun issue to see what this entails for the debate as a whole moving forward from a rhetorical point of view.
Now that a base has been given for why this issue is being tackled and how we will go about thoroughly analyzing it here, let’s get into the specifics of how this will be done. First the disagreement must be boiled down to the two opposing spectrums that will be looked at and evaluated for our analysis here. The 2nd Amendment has a myriad of arguments and viewpoints surrounding it, and the amount of grey area is enormous. It would be a nearly impossible task to narrow down and look at all the angles rhetorically taken on this issue as well separating the diplomatic arguments from the gun handling and safety issues. If we are to look at rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment then let us narrow the argument down to its most basic form. The first argument is that the 2nd Amendment should stay or that it wouldn’t help anything by being repealed. The other argument against this is that it should be repealed; it does bad for our country. Take note that this is not an examination of political sides, but instead an evaluation of different arguments on the Amendment itself. The articles that will be rhetorically dissected each individually assert one of these positions being “The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe and “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David Cohen. Tribe’s article is a good example for analysis for one side of this debate because it examines the key issues in the debate in a fair way, even ones with which the author doesn’t necessarily agree or that he feels are not black and white. Cohen’s article is a good example for analysis for the other side of this debate because he clearly supports one specific side of it and has decent evidence to back up the claims he makes. What makes them comparable and great subjects for analysis is that each author presents a scope of view on the 2nd Amendment followed up with their own crafted policy on how to make progress on this issue through their own rhetorical approach. Both are presenting different opinions based off of what they know and think is correct. Their rhetoric brings in some references to gun violence and gun regulation but the premise of their arguments and the rhetoric they use stems from our base of subjectivism here, the Second Amendment.
The rhetorical criticism method that will be used to do this is eclectic criticism. This is a style of rhetorical criticism is defined by Jim Kuypers in his book Rhetorical Criticism Perspectives in Action as, “As an approach to philosophy and to rhetoric, eclecticism eschews single perspectives and draws its power instead from insights gained from combining multiple theories or perspectives into a blend used for a specific purpose” (Kuypers). What exactly does this mean for the purposes of what’s being done here? Put simply, eclecticism or an eclectic critical approach is looking at an array of opposing ideas given on a theory, drawing on multiple perspectives from each, finding correlations, and then bringing those together to form a new way of theorizing the issue or topic. Kuyper goes on to explain the eclectic critic’s method, “Eclectic critics are frequently drawn to extremely diverse rhetorical artifacts, and analysis of these diverse forms of rhetoric necessitates the development of nuanced, flexible, and diverse perspectives of analysis” (Kuypers). This strategy for rhetorical criticism and analysis will be good for the task being done here. The views to be presented on the Second Amendment will vary and differ, greatly in many degrees. The point of the analysis here is not to pick a better side, but to examine both perspectives deeply and see where the similarities or intertwining ideas come out. This is not only to avoid a paper full of bias, but to see how different rhetoric, while it affects the intended audience in a specific way using its specific methods intended, really all boils down to the same school of philosophy. To conduct this eclectic criticism on the rhetoric selected, first what is said and argued in the article must be summarized and explained. Then a rhetorical criticism of its contents can begin. If we must know precisely what their arguing then within the rhetorical criticism we can define and differentiate the logic, points, evidence, and substantiation used in the two different articles so that their rhetorical arguments and strategies can be pinpointed.
“The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe is the article that will be used that does not think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. Tribe is a constitutional law professor writing an opinion piece. For the purposes of what will be done here Tribe’s article is nearly perfect. It is not completely on one side of the spectrum but gives an opinion about where the 2nd Amendment stands right now in our country in relationship to the gun issues happening and evolving. What particularly makes this article an excellent site of analysis is that the author takes issue with almost all sides but rationalizes a view he perhaps isn’t too fond of as he sees it’s logic. While he says we should not repeal the 2nd Amendment, Tribe’s argument is in no way completely right winged, nor does it spend all its word count glorifying it and talking about how great guns are. Tribe gives an educated rhetorical assessment on why this idea is in fact not the answer people want, even if they hate guns, and this opinion comes from him following the High School Parkland shooting. He comes at this issue from a big picture perspective. Tribe argues that as frightened Americans, due to gun violence, it is not repealing of the 2nd Amendment that you want. This prospect will not solve the issue that grieving mothers are facing when their children do not come home after a school shooting. Taking away the Second Amendment he writes, could actually cause more problems with legislation on guns, disrupt the anti-gun legislation in place now and even rile up and incite large motion from the gun lobbyists themselves; bad news for those strongly opposed to Second Amendment prospects. On the whole Tribe’s article is about how if it is guns and pro-gun movements that anti-gun activists or scared, grieving, gun fearing parents want stopped then eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not be the answer to their prayers. Tribe’s article is unique, being a cautionary piece that builds to an interesting conclusion backed by distinct premises. What Tribe offers is a viewpoint that does not glorify one side but instead encourages different action from a side they may or may not be on. Since this is unclear it eliminates apparent bias and provides a perspective that seemingly is in a Devil’s advocate role. In the analysis of Tribe’s article the rhetoric he uses to influence and pull in his audience will be examined for the purposes of finding out what this tells us about the 2nd Amendment and the issue of it as a whole.
