Roger Mcgrath And Warren Burger

Roger McGrath and Warren Burger provide different perspectives on the continuing debate over gun regulation in the United States. Although these authors establish opposing conclusions, both understand that gun related crimes are becoming increasingly common and therefore pose a threat to the domestic tranquility of the nation. Their controversy is centered around whether or not increased gun restrictions will lower criminal activity. McGrath, in his article “A God-Given Natural Right”, argues that increased gun control will only disarm law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless therefore providing incentives for criminals to break the law. However, Burger’s emphasis on the unrestricted distribution of firearms in his article “The Right to

Each look to the history behind the writing of the Second Amendment in order to find its true purpose. Collectively they reach the conclusion that the Second Amendment was created in order to preserve the security of the citizens from a tyrannical government. McGrath focuses mainly on the aspect that the Second Amendment is a God given right and that it is the duty of the citizens to rise in revolt against a government that threatens these rights. The historical evidence that McGrath provides sufficiently supports the idea that oppressive regimes gain power by detaining firearms from citizens. However, he fails to provide strong and conclusive evidence that the right to bear arms is not granted by The Constitution but granted by God and only recognized by The Constitution that this right is God given. On the other hand, Burger supplies ample historic evidence that suggests that the Second Amendment protects citizens from an oppressive government by preventing the establishment of a national standing army. He then uses this claim to successfully stress the fact that because a national standing army is crucial in today’s era due to successive wars, the original intention of the Second Amendment is no longer necessary. Because Burger exemplifies deeper understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment, his argument is ultimately more effective because he provides stronger grounds of

The comparison of guns to printing presses is made by McGrath when he claims that the right to own firearms should be treated like the right to own printing presses due to the fact that ownership of a printing press is as essential to the First Amendment as firearms are to the Second Amendment. In fact, Burger acknowledges this idea when he states “The Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods”. However, Burger elaborates by draws comparisons between automobiles and guns, that the regulation of guns is as necessary as the regulation of automobiles in order to protect the safety of the public appropriately. Burger’s claim is stronger than McGrath’s claim because the comparison between automobiles and guns is more justified than the comparison between guns and printing presses since guns and automobiles both have the potential to effectively kill people. Furthermore, because McGrath does not offer specific areas of deregulation to consider whereas Burger offers specific areas of regulation (although he does not provide evidence that regulation in these areas will prevent crime), Burger’s argument is better thought-out and constructed than McGrath’s