The Right To Bear Arms Analysis
In 1990, an article titled, "The Right to Bear Arms" was published in Parade Magazine. The article, written by former Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86), Warren E. Burger addressed issues on the second amendment. In this article, he examines the needs of society to have guns when the Bill of Rights was drafted versus modern day society, using logic and history to appeal to his audience. While not necessarily taking a standpoint against the second amendment's right given to bear arms, he criticizes the regulations on handguns, suggesting there should be more in place in order for levels of violence to decrease.
Burger starts out his article bold, using statistics showing, "In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last …show more content…
Fear of a national army was instilled in the people, and state militias were formed in effect. "The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided: 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." These lines from Burger's article help to clarify his argument in showing the original right to bear arms came with a limited national army, unlike which we have now. Therefore, the national defense we now have in place has taken over the responsibility the militia had 200 years …show more content…
He inspires change in this article, in hope of extending that to his readers. His use of facts, and a well structured essay make for an overall convincing argument. He does not appear to use much of his own voice or opinions in the paper, helping to make it seem unbiased and more so a speculation and analysis of gun control.
In conclusion, Warren E. Burger makes a convincing argument towards gun control for the second amendment strongly relying on history and current day violence statistics. He argues the right to bear arms is no longer a tool of survival for Americans, and the base to which we got this right was formed on state militias. While it is the right of americans to protect their homes and hunt, they can do so through more regulated laws in order to instill the "domestic tranquility" promised in the
Burger starts out his article bold, using statistics showing, "In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last …show more content…
Fear of a national army was instilled in the people, and state militias were formed in effect. "The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided: 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." These lines from Burger's article help to clarify his argument in showing the original right to bear arms came with a limited national army, unlike which we have now. Therefore, the national defense we now have in place has taken over the responsibility the militia had 200 years …show more content…
He inspires change in this article, in hope of extending that to his readers. His use of facts, and a well structured essay make for an overall convincing argument. He does not appear to use much of his own voice or opinions in the paper, helping to make it seem unbiased and more so a speculation and analysis of gun control.
In conclusion, Warren E. Burger makes a convincing argument towards gun control for the second amendment strongly relying on history and current day violence statistics. He argues the right to bear arms is no longer a tool of survival for Americans, and the base to which we got this right was formed on state militias. While it is the right of americans to protect their homes and hunt, they can do so through more regulated laws in order to instill the "domestic tranquility" promised in the