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.