Jeffrey Toobin Analysis

In his article, ¨So You think You Know the Second Amendment,” Jeffrey Toobin, points out the duplicity of the NRA in their quest to re-interpret the Second Amendment. Toobin emphasizes that “for more than a hundred years” the “Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well” had found that the Second Amendment “conferred on state militias a right to bear arms- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Toobin poisons the well when he says, “Enter the modern National Rifle Association.” Introducing a paragraph of critical comments about the group identifies this as an unwelcome appearance of the NRA. This suggests that the NRA’s participation in the debate is likely to be unwelcome and disruptive. Another example of propaganda

Toobins says that the N.R.A uses this as a political leverage to draw the public’s attention away from the actually meaning of the Second Amendment. This is such a general and unbacked claim cause many who support the NRA support the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right. However who says that Jeffrey Toobin stand on the Second Amendment is the same viewpoint as our founding fathers?

Based on Evaluating Internet Sources, Jeffrey Toobin’s article, “So You Think You Know the Second Amendment,” is credible, unbiased and accurate. Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker, senior legal analyst for CNN, worked for ABC News, and he received an Emmy Award for his coverage of the Elián González case. Toobin has written Profiles of the Supreme Court Justices and nearly every major legal controversy and trial of the past two decades. He is credible to be the first to disclose the plans of O. J. Simpson’s defense team to accuse Mark Fuhrman of planting evidence and to play “the race card.” Before writing high profiles, he is known to be unbiased for serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in Brooklyn and currently writes for The New Yorker. This is a weekly

Based on the evaluation of “Universal Background Checks Mean Gun Registration, Gun Bans and Confiscation” by Wayne LaPierre it is incredible, biased, and inaccurate. Wayne LaPierre “incorrectly claimed Obama pulled a bait-and-switch, promising during the campaign not to take away anyone’s guns, but now supporting an assault weapons ban. Obama is not now seeking to take away anyone’s existing guns, and he has for years consistently supported a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.” This shows that LaPierre is only trying to rally support and gun activists to deny any gun control laws. With the facts shown, “Obama has consistently supported reinstatement of an assault weapons ban such as the one Feinstein is now proposing — even as he was vowing not to take away anyone’s guns. When he made his most definitive statement about not taking away people’s guns during the 2008 campaign, Obama added that “there are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in.”” . LaPierre maintains that background checks are equivalent to gun bans and gun confiscation. According to “The Australia Gun Control Fallacy” by Varad Mehta Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights, so their legislators have more say for their individual rights than ours. “Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and