¶ … authors of How I See it and a Case for Gun Control, are passionate about their subject, scholarly in their approach, and care quite deeply about the Second Amendment. That being said, the two essays under consideration are diametrically opposed in their response to the actual issue of gun control, the use of supportive documentation, sociological and cultural evidence, as well as their rhetorical approach to the subject. How I see it argues in favor of the right to unconditionally bear arms -- the proliferation of firearms; A Case for Gun Control clearly in favor of stricter laws and regulations regarding the right to bear arms (Caffrey, 2008; Gottleib, 2008). Frankly, there was a striking difference between the two articles that almost transcended the main argument. So striking in fact, that it was often difficult to accurately compare the two. The Caffrey article lacks credibility and substance, using illogic and twisting of the facts, fallacy and urban myth as the substantive evidence. Gottleib's version instead cites actual case law, academic and scholarly sources, and philosophical theses in order to buttress logical arguments. Certainly, it is possible to format a pro-gun position using the same sort of evidence as Gottleib; Caffrey makes sweeping generalizations without adequate vetting of his sources. Using materials from talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, for instance, even as an antithetical argument to his thesis, gives no credibility to the piece since neither Ms....

Caffrey in fact resorts to broad, pundit-style oversimplification of the issues, such as, "They [gun control advocates] are willing to subvert the freedoms in the entire Bill of Rights to achieve their goals. By way of contrast, most gun owners will defend the rights of all Americans to speak out on issues (even gun control), to worship the religion of their choice, to have a fair trial and so forth (Caffrey)."
Caffrey disparages any and all intervention into the right to bear arms argument, viewing that right as immutable and unlimited. Gottleib, using Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 197, easily counters this with: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm (Gottleib)."

We might actually have had warning about the divergence in the two authors simply by the title. Caffrey's How I See It simply gives opinion, rather like a poorly organized speech at the local pub, filled with innuendo and remarks that intimate what "we all" should already know about the subject if we were enlightened beings. For…