Montoya 1

Michael Montoya

Professor Ron Christiansen

English 1010

April 30, 2018

Letter of Transmittal

Dear Professor Christiansen submitted herein are my works for the semester in English 1010
Online Plus. Within you’ll find my Narrative “Sundown at the Lab”, Rhetorical Analysis on “Is There
Room for Sports to Get Even More Commercialized?” by Joe Pinsker, and my Annotated Bibliography
and Viewpoint Synthesis on my Research question “Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed or changed
and is it still relevant today?” I’ve been able to strengthen my writings purpose and improve upon my
ability to reach the audience in a more meaningful way that I had not been able to do before. The
choices and actions of my writing along with a clearer understanding of Rhetoric and sustained
engagement in literate practices have been the major turning points in my writing’s development.

The first document within is my Narrative “Sundown at the Lab” the first major writing
assignment for this course and my first time writing any kind of story for others to read and review. I
chose the story based on genres I was interested in, because of that my first draft ran too long. I tried to
include too many details and dialogue that ended up being confusing to the reader. The choices I made
in changing my narrative were because of the peer reviews and lab sessions I received. I omitted some
information like two characters being married because I realized it didn’t serve the story’s purpose and I
was able to focus on who my intended audience was. My annotated bibliography was similar, I omitted
some articles and added other more relevant ones based on the context of my question and audience.
The choices I made to appeal to my audience by effective word and source choice sharpened my writing.

The next document is my Rhetorical Analysis on “Is There Room for Sports to Get Even More
Commercialized?” by Joe Pinsker. In my research and many readings related to this assignment my
understanding of Rhetoric was put to the test. I analyzed the writing for its effectiveness in appealing to
pathos, ethos, logos and Kairos. I thought more about the author, who he was writing to and why he
chose that sentence structure and word choice. I was able to specify a target audience and goal from
critically reading and sustained engagement in literate practices (interpreting, researching, reading)
related to this assignment.

The last document within is my Viewpoint Synthesis which helped me realize that my writing is a
form of action. My opinion just like the ones of the articles I had been analyzing related to my research
could be used to respond to this problem of the 2nd amendment and take action and inspire my
audience to want to learn more or do more I used it to respond to a problem interesting and important
to me to inspire people to learn more about the 2nd amendment. Through my constant hard work and
awareness of the threshold concepts and how they pertained to me, I was able to correct and progress
my writing.

And last but certainly not least, thank you for your time and effort as a writer and teacher, it was
and is greatly appreciated.
 Montoya 2

Sundown at the Lab

The sky was almost completely black now, the Sun’s light nearly gone. Below, a tightly knit
forest undulated in the darkness. An ancient forest of enormous, uncanny trees. Underneath their
looming gaze was a single paved road. The road was old, battered and crumbling, meandering through
the forest lazily with no real destination.

“How can you not know where the off-site lab is?” Shelly chided. “You said you’ve been here 2 years?”

Bill exaggerated an eye roll and began looking for the pumps that would signal the turn to the
lab, “I told you. I’ve only ever been out of the facility a few times. You saw the security back there, it’s a
pain to leave and get back in..” he said, shooting her an annoyed look. “Besides, this is kind of your fault
anyways.” He said with a smile.

“I’m sorry” Shelly said giving him the same eye roll. “Next time I’ll just stop.” She said with an act of
indifference.

“No!” Bill shouted, surprising himself. “Err. No. I was just kidding.” Bill said swallowing a lump. “We
really need to find the lab before the eggs start incubating, the forest has always creeped me out, there
could be ghosts out here.” Bill started waving his fingers at her while giving his best ghost
impersonation.

“Don’t say that!” Shelly said, swatting his hand away. “I still don’t understand how the forest powers the
facility. I mean, I understand that we’re harnessing energy from the trees. Well. Maybe I don’t. There’s
got to be a give and take but the supply seems limitless..” She trailed off as she opened a thick plastic
pouch sitting in her lap, letting out a sharp putrid odor that rushed through her nostrils sending her
head back. She wrinkled her nose at the smell and let out a sharp breath. Then grabbing two pieces of
jerky from inside the bag, shoved them in her mouth and quickly resealed it.

