Sam Feygin 10/15/17

Critical Analysis - “Repeal the Second Amendment”

Bret Stephens’ article “Repeal the Second Amendment” was published on October 5th,

2017 as an opinion piece for the New York Times. Stephens wrote his article after the tragedy

that recently occurred in Las Vegas with the intent to pursue Americans and politicians to take

action against gun-related violence. Through quoting sources, including historical context, and

citing statistics, Stephens presented his audience a thorough argument about a very sensitive

topic with evidence to support his opinions. Stephens has previous experience with political

topics and used his credibility to further get his point across.

Stephens’ article is about how he believes that the Second Amendment should be

repealed. According to him, the measures the United States currently takes towards gun control

is not enough, as gun violence sadly occurs on a daily basis. Action thus far has yet to be taken in

terms of creating real change. Repealing the Second Amendment does not necessarily mean

outlawing gun ownership. Many countries, with the provided examples of Britain and Australia,

do not outlaw guns but instead, they simply do not have a written down law dedicated towards

the right to bear arms like the United States has with the Second Amendment. Stephens in his

article made it clear that he is not a big fan of President Trump. The idea of repealing the Second

Amendment will most likely not fly with Republican politicians such as Trump. Due to this,

Stephens believes the only way that his proposition could become a reality is if Democratic

voters and politicians start a movement, similarly to the movement for gay marriage. In an era

where same-sex marriage was legalized despite originally being deemed unfeasible, Stephens

hopes Americans will soon act towards the Second Amendment the same way in hopes of

creating actual change, a change more methods of gun control could never accomplish.
Sam Feygin 10/15/17

Bret Stephens is no stranger to writing political articles. He has been a Journalist, editor,

and political commentator for the New York Times since April 2017. Before that, he had eleven

years of political journalism experience with the Wall Street Journal, where he served as a

deputy editorial-page editor. In addition, Stephens was the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.

Over there, he was responsible for monitoring all the paper's content. Stephens’ writing has

previously reached award recognition, as he has won two honorary doctorates and the 2013

Pulitzer Prize for commentary. His experience with political news stories from all over the world

and his conversations with many diplomatic figures contributed heavily towards his opinions.

Stephens’ opinion in his most recent piece “Repeal the Second Amendment” was thought out

and through many years of work experience, his opinions on gun control likely took years to

develop.

Stephens wrote his article for the New York Times expecting his audience to be

predominantly liberal in terms of the political spectrum. The strong gun control opinions that he

has are liberal ideas and most readers of the New York Times probably agree with what Stephens

has to say. This is supported by the way Stephens started his article. “I have never understood the

conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.” (Stephens, 2017, para. 1). Right off the bat, it is

clear that he wrote this for a liberal audience, as his generalization could offend a potential

conservative reader. The timing of this article is also something to be considered. The tragedy

that occurred just days before in Las Vegas is to date the largest mass shooting in modern

American history. This appeal to the emotions of the reader is identifiable as pathos and serves to

allow the audience to support Stephens’ argument. Unfortunately, the United States is no

stranger to horrors like this. Being that the topic is fresh in people’s minds, readers that stumble

upon and read an article like this likely are fed up with gun violence and they personally want
Sam Feygin 10/15/17

action to be taken in Washington. Stephens’ opinion piece delivers on this and serves as a

proposed solution to the issue that is gun violence.

To establish credibility for the reader and further support his argument, Bret Stephens

made sure to include statistics to provide context on the issue as well as logic to display why his

side of the debate is reasonable. “From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less

safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving

firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year,

there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for

Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.” (Stephens, 2017, para. 3).

After first beginning with a claim, Stephens made sure to include this statistic in support of it. He

also added in the number of child victims of gun violence, which is a clear appeal to emotions.

The inclusion of a statistic like this is another example of pathos. Even with information like this,

it pains Stephens that there are people who still defend the Second Amendment. “From a

national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is

“necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir

Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington,

Mass.” (Stephens, 2017, para. 4). Being that this quote is an example of logos, it shows the

audience the logic behind Stephens’ argument. People who defend the Second Amendment do so

because they believe bearing arms protects against an oppressive government. However, it does

not make sense how a militia of a few dozen/hundred people armed with nothing more complex

that a rifle could stand a chance against a government armed to the teeth with heavy artillery.

