tten by Nan Desuka, and unlike in Cassidys’ essay, Desuka argues that there should be gun-control legislation that outlaws handguns. Desuka also argues that owning a handgun is not protected under the Second Amendment “ The Second Amendment may be fairly paraphrased thus : “Because an organized militia is necessary to the security of the State, the people have the right to possess weapons.” But the owners of handguns are not members of a well-regulated militia” ( 424). In this essay the author is banning of some handguns. After reading each article and analyzing them, I found the Desuka essay to be a better composed essay for several reasons. The first reason the Desuka essay is more effective than Cassidy is, because Desuka tends to be more of a believable authority than does Cassidy. Cassidy at the time of the essay was the NRA’S ( National Rifle Association ) executive vise president. The NRA is the biggest advocate for the right to bear arms. In his essay, Cassidy seems to be more involved in trying to sell memberships for the NRA than trying to show why there shouldn’t be any gun-control laws: “There are better ways to advance our society than to excuse criminal behavior. The NRA initiated the first hunter-safety program, which has trained millions of young hunters. We are the shooting sport’s leading safety organization, with more than 26,000 certified instructors training 750,000 students, and trainers last year alone” (420 ). Cassidy, in the last sentence of his essay, invites you to join the NRA “If you agree, I invite you to join the NRA” (420). He comes right out and pretty much lets the reader know that he is more into selling them a membership than actually advocating for the freedom to own certain firearms. So Cassidy definitely has too big of a conflict of interest to be believable. Nan Desuka, on the other hand, does not have any conflict of intere...