The towering trees swayed in rhythm as Bill drove past, harsh whispers turning into long drawn
out howls as the wind picked up. Bill rounded a corner and turned on his lights with two clicks of the
knob on the dash.

At the same time, further down the road. A street lamp clicked on revealing some gas pumps hidden
amongst the trees.

He looked over at Shelly who was fast asleep now and drove up to the pumps. Slowing the car to
a stop under the light and got out, shutting the door behind him. He looked around at the gas pumps
and could see that there was no building connected to them.

Damn, Bill thought to himself as he turned to look at the pumps again.

The handle of the pump was glistening and dripping a clear ooze. Kneeling he could see that the ground
was covered in a thin layer of slime.

He felt the car jolt behind him and heard the tires screech. He looked back at the car to see that Shelly’s
door was swinging loosely on the hinge.

“Shelly!” Bill screamed.

*****
 Montoya 3

Shelly woke up in a bed of leaves, jaw in a flurry of pain as she tried to let out a moan.
Something had ripped her from the car and out of her seatbelt, she could now recall. It came to her in
waves of pain. She was dragged across tree roots and dirt by her ankle then dropped here in this small
clearing between these immense swaying trees.

She could hear Bill screaming for her. She tried getting up and pain flared through her right arm
promptly putting her back down. She got up on her left arm instead and her phone started vibrating in
her pocket illuminating a rectangle in her jeans. Bill

Ahead, in the center of the clearing a figure began to rise from the leaves, sounds of crunching leaves
below getting louder as it rose. Shelly frantically scrambled backwards pressing herself against a tree,
heart racing.

Where the hell did he come from? Shelly thought to herself. Heart creeping up her throat,
slowly asphyxiating her with every beat.

A moment later Bill came crashing through the trees with his phone out. “Shelly! Where are you?”

The figure swept across the leaves as a gust of wind seemingly not taking any steps and
slammed into Bill’s chest.

Bill collapsed to the ground shivering uncontrollably, fingers curling.

“Bill!” Shelly screamed.

The hooded figure stepped over Bill into the moonlight and threw back their hood, revealing
long white hair and ancient face. The woman stumbled to her knees gasping, holding out her trembling
hands. Her hair began to grow a deep red, face tightening and becoming full of life. The woman put her
hands to her face and started to laugh. The needle in her chest faded to black.

Shelly looked at the woman in disbelief. “No. That’s not..”

Bill looked up at the woman with deep red hair, “How did you?” he asked hoarsely.

The woman snapped her head towards him and slammed her fist down with a sickening crunch.

*****

Bill’s eyes shot open as he slammed on the breaks sliding into the dirt, tires crunching to a stop.
His grip loosening on the steering wheel, flakes of grey leather sticking to the sweat on his hands. His
breathing was heavy and ragged. It felt like he had the wind knocked out of him.

What the hell was that?! He thought to himself.

He looked over at Shelly, who was staring at the car door gripping her seatbelt.

Deep red hair covering her face.

“Shelly? Sorry, I must have dozed off back there. Are you okay?”

Shelly snatched Bill’s arm tight bearing into him with her wide watery eyes “No!” She said eyes growing
panicked.
 Montoya 4

“What’s going on?” Bill tried to say.

“Bill! Your arm!” Shelly said pushing back and clicking on the overhead lamp.

At the same time, above them. A street lamp clicked on with a deep hum. Revealing some overgrown
pumps in the trees to their right.
 Montoya 5

Rhetorical Analysis of “Is There Room for Sports to Get Even More Commercialized?” by Joe Pinsker

In “Is There Room for Sports to Get Even More Commercialized?” by Joe Pinsker, He effectively
brings attention to the issue of increasing advertising in sports. He quotes Bill Sutton, a professor of the
University of South Florida saying jerseys were “the last untapped frontier of revenue in U.S. sports.”
Continuing on to point out how one of the first major league sports in the U.S. (NBA) has already started
to sell ad space on its jerseys and other teams are likely to follow suit. He uses several historical
examples of how companies have been intertwined in sports for many years already and why it has
been crucial and necessary for the game and fans to have companies sponsoring teams.