Now let’s look at the article that supports repealing the Second Amendment and explain the case and argument made by the author. “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David Cohen is a bit more of an anti-gun article but what is interesting is that he is also a constitutional law professor. Both men write opinion pieces, but the fascinating part is that both men back their pieces with the same type of credibility and are writing from the same bases of knowledge. Another interesting correlation is that this piece was written following the Orlando nightclub shooting. Cohen, like Tribe, does not stand behind what he thinks and asserts for no reason or irrational reason that is. His specific assertions are backed with logical thinking which in turn makes his rhetoric more dissectible for comparison and analytical purposes. This author also does reference gun shootings and regulation, but the centerpiece of his urgings is the Second Amendment. Like Tribe, it is his base for reasoning on the matter, all of this being what makes this article a great site of analysis. Cohen’s primary idea is that the Second Amendment was created in a very different time and that its precedence does not hold up with the gun world that everyone lives in currently. The firearms that can be carried around today by an individual are not what men had on their backs when the Declaration of Independence was signed. In Cohen’s mind the Amendment itself is contradictory because its advocates base its vitality around historical importance tradition and securing our liberties all the while not applying this to various other Bill of Rights areas. Cohen is mainly arguing that it has worn out its welcome and now only serves as means for gun advocates to do whatever they want with guns. What makes Cohen’s article unique to this overall rhetorical analysis project is that Cohen is extremely intense, urgent, and pointed which is a bit different to Tribe’s more reserved and progressive tone. This provides a perspective that is using logic and factual support from an upset and fed up point of view. Once the components of Cohens article are analyzed like Tribe’s, it will as well help us observe and come up with inferences about this 2nd Amendment issue on the whole.
The rhetoric in both of these primary articles is important to analyze because there is a lot of different meaning behind both sides of this issue. Therefore, the rhetoric and the point the article tries to make based off of what they are defending, defaming, upholding, condemning or so on, is crucially important. We’ve established a base of both primaries, discussing what it is they assert and the claims behind their assertions in a very broad and limited sense. Now is the hard part, which is looking at both primaries rhetorical patterns to see what stands out to us. When going through both the specific audience they are appealing to can be seen, as well as what rhetorical arguments they make which are capitalized on through their language that illustrate their styles in their writing. These are the primary points that stand out from both author’s work and is what we will use in this eclectic approach to both articles.
Rhetorical Analysis of Cohen’s Article
Both of these article’s rhetorical strategies begin with writing to or appealing to a specific type of audience or audiences. For both articles an audience must be identified in order to see who the author is trying to use their rhetorical appeals on. The way their language sounds and evolves can communicate who they want reading this or even who they believe will be reading it. In David Cohen’s article “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment”, there are two primary audiences it seems that his article seems to be centered around, an audience he is expecting to be reading his piece and an audience he hopes will be reading it. Cohen is riled up here, and he comes off as very uncompromising. He doesn’t want to hear other opinions, he wants those reading to be fully convinced that what he is writing is truth that must not be overlooked any longer. He opens with, “But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed” (page 1 paragraph 2). Right here his primary audience can be inferred which would be those on his side. ‘We’ especially suggests that along with exclaiming that the message must be said for all to hear so there is no confusion as to what their position on the matter is. Cohen here is essentially seeming to rouse the troops, his own troops, into a call to stand up once and for all. He appeals to this audience of his again at the end of his piece with his call to action, “We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founder’s view of the world…” (page 5 paragraph 15). Clearly Cohen wants and mostly expects that his primary audience who will be reading this is angered anti-gun lobbyists who think that the 2nd Amendment must go as well. Interesting to note though within Cohen’s dialogue is that he seems to also be appealing to another audience, one he hopes reads this. That would be his opposition. How is this seen? Since most of what he writes seems intense and even a bit hostile it would appear that Cohen is trying to be convincing. He would not need to convince fed up mothers of dead children from gun violence of what he is saying. However, for pro-gun activists afraid of losing their Automatics in their basement, he might need some language that obstinately tries to illustrate how wrong their way of thinking is. “In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country” (page 2 paragraph 6). An audience who already went in reading this with his shared ideals would not need to ‘acknowledge’ this obvious truth. It seems though Cohen is strategically setting up his writing in the hopes that if those who disagree with him read this, they come to find his stance more than understandable.
