Tyler Campbell
English 1010
Professor Ramsby
November 26, 2013
Is The Second Amendment Still Relevant In Modern Day America?
The topic I have chosen for my issue summary project is the relevancy of the second
amendment in modern day America. I have chosen this topic because of the ongoing debate on
gun control that has plagued the media for the past decade. I value the second amendment
because shooting, whether for sport, competition, or for target practice, has been my outlet for
stress. The current debate has affected me by making it harder to find and buy certain types of
firearms, ammo, and firearm accessories. The debate has also instilled within many people that
firearms are to be feared, when in reality they are just another tool. Before discussing the current
debate on the Second Amendment, it’s important to know the history behind it. The Second
Amendment is in the Bill of Rights and is protected by the United States Constitution. It was
made the Second Amendment because our founding forefathers valued firearms. This is due to
the fact that firearms secured our freedom and helped us revolt against tyranny.
Jost, Kenneth. “Should Restrictions on Firearms be Relaxed?" CQ Researcher. 31 Oct. 2008:
889-912. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
The first viewpoint we will be looking at is the Anti-gun control view. Kenneth Jost
wrote an article reporting the views of public figures that are against gun control. Jost’s
positionality is given away by not only the title of the article, “Should Restrictions on Firearms
be Relaxed?" but also by the main public figure he reports on, Executive Editor of Gun Week
magazines, John Tartaro. Jost’s agenda is made clear throughout the article by only reporting on
the views of public figures who are against gun control and by informing the reader of the
Supreme Court’s decisions to pass laws that protect gun rights. Jost concludes by quoting
Tartaro, "Law-abiding people should be able to defend themselves, their families and their
communities."(Jost 1) This quote provides evidence of why the Second Amendment is still
relevant in modern day America because families still need to protect themselves.
Kopel, David “The N.R.A. Is Still Vital, Because the 2nd Amendment Is.” New York Times. New
York Times, 3 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2013
A second source to support the anti-gun control viewpoint is David Kopel’s article, “The
N.R.A. Is Still Vital, Because the 2nd Amendment Is.” Kopel’s article makes the argument that
the N.R.A. is still vital because the Second Amendment is, stating that the second amendment is
the largest civil organization with over 4 million official members and over 17 million unofficial
members. Kopel also states that the United States has always been a gun culture, and if not the
N.R.A, another organization would have taken its place making the Second Amendment rights a
vital political issue. The author’s agenda is made clear by his conclusion that “attempting to
confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens because of the actions of a few isn’t a realistic
solution.” This quote reveals the authors purpose and will be used as evidence to support the
view that the Second Amendment is still relevant.
Price, Melynda “Get Rid of the Right to Bear Arms” New Your Times. New York Times, 8 July
2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
The second viewpoint we will be observing is the pro-gun control view. Melynda Price,
author of “Get Rid of the Right to Bear Arms”, recounts that she grew up in the “drive-by” era,
where she suffered personal loses due to firearm related issues. Price’s positionality is given
away by the statement, “The nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent
and bloody conflicts.” Clues to Price’s agenda are presented in her concluding statement, “In
writing the Second Amendment, the Framers didn't envision the kind of gun toting that is
permitted across this country today.” This statement demonstrates the view of the pro-gun
control side of the debate and gives good insight on reasons for being pro-gun control.
Mantel, Barbara. “Should Lawmakers Tighten Firearm Restrictions?" CQ Researcher. 8 Mar.
2013: 233-56. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Another example of the pro-gun control view is the article “Should Lawmakers Tighten
Firearm Restrictions?" by Barbara Mantel. Mantel’s article revisits the Sandy Hook tragedy
where withdrawn 20 year old Adam Lanza shot his way into an elementary school killing 6
adults and 20 children. Mantel’s positionality is made clear by the entirety of her article
addressing the loopholes of privately selling firearms and the lack of background checks
including mental health records. A clue to Mantel’s agenda is displayed in the text, “Gun-control
advocates say the Brady Act, even with the private-sales exemption, has been effective by
blocking 2 million attempts to purchase [since 1994], we have placed a barrier.” This quote
provides further evidence of the author’s positionality and another example of the pro-gun
control view.
Ramidden, Mike. “Reviewing the Pro Gun Advocates Views on Gun Control” Ezine Articles. 18
July 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
The final view we will be examining is the neutral view of the debate. The first article to
be observed is Mike Ramidden’s article “Reviewing the Pro Gun Advocates Views on Gun
Control.” Ramidden’s article gives insight on what anti-gun control advocates use to defend their
perspective. An example is the U.S. constitution and the history behind it. Ramidden
reverberates famous quotes by historical figures such as Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton,
and Patrick Henry on the Second Amendment. The author gives no clue to his agenda until his
concluding paragraph where he states, “Statistics on both the pro-gun side and the anti-gun side
should be taken with a grain of salt, since so many variables can corrupt the data. The Supreme
Court will continue to be our harbinger of justice, as they try to govern as strictly to the
Constitution as possible.” This statement leaves the impression that the author is neutral due to
unreliable variables on both sides of the argument and is a great example of the neutral view
because it neither attacks nor defends either side of the debate but simply states the views of one
side of the debate.
Stuckey, Mike. “Record Numbers Licensed to Pack Heat: Millions Obtain Permits to Carry
Concealed Guns.” NBC NEWS. 24 June 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.
A second neutral view can be discerned in Mike Stuckey’s article, “Record Numbers
Licensed to Pack Heat: Millions Obtain Permits to Carry Concealed Guns.” Stuckey recounts in
his article, that no scientific studies have been done to prove or disprove either side of the debate;
that modern laws passed pertaining to the Second Amendment have had a direct impact on
crime. Stuckey’s positionality is very clear throughout the article by him providing perspectives
on both sides of the debate, while not presenting opinion. By quoting Kristen Rand, legislative
director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group, “The idea that you send people out
into public and if someone else has a gun, you have to kill them, that becomes anarchy,”
provides the view of pro-gun control advocates. Stuckey also presents the anti-gun control
advocates view, Andrew Arulanandam, chief spokesman for the N.R.A, “People processed these
images, and they processed these events, and they realized that when the unthinkable happens,
they want to have an effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones.” These
quotes provide evidence that he neutrally reports on each side of the debate and is a prime
example of neutral view.
I conclude that I share the same views as the anti-gun advocates. I share these same views
because I have always seen firearms as just another tool, when used by law abiding citizens.
However I believe that not all people are law abiding citizens, and that background checks
should be kept in place to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.