Pinsker thinks that further advertising is inevitable in sports and points out how other leagues
are already utilizing it. The Atlantic Posted his article one month after the Philadelphia 76’ers agreed to
place a StubHub patch on the jersey amidst controversy between sports fans. The intended audience is
educated American readers familiar with sports, interested in business and wanting to know more about
advertising in sports. Pinsker asks the audience to specifically think about what American sports will look
like in three years or ten years with the continuation of advertising at its current rate. Pinsker brings
attention to “the last untapped frontier” in American sports, jerseys. Establishing credibility through
reputable sources and appealing to educated, business interested Americans, with a casual interest in
sports. Pinsker relies heavily on ethos and logos to show how American sports and advertising have
been intertwined for over a hundred years already and why it will continue.

Further advertising in sports is inevitable and will continue on past jersey patches, and
ultimately fans will still support their teams through association with the sponsors. Pinsker interviews
Jim Kadlecek Professor of Human Performance and Sport Business at the University of Mount Union,
one of the top football schools with thirteen championships (according to USNews.com). Kadlecek
points out that Nascar sponsorships and advertising has reached an overwhelming number of logos on
their jackets but has been quite effective. Kadlecek states fans still buy Nascar apparel and even prefer
certain “winning” brands over others even if they’re proven better. Pinsker points out Major League
Soccer (MLS) as well that also doesn’t have a big of a fan base as the Big Four (MLB, NBA, NFL and the
NHL) and so it doesn’t generate as much money as the Big Four “and sure enough, MLS jerseys feature
sponsors prominently.” Pinsker adds that the Big Four have been slow to accept jersey sponsorships
because they are already working out the deals and not because of fear that “their fans will be repelled
by increased commercial presence.”

Teams need money and sponsors provide a way to fund the leagues and give the fans content
they want. Sponsors provide a way for the game to be watched or a reduction in prices for
ticket/concession sales or how stadiums get funding to be built in the first place. Pinsker talks to Kirk
Wakefield a professor of retail marketing at Baylor University, a top college contender in sports with 670
student athletes and a total sports related revenue of $67 million (according to collegefactual.com).
Pinsker points out that as “sponsorships came into their own as communications technologies evolved,
and in 1922, AT&T became the first corporate sponsor of a game broadcast on the radio.” Signaling
when sponsorships started to take off. Kadlecek points out that without sponsors there wouldn’t be a
game to watch. Pinsker systematically structures his article to line up historical facts and evidence to
“steer” or alter the audience’s thoughts on advertising in the Big Four. He uses reason to guide the
audience towards understanding how teams work with sponsors to get what they both ultimately want
for themselves and the fans.
 Montoya 6

Pinsker continually cites sources with strong ties to sports strengthening his credibility with the
audience. He quotes Bill Sutton, Kirk Wakefield and Jim Kadlecek all professors at top ranking sports
universities dealing with sports/entertainment management, business and retail marketing. These
people and their prestigious schools and backgrounds help to reinforce Pinsker’s main argument, that
advertising will continue in sports. These people are well educated and have done consulting for major
league sports including the NBA, NFL, New York Mets and Dallas Cowboys. The audience would see
these people as key leaders in their respective industries (Business, Retail Marketing) and be more
inclined to believe them because they are in a position of authority and know their field of study.

Pinsker focuses mainly on logos and ethos for his article and spends little time trying to connect
through pathos or people’s values. He briefly mentions that “leagues do benefit from promoting the
illusion that they are fundamentally about athleticism, not money—and anything puncturing that
illusion could upset fans.” This speaks directly to sports fans values of the sport and giving credit to how
they feel about more advertising, but his audience wasn’t sports fans, it was business interested
Americans only familiar with sports wanting to know more about further advertising in sports, so this
small excerpt was lost on his readers and not very effective for his main argument and in turn also not
effective on his target audience and may have been counter-productive towards his main goal.

As Pinsker points out “corporate signage in stadiums appeared in the late 1800’s” and Coca-Cola
signed famous Major League Baseball player Ty Cobb as a spokesperson in 1907. AT&T was the first to
broadcast a major league game in 1922 and sponsors continue to be the reason that games are aired or
made available to the public. Companies sponsor teams at the local level as well for the same reasons
they do at the top, money or love of the sport. He points out that the English Premier League that our
Major League soccer is based off of has already been using sponsorships on its jerseys. Pinsker portrays
a history of advertising with sports in the past and in different parts of the world appealing to ethos and
logos by giving advertising a history and authority with sports and appealing to reason with the
audience. Teams get money, sponsors get people’s attention and fans get what they want.