We have identified Cohen’s audiences for this article. We must now dissect his work to identify the issue frames within his arguments. Doing this will then demonstrate what appeals he makes to his audience to convince them or reiterate to those who already agree why the 2nd Amendment must go. This analysis and identification of these rhetorical arguments will then help us later to look at the 2nd Amendment as a whole and draw out some information and connections not recognized before. The bulk of his arguments are arguments of analogy in which is where someone uses a situation for comparison against their opposition’s argument to show the inconsistencies, refute it, or show similarities. Specifically, Cohen’s argument of analogy is going against the position held by those against him. These would be people that support that the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment should not be changed because it would be going against what has been held up in American tradition, so changing it would thus be unconstitutional. Counteracting this point Cohen says,
As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it’s important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don’t know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama’s vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together. (page 1 paragraph 3)
Here we see how Cohen takes a point made constantly by his opposition and shows the flaws within its reasoning. If pro 2nd Amendment activists cared so much for maintaining history and our original documents, then they would of have fought for and still be fighting for this original law to come back that had the runner up become the winner’s VP. For Cohen this is almost a gotcha moment in which he shows that these people cannot eat their cake and have it too. Going forward Cohen uses two more arguments of analogy to back up his stance. He argues how the “Framers” of the Constitution maintained (those who would of made the 2nd Amendment) the allowance of slavery in the original documents, bringing up how at first it was prohibited to be amended at all, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation, and that it took literally the Civil War to fix all of this, not including the societal consequences faced now (page 1-2 paragraph 4). Basically, Cohen is again saying the Constitution and Bill of Right’s relevancy and authenticity is extremely variable considering it was made by racist men with racist intentions engrained into at the time of its creation. His argument is that just because history made it so, doesn’t mean it was right. His oppressors would say that the 2nd Amendment is one of the freedoms our country was established on but here Cohen would fight this by saying our country was also established with racial prejudices, something our country does not constitutionally uphold today. So, what dictates that this amendment cannot be touched? Bringing in yet again more analogy in which he speaks on Presidential succession, women’s rights, and land-based representation in reference to the Bill of Rights flaws, Cohen moves onto an argument of policy with historical precedence to back up the policy’s credibility that he proposes even more. This type of rhetorical appeal pushes forward an agenda or solution for the intended audience to potentially be swayed by. It gives an argument for something in particular to be done to amend a problem or deficiency. Tribe’s lead in for this is obvious, that the 2nd Amendment must be gotten rid of, and his suggestion for how to do this is, “We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It’s been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now” (page 2 paragraph 6). The next thing Cohen does is use history again and another thought out argument of analogy to backup the policy he suggested saying,
The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.
Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today. (page 3 paragraphs 7-8)
Cohen ends with a last argument of policy that says only a mass movement of people who will stand up and push back on the corruption of the gun industry, NRA, manufacturers, and pro-gun activists that allow the 2nd Amendment to be the controversial, unethical, and outdated document that it is (page 5 paragraph 15). Cohen ends saying it is “the essence of American democracy” to say that the 2nd Amendment must be repealed. His finishing thought is just that. It is a reminder to his two audiences that if they agree it is their duty to take action, and that if they do not agree and need convincing on this matter, that they are dismissing the American ideals they claim they uphold.