Throughout his opinion piece, Bret Stephens emphasized why adding more gun

regulations would not solve the gun-violence issue. Democrat politicians constantly push the
Sam Feygin 10/15/17

idea of having more background checks in place. While the goal of said background checks

would be to make buying a gun near impossible, it would hardly affect the overall murder rates

that go along with gun-violence. When people say that the United States should ban all automatic

weapons, not much would change. Most gun-deaths are committed by handguns, not by

automatic weapons. In the case of psychopath Stephen Paddock from the Vegas shooting, the

automatic firearm he used was not originally automatic; it instead was a semi-automatic weapon

modified to fire automatically. People also claim that there is gun-violence in the United States

because they believe that forty percent of gun owners purchased their firearms without a

background check. Stephens states that this statistic is false and that the real percentage of people

that buy a gun without a background check is twenty percent (Stephens, 2017, para. 10).

In terms of a flaw to the actual background checks themselves, many people think that

guns the mentally ill should not be capable of purchasing a gun. This suggestion does appear to

be logical. After all, the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2015 had mental issues. While on

paper limiting guns to able-minded people appears to be a great idea, Stephens points out that

due process is still owed to the mentally ill, meaning this would violate the freedom of some

Americans. Another example of gun control that politicians propose is adding background

checks to private gun sales at gun shows. Because gun shows are unregulated, they are often the

target of liberal Americans. However, this idea is yet again too good to be true. Stephens’ cited a

2016 study, which stated that guns found by police at crime scenes were rarely used by the a

legal owner. Stephens could improve on this outside source because by a credibility standpoint,

this “2016 study” remained unnamed in his article. While this does weaken his credibility,

Stephens’ other sources were well cited.

Sam Feygin 10/15/17

In addition to the flaws with merely adding more methods of gun-control, Bret Stephens

is a firm believer that Democrats continuously lose the gun debate because of misinformation

regarding the National Rifle Association, or the N.R.A. Many Democrat-voting Americans

believe the N.R.A. has influence in politics because of its supposed donations to the Republican

Party. Television talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was quoted on how believed this idea as well.

The belief that the NRA is a source of financial backing towards the Republican Party is just a

misconception. In reality, “The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of

Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of

Kimmel’s salary.” (Stephens, 2017, para. 11). Republicans support the Second Amendment like

the N.R.A. because they agree with it, not because they were given money to support the

amendment. If Democrats want action to be taken on gun control, they should definitely put in a

greater effort towards their arguments.

After tying all the previous information together, Stephens now proposes why repealing

the Second Amendment to him makes the most sense. After he stated that other countries have

no constitutional protection of gun ownership and yet they do not outlaw guns, Stephens made

sure to acknowledge the counterarguments to his beliefs. “Some conservatives will insist that the

Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James

Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust

the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.” (Stephens, 2017, para.

17). Here, Stephens states the logic behind why some conservatives defend the Second

Amendment. Forefather James Madison drafted the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and

logically shouldn’t people all agree with his stance? Stephens follows this up by wondering if
Sam Feygin 10/15/17

James Madison would be okay with the 46,445 murder victims killed by guns within the past

four years. Madison likely would not be content with that fact had he been alive in present day.

The opinion article “Repeal the Second Amendment” by Bret Stephens was written with

the goal to spread an idea towards potentially solving the gun-violence issue. Stephens

throughout his article did what he could to establish his credibility for his intended audience by

citing numerous resources. Aside from one sole exception, he effectively supported his beliefs

through the use of statistics, historical context, and through appeals to emotion and logic.

Stephens took an important action in regard for his intended audience by concluding his article

with the recognizing a counterargument. His column, despite being indented for the New York

Times’ fairly liberal audience, presented a well thought-out argument that pretty much any

reader from both sides of the political spectrum could comprehend.

Sam Feygin 10/15/17

References

Stephens, B. (2017, October 5). Repeal the Second Amendment. Retrieved October 08, 2017

from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-

nra.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fbret-

stephens&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&vers

ion=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection

Bret Stephens Biography. Retrieved October 14, 2017 from

https://www.nytimes.com/column/bret-stephens