The Right To Bear Arms Analysis
Does the government have the right to regulate guns? According to former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger it does. In his article, published in the January 14, 1990, issue of Parade, titled The Right to Bear Arms, Warren feels that changes need to be made to the second amendment of our constitution in order to save peoples lives. He opens the essay with a statistic that states that many of the United State’s major centers have up to ten times the murder rate of all of Western Europe.
Warren then proceeds to give some background information on the second amendment. According to Warren the second amendment came from a fear of a “national” or “standing” army. The amendment was meant so that each state could form a militia instead of having a …show more content…
He believes that people have the right to defend their homes as well as go hunting but does not like all the deaths that happen due to guns. To him the second amendment of the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to the present day United …show more content…
This is a good statistic to throw out; it shows that another country is better in some way then the USA, which hits the national pride. He also uses some historical facts to backup his claim. When the United States was established as a country in the eighteenth century there was a need for a militia because the national army was limited to 840 men. People need the guns in order to protect their homes and country. Warren states that because we have such a large military now that there is no need for a militia and less of a need for guns. He believes that we no longer have to protect ourselves from Native Americans, the French, or the British. He uses these points to backup the claim that we need more regulations on gun ownership to decrease the murder rate in the United States. His warrant would be that if there were more regulations on guns in America then the murder rate would decrease.
Warren Burger’s article was very easy to read and had a simple vocabulary. He opened with some statistics that could shock some people and grab their attention. Then he dove right into the second amendment and its history. Around the end of the article he compares gun owner ship to that of cars, dogs, and bicycles. Then he asks the reader if it is unreasonable to make four changes in order to stop this mindless homicidal carnage. He tired to hit the reader logically, emotionally,
Warren then proceeds to give some background information on the second amendment. According to Warren the second amendment came from a fear of a “national” or “standing” army. The amendment was meant so that each state could form a militia instead of having a …show more content…
He believes that people have the right to defend their homes as well as go hunting but does not like all the deaths that happen due to guns. To him the second amendment of the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to the present day United …show more content…
This is a good statistic to throw out; it shows that another country is better in some way then the USA, which hits the national pride. He also uses some historical facts to backup his claim. When the United States was established as a country in the eighteenth century there was a need for a militia because the national army was limited to 840 men. People need the guns in order to protect their homes and country. Warren states that because we have such a large military now that there is no need for a militia and less of a need for guns. He believes that we no longer have to protect ourselves from Native Americans, the French, or the British. He uses these points to backup the claim that we need more regulations on gun ownership to decrease the murder rate in the United States. His warrant would be that if there were more regulations on guns in America then the murder rate would decrease.
Warren Burger’s article was very easy to read and had a simple vocabulary. He opened with some statistics that could shock some people and grab their attention. Then he dove right into the second amendment and its history. Around the end of the article he compares gun owner ship to that of cars, dogs, and bicycles. Then he asks the reader if it is unreasonable to make four changes in order to stop this mindless homicidal carnage. He tired to hit the reader logically, emotionally,