Byers 1

Jocelyn Byers

Professor Sanders

English 111

November 14, 2018

Ban the Damn Things: Molly Ivins’ Reaction to Second Amendment Rights

In the article “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns”, the author Molly Ivins

shares her thoughts about guns in America and the correlation with the Second Amendment

rights of American citizens. The Second Amendment stating, "A well-regulated militia is

necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed" is interpreted differently by each person. One aspect of this sentence that many fail to

stand firm on is the mention of “a well-regulated militia.” Guns seem to be readily available on

every street corner leaving the citizens of America at risk for them getting in to unregulated

hands and causing irreversible damage. Choosing to forgo logos and ethos, Ivins, using a pathos

appeal only, still developed her opinion on guns in America.

Ms. Ivins shares no facts or statistics in the article, leaving the reader with only her

opinions on the topic. Had Molly Ivins used a logos appeal, such as giving statistics of the

numbers of deaths by guns in England, the article would have resonated with the audience more

than it currently does. Reading that England’s liberty has “survived nicely” does not nearly have

the impact that facts such as, England’s gun deaths average 50-60 per year while the USA

averages tens of thousands of gun fatalities per year, has on a reader. Facts foster feelings.
 Byers 2

Molly Ivins, a credible newspaper columnist and author, is obviously not an expert on

guns. If she were a gun expert, she would have shared her expertise on the subject, which would

have proven her credibility. Being a Civil Libertarian she definitely supports civil liberties,

including supporting the Second Amendment. Ivins stated that she is “intrigued by the arguments

of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original intent”, and quoted the Second

Amendment multiple times comparing how others perceive it versus its original intent.

Ms. Ivins does not use an ethical appeal, but rather she uses a pathos approach by playing

on the reader’s emotions. Statements such as “This is no longer a frontier nation in which people

hunt their own food. It is a crowded, overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have

access to guns is a continuing disaster” could potentially anger a hunter that still uses a gun to

provide food for their family. A reader that has an anti-gun stance could use those exact words to

prove their point. Statements that ignite the reader’s emotions are interpreted based simply on

that, their emotions.

Ivins uses negative connotations many times throughout the article. Using phrases like

“guns nuts” rather than gun activists implies their beliefs make them mentally unstable. Ms. Ivins

also could have chosen to simply use the term “religious groups” rather than writing “wacky

religious cults” when discussing groups that are not typically considered a part of a well-

regulated militia. Ivins’ use of loaded language with negative connotation is intended to degrade

gun activists and to push her agenda for gun control.

The Second Amendment was written to protect the rights of American citizens to bear

arms. Regardless of how the amendment is interpreted, gun control is inevitable. Rather than

triggering the reader’s emotions to prove the need for gun control, sharing facts and providing
 Byers 3

education may have been more beneficial. Accessibility to guns is on the rise, angering someone

bearing arms could be irreversible. As Ms. Ivins stated “Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they

do.”
 Byers 4

Works Cited

Muller, Gilbert and Harvey Wiener. The Short Prose Reader, 10th edition. McGraw Hill. 2003.