Pinsker was extremely effective in communicating to his audience the long and complicated
relationship between leagues and sponsors. The continued use of facts, historical evidence and
reputable sources reinforced his article and ultimately swayed the target audience’s thoughts, actions
and maybe even acceptance towards the issue of advertising in sports.
 Montoya 7

Annotated Bibliography

When the 2nd Amendment was firs written and ratified American society and gun and military
technology was vastly different. There were no standing armies at the time and law enforcement was
few and far between. Citizens depended on each other and their guns for protection. Over the years we
have interpreted in way that fit society at the time but today the wording of the 2nd amendment may no
longer be relevant. Should the 2nd amendment be repealed or changed and is it still relevant in today’s
society? Should the government hold liability for protecting its citizens now that a standing army is
normal for citizens?

Chimelis, Ron. “What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say? (Viewpoint).” Masslive.com, Masslive.com,
26 Feb. 2018,
www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/02/what_does_the_2nd_amendment_re.html. Accessed
25th of April 2018.

In the article “What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?” by Ron Chimelis he starts off by
citing the exact wording of the 2nd amendment. He points to mass shootings and recent gun violence as
precursors for a “nation that’s sick and tired of indulging their twisted definition of history.” He focuses
on how the wording has changed since the 18th century and the meaning of militia in modern context
relates to the National Guard. He points out that we are purposely interpreting the 2nd Amendment as
we see fit. He admits the founding fathers chose their words very carefully but quickly retorts and ends
the article by saying “after all, what was the first thing they did after adopting the constitution? They
altered it 10 times. We call those alterations the Bill of Rights.”

Chimelis uses logos and ethos to appeal to his audience by citing the 2nd amendment itself and
interpreting it in today’s context. He points out that the founding fathers altered the constitution and
turn so should we. He wants his audience to take a harder look at the 2nd amendment and what it
means. He wants the audience to think about “What does a well regulated militia mean” to them and if
patriotism is in fact anarchy.

I liked the article and found the wording and structure to be very persuasive but only speaking
to a specific audience and not the “other side”. The author was in the end very biased and came out as
speaking against gun enthusiasts even though that wasn’t his goal.

Corbin, David, and Matthew Parks. “How Not To Fix The Second Amendment.” The Federalist, 23 Apr.
2014, thefederalist.com/2014/04/20/how-not-to-fix-the-second-amendment/. Accessed 25th of April
2018.

“How Not To Fix The Second Amendment.” By David Corbin and Matthew Parks is extremely
critical of retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and his statement that he “could fix the
second amendment with just five extra words.” The authors go on to tell the audience about James
Madison and the federalist papers and why he believed we needed a Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment
included. The authors state that “common-law right of self-defense” is not as secure as Stevens would
suggest and that we do in fact need the 2nd amendment “to protect yourself against a government that
has closed the courts and otherwise set itself against the people.

Appealing to pathos, people’s fears of having their weapons taken away (“Sportsmen across the
country would have to hope they get called out to fight deer overpopulation each fall.”) and Logos (if
 Montoya 8

this then that) if Stevens’ interpretation is the true meaning of the second amendment then no one has
a right to keep and bear arms. Then he builds credibility and gives a history lesson on Madison and
Hamilton and how the Bill of Rights came to fruition.

The authors suggest that other interpretations of the amendment can be catastrophic for gun
rights and gun ownership. With just five extra words that Stevens wanted to add “when serving in the
militia” would ensure that gun rights are only available to militias or military personnel which would in
turn mean that the government chooses who gets weapons which is not a good alternative. Justice
Scalia’s majority opinion is mentioned and seems to be the majority opinion that weapons are an
individual right and you don’t have to be a part of a militia, but if we are ignoring some of the
amendment shouldn’t we just change it to clarify or repeal it.

