Gun control has been a reoccurring issue in the Unites States for some time now. According to Paul Rosenzweig in his article, Guns: A Loaded Argument, he suggests that the issues related to gun control hardly has to deal with the amount of regulation, but more with how much power the government has to regulate individual conduct, which in his writing expresses that it should be fairly limited. Rosenzweig supports his claim by first saying that most people agree with some type of regulation on gun control whether they are for or against the issue. He also goes on to state, “Everyone agrees with some reasonable bounds, the government can and should regulate who owns which types of weapons.” Although he does agree with some regulation, he also believes that all American citizens have the right to own their own weapons. Rosenzweig’s main purpose of this argument is to express his personal feelings on gun control and explain how regulation is not the main issue when talking about gun control. He adopts a conservative tone for his main audience of people against heavy gun control.
Paul Rosenzweig is a writer and a speaker that has a good reputation in cyber security and homeland security. Rosenzweig was a founder of his own business, a professional lecturer in Law at George Washington University, and conducts legal research and contributes to articles at the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, is an educational institute that was made to promote conservative policies such as the one written by Rosenzweig, which is against most forms of gun control. Rosenzweig begins with the question “Does each American citizen have the right to own firearms or not?” To give the reader more knowledge on the subject at hand he introduces the second amendment, which explains how the “the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” By doing this Rosenzweig informs his audience on the document of the present issue, and allows his audience to clearly understand the message. To give more back story on issues involving gun control the author describes two court cases prior to his argument. He starts off by talking about the Fifth Circuit, or the U.S. Court of Appeals. According to this case the Fifth Circuit yes, each American citizen has the right to own firearms. While citing historical evidence, the court said the Second Amendment was made to protect and guarantee the individual right of an American citizen the right to bear arms. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit responded with a completely different opinion than the Fifth Circuit. If you were to look at the history of both these courts, you would be able to tell that they sit on completely different ends of the political spectrum. The Fifth Circuit has always tended to be conservative while the Ninth Circuit has always been liberal, which is shown in their decisions towards this issue. The Ninth Circuit goes on to say that “the Second Amendment protects only the of the people to maintain an effective militia. Following this information Rosenzweig now informs the audience of his claim, “the issue isn’t so much the amount of regulation.” With this statement Rosenzweig suggests that no matter what the argument is everybody agrees with some type of regulation on gun control in some way. …show more content…
He then goes on to persuade the audience by using logos, or logic, by stating “Yes, they say, the amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from making it illegal for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or anti-tank missile.” Rosenzweig uses logos in this statement because the average person can agree that it is not safe for a regular citizen to own grenade launcher or anti-tank missile. Rosenzweig now introduces the second part of his claim about how much power the government has to regulate individual conduct. This is when Rosenzweig starts to gain the interest of his intended, conservative, audience. He uses ethos, ethics, by using the constitution as one of his sources. He states that “The constitution comes down squarely on the side of limited government and individual liberty.” Continuing, He then includes more credibility by using a direct quote from the constitution supporting his claim of
Paul Rosenzweig is a writer and a speaker that has a good reputation in cyber security and homeland security. Rosenzweig was a founder of his own business, a professional lecturer in Law at George Washington University, and conducts legal research and contributes to articles at the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, is an educational institute that was made to promote conservative policies such as the one written by Rosenzweig, which is against most forms of gun control. Rosenzweig begins with the question “Does each American citizen have the right to own firearms or not?” To give the reader more knowledge on the subject at hand he introduces the second amendment, which explains how the “the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” By doing this Rosenzweig informs his audience on the document of the present issue, and allows his audience to clearly understand the message. To give more back story on issues involving gun control the author describes two court cases prior to his argument. He starts off by talking about the Fifth Circuit, or the U.S. Court of Appeals. According to this case the Fifth Circuit yes, each American citizen has the right to own firearms. While citing historical evidence, the court said the Second Amendment was made to protect and guarantee the individual right of an American citizen the right to bear arms. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit responded with a completely different opinion than the Fifth Circuit. If you were to look at the history of both these courts, you would be able to tell that they sit on completely different ends of the political spectrum. The Fifth Circuit has always tended to be conservative while the Ninth Circuit has always been liberal, which is shown in their decisions towards this issue. The Ninth Circuit goes on to say that “the Second Amendment protects only the of the people to maintain an effective militia. Following this information Rosenzweig now informs the audience of his claim, “the issue isn’t so much the amount of regulation.” With this statement Rosenzweig suggests that no matter what the argument is everybody agrees with some type of regulation on gun control in some way. …show more content…
He then goes on to persuade the audience by using logos, or logic, by stating “Yes, they say, the amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from making it illegal for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or anti-tank missile.” Rosenzweig uses logos in this statement because the average person can agree that it is not safe for a regular citizen to own grenade launcher or anti-tank missile. Rosenzweig now introduces the second part of his claim about how much power the government has to regulate individual conduct. This is when Rosenzweig starts to gain the interest of his intended, conservative, audience. He uses ethos, ethics, by using the constitution as one of his sources. He states that “The constitution comes down squarely on the side of limited government and individual liberty.” Continuing, He then includes more credibility by using a direct quote from the constitution supporting his claim of