Along with the audience this author is appealing to and the rhetorical arguments he uses to do so, it is very important to note the types of words and language he uses which in turn shape his style and tone. As we’ve already seen through his multiple arguments, Cohen’s prose is fired up and he indeed seems to carry himself with an unbending hostility that is maintained up until his last sentence. The tone of Cohen’s language shows the boldness of his personal stance and beliefs on this issue. Little ones like “…the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race” (page 1 paragraph 4) and “They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution” (page 2 paragraph 4) show the irritation and exasperation that lie within this man’s spirit, poured out in these words. He wastes no time in letting his phrases show had upset he is with the current state of affairs. “…the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned” (page 2 paragraph 6). His style is one that is absolute but can be described best as emphatic. His tone is urgent and feels immediate action must be taken. As mentioned earlier with his audiences, he wants to rouse his own troops to move ahead and convince his opposition reading this that they are wildly mistaken. He has no time to make concessions for them so words like ‘wildly’ and ‘jettisoned’ denote this prospect. While the arguments he utilizes show us how he substantiates and backs his assertions we only need to see his language to understand how he is coming at this. He isn’t open to suggestions, finesses from others or revision, he wants merely conclusion on this issue resolved through how he sees fit. After all the 2nd Amendment is something he refers to as a “threat to liberty and a suicide pact” (page 3 paragraph 7) and on page 4 directly says this, “…the Second Amendment is a suicide pact” (page 4 paragraph 12). He says this phrase multiple times throughout, so this isn’t an issue he is going to budge on. His rhetoric is like this is communicate not only how passionately he feels about this topic but how much he feels it is ridiculous that this has gone on as long as it has. Cohen’s emphatic and dramatic language does not stop though as he refers to the gun lobbyist’s argument of good people having guns effectively stopping bad people with guns as a formula for only “blood baths” (page 5 paragraph 14). Not even two sentences later Cohen is expressing upset at people trying to handle this problem in a nice way where the text of the 2nd Amendment is and Constitution meanings are debated. He calls this “useless drivel” (page 5 paragraph 15). It can be seen that Cohen is pushing for action and so it makes sense that his tone reflects this attitude being almost demanding, pressing, and uncompromising. His emphatic style does not break even for a second throughout all of the article. What can be taken from this is that even an emotional author who seems at the end of his rope can still appeal to his audiences by giving out logical and factual reasoning as to why the 2nd Amendment must be eliminated.
Rhetorical Analysis of Tribe’s Article
Now it is time to look at the rhetorical elements that stand out in the other article “The Second Amendment isn’t the problem” by Laurence Tribe. Like Cohen it is Tribe’s audience, rhetorical arguments, and language that he utilizes within the development of his piece that show how he rhetorically appeals to those reading. Tribe’s audience is clearly people who think repealing the 2nd Amendment is the answer to all the gun problems. What makes this clear is how he spends the entire article making convincing arguments about how that is not actually what people would really want if they wanted the gun issue solved. He believes his audience is one that is fed up but mistaken in their frustration over what should be done, in fact almost blinded by it. He says, “It is easy for those who revile our lax gun laws to lose sight of how many Americans cherish the right of law-abiding citizens to keep guns at home for self-defense or hunting” (page 1 paragraph 2). This is the statement he works from to build into his main argument of how people who want this law gone do not see how in fact that could work against their own self-interest as well as their children. Tribe is appealing to people who are not only fed up but scared. Tribe is writing this in the wake of the Parkland Florida shooting. He knows people want to jump into action and it’s those already fraught with anger over guns by themselves now combined with grief over their loss who think the whole thing should be just done away with.