Friedman, Lawrence. “The Supreme Court and Its Big Second Amendment Problem.” The Hill, 1 Mar.
2018, thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/376284-the-supreme-court-and-its-big-second-amendment-
problem. Accessed 25th of April 2018

“The supreme Court Its Big Second Amendment Problem.” By Lawrence Friedman talks about
why the Supreme Court doesn’t often see cases on the 2nd Amendment. He attributes it to the justices
not believing in the importance of the 2nd amendment or that the justices simply don’t want to deal with
the lower courts. Friedman talks about the first and fourth amendment being brought up several times
in the supreme court but only one for the second amendment. Heller vs. District of Columbia

Friedman states that “this is simply not the right time for the Supreme Court to step into
tdebates about the 2nd Amendment.” And also, that some justices may view any action taken to hear or
view 2nd amendment cases as affecting the courts legitimacy.

Nolan, Steve. “25 Reasons Why We Need to Preserve Our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear
Arms.” Activist Post, 24 July 2012, www.activistpost.com/2012/07/25-reasons-why-we-need-to-
preserve-our.html. Accessed 25th of April 2018.

The article “25 Reasons Why We Need to Preserve Our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear
Arms.” By Steve Nolan as the title suggests is a list of reasons on why we need and should keep the 2nd
amendment. Several examples of successfully thwarted burglary, murder and rape would be attackers
are cited throughout the paper. The paper reinforces individual rights and states that “the government
cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens and is in fact not legally responsible for doing so” and that it is
ultimately up to the individual to protect themselves. Mr. Nolan quotes Italian philosopher and politician
Cesare Beccaria “an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Mr.
Nolan concludes by saying citizens should not give up their constitutionally-protected rights.

Mr. Nolan establishes credibility early on in the article by citing the Cato institute for the
majority of his article and the founding fathers. A clear appeal to pathos can be seen with the constant
reminder of potential threats to yourself, property or loved ones. While appealing to people’s emotions
of fear and being able to protect themselves and their families he also is appealing to logos and citing
sources and research with numbers of people who have successfully protected themselves or others in
potentially violent crimes. The article reinforces individual rights to keep and bear arms and that
personal safety is ultimately up to the individual and the government cannot be relied upon in an
emergency situation when the individual needs to act quickly.
 Montoya 9

The article made me realize that that many Americans do fear for their own and their families
safety and feel they will have to protect themselves at some point. Guns are an excellent deterrent for
potential crimes and assailants. But, is the use of deadly force really necessary for the average citizen?
Most of the intended audience and the author himself would argue yes.

Pollack, Harold. “We Fear Each Other, When Guns Themselves Are The Real Danger.” The Nation, 20
Dec. 2012, www.thenation.com/article/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-
danger/. Accessed 25th of April 2018.

“We Fear Each Other, When Guns Themselves Are The Real Danger.” Written by Harold Pollack
brings to our attention our common but irrational fear of a home invasion and home protection. Mr.
Pollack argues that “we tend to regard especially vivid or scary outcomes as more likely than they
actually are” and that owning guns for protection can make ourselves more vulnerable to other dangers
closer to home such as suicide, accidental injuries and domestic altercations.

Mr. Pollack uses pathos and logos to connect with his audience. He appeals to his audience’s
fears having to protect themselves and what’s important to them and follows up with a logistical view
on the numbers and research effectively calming any fears. He uses cognitive psychologists and the
Chicago Police Department (regarded as one of Americas most violent cities) and The Bureau of Justice
Statistics asserting his credibility on the issue while using statistics and research from each to help quell
dramatic fears of home invasion.

The article brought to light the fears Americans have of having to protect themselves against a
threat so great they would use lethal force. When does home protection turn into overprotection? Gun
ownership does not necessarily mean protection and can mean the opposite in some cases. Guns and
weapons are much deadlier than they used to be and the casual sale of weapons with such readily
available lethal force should be rethought and reexamined.

Saad, Lydia. “Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans.” Gallup.com, 27 Dec. 2012,
news.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx. Accessed 25th of April
2018.

In the article “Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans.” By Lydia Saad she
interprets the results from a USA today and Gallup.com poll conducted days after a national tragedy and
continues to list tragedies since the last poll just a year prior. The findings suggest Americans want limits
on magazine size but still oppose banning the sale and possession of certain types of weapons. She
concludes by saying “Americans favor new legislation however the desire to protect themselves still
outnumbers gun rights opponents.

