Textual Analysis Essay of “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns” – Molly Ivins
The breakdown in categories of how to Analysis the type of Essay
Expressive:
· “civil libertarian”
· She has “gun-nut friends”
· “intrigued by original intent
· “cop shop”
· personal tone of writing
Persuasive:
· People have no practical need for guns
· Knives no ricochet / Physcial Fitness
· Michael Crichton
Counter argument :
ü Car kill people
ü Ought t regulations
ü “gun don’t kill people”
· Martial arts training
· Thomas Jefferson “assault rifles”
Interpretive:
· Gun Control
· Irresponsible gun usage
· “Pro Knife”
· guns kill
· people don’t know how to use them compares to cars
· gun for hunting/ target shooting “potting rattlesnakes”
· makes domestic violence situation deadly
· 2nd Amendment – Legal basis gun ownership
· licensed, restricted, and ban – writer thinking out load working thru her thoughts
Effectiveness:
· Good personal tone/honor
· Lots of ideas/ arguments
· Relates to everday life
· Understands 2nd Amendment and takes serious
Get a Knife, Get a Dog, But Get Rid of Guns (1993) By Molly Ivins
Guns. Everywhere guns.
Consider the merits of the knife.
In the first place, you have catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general
substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of
great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their
knives.
As a civil libertarian, I of course support the Second Amendment. And I believe it means
exactly what it says: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fourteen-year-old boys are not
part of a well-regulated militia. Members of wacky religious cults are not part of a well-regulated
militia. Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.
I am intrigued by the arguments of those who claim to follow the judicial doctrine of original
intent. How do they know it was the dearest wish of Thomas Jefferson’s heart that teen-age
drug dealers should cruise the cities of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault
rifles? Channeling?
There is more hooey spread about the Second Amendment. It says quite clearly that guns
are for those who form part of a well-regulated militia, i.e., the armed forces including the
National Guard. The reasons for keeping them away from everyone else get clearer by the day.
The comparison most often used is that of the automobile, another lethal object that is
regularly used to wreak great carnage. Obviously, this society is full of people who haven’t got
enough common sense to use an automobile properly. But we haven’t outlawed cars yet.
We do, however, license them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and
sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do the same
with guns.
In truth, there is no rational argument for guns in this society. 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. Those who want guns —
whether for target shooting, hunting or potting rattlesnakes (get a hoe) — should be subject to
the same restrictions placed on gun owners in England – a nation in which liberty has survived
nicely without an armed populace.
The argument that “guns don’t kill people” is patent nonsense. Anyone who has ever
worked in a cop shop knows how many family arguments end in murder because there was a
gun in the house. Did the gun kill someone? No. But if there had been no gun, no one would
have died. At least not without a good footrace first. Guns do kill. Unlike cars, that is all they do.
“A well-regulated militia” surely implies both long training and long discipline. That is the
least, the very least, that should be required of those who are permitted to have guns, because
a gun is literally the power to kill. For years, I used to enjoy taunting my gun-nut friends about
their psycho-sexual hang-ups — always in a spirit of good cheer, you understand. But letting the
noisy minority in the National Rifle Association force us to allow this carnage to continue is just
plain insane.
I do think gun nuts have a power hang-up. I don’t know what is missing in their psyches that
they need to feel they have to power to kill. But no sane society would allow this to continue.
Ban the damn things. Ban them all.
You want protection? Get a dog.