Now that we have identified Tribe’s audience for this article, his work must also like Cohen’s be dissected for the issue frames within the arguments he makes. To be taken into account as mentioned earlier, Tribe’s work here is a response to the parkland shooting that in his mind has prompted this type of response saying the 2nd Amendment must go. In turn his rhetoric is arguments refuting the plausibility and rationality of this thinking, Tribe claiming that the 2nd Amendment should not be removed. The act of this would not do or accomplish what his audience thinks. He starts out with a cause and effect argument appeal saying, “Repealing the Second Amendment would eliminate that source of reassurance-without even achieving the Parkland, Fla., students’ aims. It would not take the most lethal, military-grade weapons out of dangerous hands. Indeed, it wouldn’t eliminate a single gun or enact a single gun regulation. It would instead make the passage of each proposed regulation more difficult. Worse, a repeal campaign would infuse the Second Amendment with an absolute anti- regulation meaning that only the gun lobby has given it” (page 2 paragraph 5). Doing exactly what people want he says would make the situation on guns worse and gun lobbyist’s outcries and the push for everything anti-gun activists wouldn’t want would be heightened immensely Tribe believes. Inarguably it would backfire, is Tribe’s premise. Tribe strategically moves from explaining the cause and effects of what anti-gun activists seem to think they want and then moves his rhetoric into taking things back to basics in a way. He wants to lay out exactly what the issue is that’s being had and with that he uses an argument of priority and then immediately an argument of definition. The argument for priority appeals to what it truly is that people want protected by whatever movement ends up happening as he says,
There is undoubted emotional appeal in a call to arms organized around an aim as lofty as the elimination of the Second Amendment. Its very unattainability adds to its allure. I can’t deny feeling the pull of that appeal myself. But our shared goal is surely not just to make ourselves feel good about our audacious hopes, but also to protect our children from being ripped to shreds by bullets and terrorized by that prospect. (page 3 paragraph 7)
Tribe’s strategy here is to continue his development of his main point while subtly throwing in a sympathetic statement that is meant to stand out to everyone. No matter who wants the 2nd Amendment repealed or not, Tribe assumes that no one wants their children dead, and so the statement serves as a reminder of what is of the utmost importance even with a difference of opinions on policy. His argument of definition follows this saying, “The obstacle is not the Second Amendment but the addiction of lawmakers to the money of firearms manufacturers and other unimaginably wealthy funders” (page 3 paragraph 8). Coupled with this he reminds the readers on his side as well, “That, coupled with the gun lobby’s ability to mobilize single-issue gun rights voters, is set against the backdrop of a gun culture and national history that valorizes guns” (page 3 paragraph 8). Tribe’s definition here of the actual problem is vital as it informs those who want guns and the 2nd Amendment gone of what they have miscalculated or not thought through when lobbying for this. Before moving into his argument of policy, Tribe brilliantly adds on a tactful statemen, which is an ending argument of cause and effect, saying how all of this that he just explained would still remain even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed (page 3 paragraph 8). His climactic statement, it sums up what he has been reiterating throughout his whole piece, that getting rid of this ancient law would not take away firearm manufacturers, wealthy funders, gun rights voters, or a gun culture that glorifies firearms in America. Expectedly, Tribe wraps up his article with an argument of policy just as Cohen does. He says, “The rising generation’s mobilization of passionate voters ready to toss out lawmakers tethered to guns by a trail of dark money is the right antitdote. ‘Vote them out” (page 4 paragraph 9). The argument Tribe makes here is that the real solution to this gun problem is to vote out the lawmakers who continue to pass pro-gun policies. They are the problem, not the 2nd Amendment and if they are gotten rid of then their gun policies will go with them, much to Tribe’s audience’s liking.
Tribe’s style in his article is communicated by the language he uses like Cohen’s. Tribe’s style within the writing of this article is explanatory and measured. He progresses slowly and does not jump to conclusions or make his language large and sweeping. This was in turn Cohen’s strategy, to be emphatic, and in most simple terms is the difference in these two author’s styles. How Tribe communicates this type of tone throughout the article is in three ways mainly it seems is using factuality in some areas, making concessions, and repeated grammatical subjects to move through a sequence of several points. Tribe as said is moderated in how he comes across but isn’t afraid to state the correct premises in order to get his point across all the while making it as sound as he possibly can. To begin he throws in how gun activists “insist, falsely that any new prohibition would lead to the eventual ban of all firearms” (page 1 paragraph 2). Later on he also says, “Relying on that legal reality, the young have reassured Americans fearful of confiscation that they do not..” (page 2 paragraph 4). Looking at these two statements it can be noticed that Tribe relies on factuality to back up the impact of the statement with terms like “falsely” and “legal reality”. The words or phrases act as stoppers, moments where he is saying that an argument against the point would be simply invalid. When mentioning his ending policy for change he uses the phrases “the real obstacle to progress in gun regulation” followed up with “none of those realities would be eliminated” (page 3 paragraph 8). Tribe makes a huge effort to cover his article with phrases that emphasize factuality as if he’s attempting to ensure his authority and credibility. But going back to that rational feel Tribe is not so lost in his own worldview that he cannot comprehend what he does not advocate. He does make a concession, and this alone benefits his overall tone. He even makes this concession more near the end of his article which furthers that feel of understanding and “in their shoes” mindset seen in his explanatory tone. “There is undoubted emotional appeal in a call to arms organized around an aim as lofty as the elimination of the Second Amendment. Its very unattainability adds to its allure. I can’t deny feeling the pull of that appeal myself. But our shared goal is surely…” (page 3 paragraph 7). Tribe is humanizing himself here which allows his tone to be welcoming to his audiences in that he can visualize all perspectives. But at the end of the day the others but his own just don’t track. One last thing Tribe does with his language that shapes his measured style is repeating grammatical subjects to advance a point as seen here,
Repealing the Second Amendment would eliminate that source of reassurance — without even achieving the Parkland, Fla., students’ aims. It would not take the most lethal, military-grade weapons out of dangerous hands. Indeed, it wouldn’t eliminate a single gun or enact a single gun regulation. It would instead make..(page 2 paragraph 5)
Tribe’s repeated use of would here is a unique language ploy of his where the word that is said again and again acts as a logistic tool. It allows his argument and overall message to come off as collected, credible, and calm. It’s not loud or extremely persuasive like Cohen but it break down in pieces the main thing he is trying to push forward. Since his audience are people who he thinks have the right spirit but wrong methodology moving forward and need convinced otherwise, this measured and explanatory tone works. He does it throughout the whole article and wrapping up with language like this demonstrates that an unemotional author can give convincing rhetoric out to grieving families as to why getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is not the solution.