The author summarizes polls conducted days after a mass shooting tragedy regarding
Americans’ attitudes toward gun laws. The author appeals to Kairos by conducting a study days after a
national tragedy and bringing up prior related tragedies. The author also appeals to the audience’s
pathos and values that something should be done about the number of deaths and mass shootings that
have happened in recent time. The author is also appealing to logos citing a formal study on Americans
attitudes on gun laws including assault rifles, handguns and high capacity magazines are changing but
ultimately most Americans still fear for their safety.
 Montoya 10

The study makes it clear this is not a black and white issue. Americans seem to want change in
gun laws but don’t want their constitutional rights taken away and still want to be able to protect
themselves either from would be criminals or from a potentially tyrannical government. Whether or not
these fears are justified, the fear of personal safety and law enforcement not being able to respond in
time is strongly rooted in our country.

Stephens, Bret. “Repeal the Second Amendment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct.
2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html. Accessed 25th of
April 2018.

In the article “Repeal the Second Amendment” by Bret Stephens, he argues that from a legal
standpoint “more guns means more murder “and “from a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means
less safety.” Stephens argues that current and proposed legislature is not addressing the real issue of
gun violence in America and proposes that the 2nd amendment itself be repealed. He makes certain to
state that “Gun ownership should never be outlawed – But it also doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional
protection, either.”

Stephens starts the article building credibility fast and strong with government studies, citing
the second amendment, the FBI, The American Journal of Public Health, The CDC, PolitiFact, The
Federalist Papers and James Madison. Stephens focuses his article on building credibility through
studies, statistics and fact checking. He wants his audience to be outraged by the high numbers of gun
violence and gun crimes and want to do something or change something to help resolve the issue.
Stephens uses logos throughout his article as well stating why legislature would not have worked and
suggesting a change to gun rights. Stephens closes by saying Madison (forerunner for 2nd amendment)
would have a vastly different perspective on gun rights today.

The article makes it clear that legislature is not working, loopholes exist and there’s no easy way
to fix today’s gun issues with a “blanket constitutional protection” over gun rights and ownership known
as the 2nd amendment. Instead repealing the 2nd amendment and keeping gun rights with the originally
intended Declaration of Independence that was based off of natural law, the means to protect yourself
and “certain unalienable rights.”

Tobin, Jonathan S. “Why The Left Will Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment.” The
Federalist, 2 Apr. 2018, thefederalist.com/2018/04/02/left-will-finally-admit-want-repeal-second-
amendment/. Accessed 25th of April 2018.

In the article “Why The Left Will Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment.” By
Johnathan S. Tobin, he relates recent gun violence with rising groups of protestors advocating for a
repeal of the second amendment. Tobin argues with the rising number of students and protestors
speaking out against guns that Democrats are likely to follow suit and use it to “drastically restrict gun
rights in a way that was unimaginable only a few years ago.” Tobin ends the article by saying instead of
debating the 2nd amendment we should instead “debate core questions about rights and the
government’s responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens.”

Tobin felt one sided on the issue of gun rights and gun violence. He downplayed the
kids/students fears and protests and called 17-year-old student David Hogg a demagogue. He appealed
to pathos via peoples fear of having their rights and property taken away by the government and
 Montoya 11

guaranteed that Democrats and Liberals would be trying to take their guns away soon. Felt as though he
was inciting fear and rallying his audience. But ended with a positive segue to debating the question of
the government’s responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens. Written after Parkland mass
shooting.

There is a lot of fear of having your weapons being taken away for a lot of Americans and the
fear of a government take-over. And then many of these gun owners think they are going to take on the
U.S. military with their AR-15 and handguns. The government tyranny argument and protecting yourself
from the government with your weapons in today’s world is ridiculous and when the 2nd amendment is
read the militias part is ignored and purposely interpreted to mean individual rights. We should reword
it to include government necessary to ensure the safety of its citizens and gun rights relevant to today’s
world and the future of weapons and the means to protect ourselves.
 Montoya 12

18th century laws in the 21st century. Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed or changed and
is it still relevant today?

