100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.
O’ConnorJamesSynthesis of Burger’s and McGrath’s Analyses on Gun RestrictionThese arguments retain a clear point of intersection in their respective concepts of time and its relevance to gun restriction. Burger’s essay is cogent, but McGrath’s discourse accomplishes its goal with more clarity, cogency and flair. This essay will seek to expound on the ways in which McGrath’s argument on time and its implications for gun restriction is far more effective and difficult to prove, but despite the presence of this rhetorical hurdle, manages to render his points about time and its relevance to gun restriction more effectively.Burger insists that although it is unconstitutional to regulate guns, they should still be regulated. He proffers many reasonable contentions: He notes that our founding fathers drafted the second amendment in light of our nation’s historical predicament without consideration of the way society would develop in the future. Whereas McGrath’s stance indicates that the draftsmen viewed their assertion of the second amendment as timeless. The scope of Burger’s essay also suggests that bearing arms and brandishing weapons was necessary for defense against marauding Indians and hunting for food, neither of which is necessary for survival today. McGrath vehemently detests this viewpoint by labeling guns as imperative to self-defense, even in contemporary settings. As a seasoned chief justice, Burger notes that many types of guns are no longer imperative to liberty and freedom for the individual. He notes that the, “national defense establishment” has replaced the role of the militia that bred the drafting of the second
amendment, and the need for gun autonomy amongst the American citizenry in the past.