In the article published January 6, 2016 in the American Thinker titled “Obamas Gun Control Lies”, Michael Filozof is attempting to demonstrate that Obama is violating the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of rights by trying to introduce new and stricter laws in regards to gun control. He attempts to show the “lies” behind Obamas proposal and compares him to that of other dictators in history.
The first paragraph of the article Filozof makes use of name calling and euphemisms, which speak more to his own bias opinions than to actual facts. He uses the euphemism “wept crocodile tears” to insinuate that Obama’s tears were more a show of insincere sorrow used only to gain the support the ignorant, clueless, and stupid. The second paragraph is also …show more content…
He argues that it is literally impossible to buy guns directly from the internet, the definition of the word literally is one expressing their strong opinion without it being literally true. Filzof uses another statistic: “95% or more of the guns advertised on the internet are advertised by licensed dealers who comply with federal law” (IN TEXT). He argues that the laws set in place only allow the advertisement of guns but not the direct supply of them over the internet, however this is a naïve assumption that these laws are followed by all citizens. Next Filzof takes a stab at the background check that has been placed on gun buyers for the past twenty years and argues that it is a violation of the due process clause. The example he used to facilitate this idea is flawed in the sense he compares the requirement of back ground checks on the people buying guns to a preacher requiring a background check to preach a sermon. The two instances are incomparable as they deal with very different …show more content…
Once more where is the credible evidence of these occurrences happening? Filzof then attempts to discredit the background checks already completed on the secret service by bringing up their indiscretions, which has no bearing on the argument he is trying to make as it has nothing to do with matter he is discussing.
Finally filozof implies that the push for smart gun technology that enables only the authorized owner to use the gun is really nothing more than the government wanting to be able to stop anyone from using such a gun including the authorized owner. This statement to me does not hold any weight as it is just his assumption.
Overall the article seems to be poorly substantiated as Filzof fails to include any sort information as to where he received his statistics from, nor does he list any references at the end of the article. Both of the 95 % statistics he stated use loaded terms, such as probably and literally that attempt to convince the reader that the statistics given are more likely true than not. Are the readers supposed to trust the accuracy of his statements without any concreate evidence to prove them? In the end this article more so conveys the impression that the information is more about the author’s disagreement of what Obama is proposing and contains more of his own bias opinion then fact. Therefore conveying skepticism
The first paragraph of the article Filozof makes use of name calling and euphemisms, which speak more to his own bias opinions than to actual facts. He uses the euphemism “wept crocodile tears” to insinuate that Obama’s tears were more a show of insincere sorrow used only to gain the support the ignorant, clueless, and stupid. The second paragraph is also …show more content…
He argues that it is literally impossible to buy guns directly from the internet, the definition of the word literally is one expressing their strong opinion without it being literally true. Filzof uses another statistic: “95% or more of the guns advertised on the internet are advertised by licensed dealers who comply with federal law” (IN TEXT). He argues that the laws set in place only allow the advertisement of guns but not the direct supply of them over the internet, however this is a naïve assumption that these laws are followed by all citizens. Next Filzof takes a stab at the background check that has been placed on gun buyers for the past twenty years and argues that it is a violation of the due process clause. The example he used to facilitate this idea is flawed in the sense he compares the requirement of back ground checks on the people buying guns to a preacher requiring a background check to preach a sermon. The two instances are incomparable as they deal with very different …show more content…
Once more where is the credible evidence of these occurrences happening? Filzof then attempts to discredit the background checks already completed on the secret service by bringing up their indiscretions, which has no bearing on the argument he is trying to make as it has nothing to do with matter he is discussing.
Finally filozof implies that the push for smart gun technology that enables only the authorized owner to use the gun is really nothing more than the government wanting to be able to stop anyone from using such a gun including the authorized owner. This statement to me does not hold any weight as it is just his assumption.
Overall the article seems to be poorly substantiated as Filzof fails to include any sort information as to where he received his statistics from, nor does he list any references at the end of the article. Both of the 95 % statistics he stated use loaded terms, such as probably and literally that attempt to convince the reader that the statistics given are more likely true than not. Are the readers supposed to trust the accuracy of his statements without any concreate evidence to prove them? In the end this article more so conveys the impression that the information is more about the author’s disagreement of what Obama is proposing and contains more of his own bias opinion then fact. Therefore conveying skepticism