The topic of gun control is a controversial one, especially in today’s political environment. One controversy in which this controversy was embodied was the case of McDonald v. Chicago, a landmark gun rights case which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2010.
This case is based on a 1982 Chicago law which banned handguns in the city. The purpose of this law was to reduce the amount of violent crime in Chicago by outlawing one of the types of firearms most commonly used for violent crimes. However, Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old resident of Chicago, disagreed with this law and believed it violated his constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms. So, he found legal allies and filed a suit against Chicago in order to reverse the law. One …show more content…
violated the Second Amendment. As a result, the advocates for McDonald argued that, because the courts had previously ruled that a handgun ban was unconstitutional, this ban would also be unconstitutional. In their reasoning, the advocates said that the Second Amendment should also apply to states under the 14th amendment. This philosophy that the Bill of Rights should be integrated into state law via the 14th amendment is called “integration”. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald and struck down Chicago’s ban (Oyez).
Many gun control advocates lashed out against this ruling, claiming that it was unjustly ruled. One such dissenter was Carl Bindenagel, a policy analyst and international affairs contributor for The Globalist. Bindenagel criticized the court’s decision, attempting to persuade his audience to think it was erroneous through his use of harsh tones, historical references, and appeals to values. Beginning his argument, Bindenagel attempts to provide context for his audience, asserting the …show more content…
Chicago decision was written by Bobby Rush, a U.S. Representative from Chicago. Using copious amounts of emotional pleas, word choice, appeals to values, and villainization of the opposition, Rush attempts to demonstrate to his audience that the McDonald v. Chicago decision was fallacious. Rush begins his emotionally charged article very strongly, asserting, “They should be ashamed of themselves” (Rush). Beginning the work this way immediately villainizes those who made the decision. After assuming the moral high ground, he continues by asserting that the decision was, “… a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups, and the powerful National Rifle Association,” which would result in, “… overturning what those of us in Chicago consider to be a reasonable step to help stem the unprecedented wave of gun violence that, sadly, holds the city I love in its grip” (Rush). This tirade is made effective through the use of many rhetorical devices. To begin, painting the issue as one which pits an oppressive minority against the victimized majority immediately makes for a clear emotional appeal, evokes sympathy for the victimized group, and makes the reader want to correct whatever injustice has been done. Additionally, Rush depicts the legislation as reasonable. Using this word choice implicitly means that those who oppose it would consequently be unreasonable, which discredits them in the eyes of the reader and gives
This case is based on a 1982 Chicago law which banned handguns in the city. The purpose of this law was to reduce the amount of violent crime in Chicago by outlawing one of the types of firearms most commonly used for violent crimes. However, Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old resident of Chicago, disagreed with this law and believed it violated his constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms. So, he found legal allies and filed a suit against Chicago in order to reverse the law. One …show more content…
violated the Second Amendment. As a result, the advocates for McDonald argued that, because the courts had previously ruled that a handgun ban was unconstitutional, this ban would also be unconstitutional. In their reasoning, the advocates said that the Second Amendment should also apply to states under the 14th amendment. This philosophy that the Bill of Rights should be integrated into state law via the 14th amendment is called “integration”. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McDonald and struck down Chicago’s ban (Oyez).
Many gun control advocates lashed out against this ruling, claiming that it was unjustly ruled. One such dissenter was Carl Bindenagel, a policy analyst and international affairs contributor for The Globalist. Bindenagel criticized the court’s decision, attempting to persuade his audience to think it was erroneous through his use of harsh tones, historical references, and appeals to values. Beginning his argument, Bindenagel attempts to provide context for his audience, asserting the …show more content…
Chicago decision was written by Bobby Rush, a U.S. Representative from Chicago. Using copious amounts of emotional pleas, word choice, appeals to values, and villainization of the opposition, Rush attempts to demonstrate to his audience that the McDonald v. Chicago decision was fallacious. Rush begins his emotionally charged article very strongly, asserting, “They should be ashamed of themselves” (Rush). Beginning the work this way immediately villainizes those who made the decision. After assuming the moral high ground, he continues by asserting that the decision was, “… a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups, and the powerful National Rifle Association,” which would result in, “… overturning what those of us in Chicago consider to be a reasonable step to help stem the unprecedented wave of gun violence that, sadly, holds the city I love in its grip” (Rush). This tirade is made effective through the use of many rhetorical devices. To begin, painting the issue as one which pits an oppressive minority against the victimized majority immediately makes for a clear emotional appeal, evokes sympathy for the victimized group, and makes the reader want to correct whatever injustice has been done. Additionally, Rush depicts the legislation as reasonable. Using this word choice implicitly means that those who oppose it would consequently be unreasonable, which discredits them in the eyes of the reader and gives