Daniel Lazare's writing (From the book Fields of Reading)
Daniel Lazare does an exceptional job proving his point that the Second Amendment is outdated in his piece of writing “Your Constitution is Killing You.” It is a controversial topic to begin with and he does a decent job of getting his ideas across to the reader. This is a topic that has been in much debate for years now and he wants to emphasize why something should be done about it. It is clear that he does a better job getting his point across than King does in his piece of writing.
Lazare starts off with an interesting introduction as to why the Second Amendment is a problem and should be changed. He mentions the events of Columbine which had an impact on many people (Lazare 704). It is a good example to use because nobody will ever forget the events that occurred that day. He also makes it a point to include statistics regarding guns. They aren’t necessarily specific, detailed statistics, but they show how many guns there are in this country (Lazare 704). This is very effective in showing the reader how much of a problem guns are right from the start.
The author makes a very strong point when he goes into the history of the Amendment. He uses specific dates and it make
Lazare ends this piece of writing with a strong conclusion as well. He brings up the point that other countries are free to change their Constitutions at will, so why are we so reluctant to? He is right in saying that we don’t even think about having an alternative framework. He uses the example that there aren’t many industrialized countries besides ours that haven’t completely updated their constitution since 1900 (Lazare 714). He wants to emphasize once again that times change and with that your country is going to change. Having a free country such as ours, entitles you to being able to change things such as the Constitution when necessary. As the reader, it really makes you think about the Constitution and why we are so hesitant to change it at all.
Lazare also puts up a good argument that there is no solution if the Amendment remains the same. He talks about the Framers and what their intentions may have been (Lazare 708-712). However, trying to interpret what they meant by the Amendment is a never-ending debate. It is something that is impossible for everyone to agree on. It says right in the Amendment that people have the right to bear arms. This is where the problem comes in. The author states that Ameri