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights which includes the first Ten Amendments
that was ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison after a series of essays written
by him called The Federalists Papers posted in the New-York Packet which was widely read at the time.
The Federalist Papers were explaining and encouraging the Bill of Rights to its readers. The 2nd
Amendment commonly referred to as “The right to bear arms” gives American’s the right to keep and
bear arms. Though the definition of “arms” has drastically changed since then, single shot vs fully
automatic. There are several ways to view the issue of gun rights and gun ownership. The varying
viewpoints come about because of the confusing wording of the 2nd amendment in today’s culture, “a
well-regulated militia”. Some look to solve the issue by repeal and replace. Others see the solution as
adding more legislature. Still others see the solution in preserving the 2nd amendment and anything
done to it would only hinder the rights of Americans and some use the debate for their ulterior goals.

The 2nd amendment reads: “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.” The wording of the
Amendment is no longer relevant in today’s society and culture. As Chimelis aptly points out “Organized
Militia, which included state militia and, in modern context, can be applied to the National Guard.”
When the 2nd amendment was being ratified there was hardly any law enforcement around and were
practically unheard of. Now, today law enforcement and 911 are expected to be on call 24/7 and be
readily available. America also didn’t have a “standing army” at the time and didn’t believe in having
one. The founding fathers were afraid of an idle army turning against the government. Today, our
military is a lot different. The American Department of Defense touts nearly 3 million men and women
that work for them with another 2 million as retirees (for comparison the world’s largest employer Wal-
Mart employs 2.3 million.) But, the government still holds no liability to protect its citizens. So, some
would argue that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant and needs to be changed to
reflect our society today.

While some may view the 2nd amendment as outdated and no longer relevant. Still others
believe it’s crucial for American’s gun rights and gun ownership. Some states believe in more legislature
for strengthening their gun rights like Arizona. In Arizona if you are over the age of 21 you can legally
purchase any pistol or assault weapon for sale and conceal carry without a background check or any
kind of permit. While others right next door in California believe more legislature should be added to
restrict gun rights. In California among the many gun laws you are required to have a permit to own a
gun, cannot conceal carry without a permit at the discretion of the sheriff’s office and cannot buy any
assault weapons and there is a restriction on pistols. This is all undoubtedly because of the confusing
wording of the 2nd amendment. Gallup polls show that of Americans “74% oppose preventing anyone
but the police or other authorized officials from owning a handgun.” Is the 2nd amendment really
protecting American’s gun rights and is it still relevant today? Is more legislature really the answer when
it seems to be up to interpretation at the state level? Or, perhaps this should be fixed at the Federal
level.

But, if anything were done at the Federal level that would most likely include a change or even
repeal of the 2nd amendment and there are those that think anything done to the 2nd amendment
would only hinder their rights. Additionally, they believe that the 2nd Amendment is crucial to their
 Montoya 13

personal safety against a potential tyrannical government or a government against its people. People
fear for their safety, property and loved ones. In fact, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State” is why this was added to the 2nd amendment. It was up to the citizens to
protect themselves, those with weapons would join local militias and act as a police force and hunt
down criminals and protect their properties because there was no federal equivalent to protect them.
But today there’s the National Guard, FBI, Coast Guard, Sheriffs, Police and Highway Patrol to name a
few protecting citizens. The government is obviously protecting its citizens though there is no actual
liability for it to do so. Instead of “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State” perhaps it should be changed to say something about ensuring the American’s safety.

The issue of interpreting the 2nd amendment and gun rights today is no new issue and has been
repeatedly debated over the years. And, over the years a different group of people have emerged with
no real views or opinions on the 2nd Amendment but instead use mass shootings and gun violence to
rally hatred and fear either for political reasons or even clicks on an article. They use the issue of gun
rights to steer their audience to a particular goal. For instance, the recent Parkland, Florida shooting
survivor David Hogg spoke out against the NRA with some harsh dialogue which was used by (Tobin) of
The Federalist to rally support against Democrats focusing on the 2020 presidential election where he
states “Liberals will be able to own up to their desire to drastically restrict gun rights in a way that was
unimaginable only a few years ago” and “Yes, they really do believe in banning guns.” The issue of gun
rights and gun ownership can be used effectively to steer an audiences train of thought.

In conclusion I believe that something needs to be changed with the 2nd Amendment but gun
rights should be preserved. Americans are obviously against the banning of firearms. Furthermore, the
government should be liable for the protection of its citizens. With today’s military technology the
thought of any rebellion against the U.S. just sounds comical. We as citizens depend on the Police and
Military of the government and the 2nd amendment should be updated to reflect how the government
protects us today while still enabling our gun rights.