Looking back on both articles, the authors are very intricate in the way they craft their points, done through the composition of how they appeal to their own specific audience or audiences, the rhetorical arguments they make, and the language they use for their own emphasis. Both authors come from similar backgrounds, responding in the wake of similar events at their respective times. Although their arguments are markedly different, in both pieces what stands out that shapes their rhetorical approach is very similar. Both speak towards an audience that they know will follow them, people who are just as riled and fed up with what they as an author are upset about. Both ensure their audience’s questions, expectations, and concerns are addressed to some degree as well as countering their opposition that they know are reading their articles as well. Both utilize similar arguments, being arguments, of analysis, priority, cause and effect, and policy, which in turn have them present evidence in a digressive manner as to why their right and the move towards what is being called for. Finally, Cohen and Tribe both use their own style of language that illustrates not only how they communicate and substantiate their points, but who they are as people and what that means for the stance they have resolved too. In terms of the Second Amendment, what does this gathered analysis and evidence reveal to us about it?
While this analysis does not reveal anything particular about the Second Amendment itself it does tell us several things. If you look at both articles, while the authors advocate a different opinion for progression, both sets of rhetorical appeals draw on the same factors for persuasion, logicality, and soundness of what they are saying. So what does this broad statement mean? Take for instance the already established fact that both articles are written by authors who are constitutional law professors. Almost frighteningly two extremely like headed minds are taking the same set of expertise and applying their well learned principles combined with their own code of ethics, morals, and logical perspectives within themselves and putting all that towards the issue of what should be done about the 2nd Amendment. Tack onto this as well that both are writing in response to shootings that happened in their times (most likely what prompted them to be written). With this in mind it’s no wonder both articles seemed to some extent geared towards a sympathetic view for their audience, but also include dire or logic induced arguments for their opposition who they feel in a time like this, must be swayed. What can be taken from both articles altogether though is that everyone in this issue to a large extent is the same. We all want safety and prosperity. Both sides come at this Second Amendment issue with solutions that they feel will protect our children and families better. No rhetorical argument or claim, through its own personal belief that is, compromises that for a law to stay or go. Finally, what can be concluded on this whole 2nd Amendment conflict is that both sides are geared. While Tribe and Cohen argue radically different ideas, they are similar men appealing to similar people. This just goes to show that credibility and reasoning does not fall underneath any one branch or spectrum. The way you present your ideas, whether its measured or emphatic, does not lessen your credibility and accuracy either. If anything, the debate on the 2nd Amendment shows us the good in humanity, in that we are all the same people vying for the same cause, only under different premises. And this is what makes our country great, with problems only as big as this.
Works Cited
Cohen, D. and Cohen, D., 2020. Why It’s Time To Repeal The Second Amendment. [online] Rolling Stone. Available at: <https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-95622/> [Accessed 19 November 2020].
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.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Opinion | Gunfight At The Supreme Court”. Nytimes.Com, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-supreme-court.html.
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.
Kuypers, Jim A. Rhetorical Criticism.
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.
Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To New York City Gun Ordinance”. Nytimes.Com, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html.
Tribe, L., 2018. The Second Amendment Isn’T The Problem. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-a-dangerous-idea/2018/03/28/ab194138-32af-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html> [Accessed 19 November 2020].
