In order to stay rhetorically consistent in the midst of this heavy and controversial election round, Republican candidate Donald Trump is making bold statements about the Second Amendment. Following years of dispute regarding the correct action in response to violence of “unrestricted” gun laws, this topic creates a major point in the debate this election season. Accusing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton of trying to “abolish the Second Amendment”, Trump takes his argument far further.
This time around, he attempts elicit an emotional response in voters’ minds when he brings up the matters of recent mass shootings in Paris and San Bernardino, California. He argues that, if people were able to carry handguns with permits, these shootings would not be as deadly. This is powerful counter argument and rhetorical strategy uses Clinton’s (and many other Democrats’) basis for stricter laws. Instead of suggesting that people could have protected themselves, the opposition claims that these permits are exactly what facilitate these incredible and devastating acts in the first place.
This issue is even hotter in 2016 due to these even more polarizing and radical candidates for change. While President Obama had maintained a softer fight against gun rights in the two previous elections, Clinton shows no signs of softening her stance. She has geared her rhetorical strategy in effective and unique ways in order to pivot and respond to different audiences of voters. In attending black churches and presenting statistics to families of victims while also steering clear of any address of these stricter regulations in blue collar regions in Ohio and Pennsylvania who hold closely Gun Rights, she intelligently adjusts her emotional tactics with response to a crowd.
Even more controversially, Trump suggests gun-free zones at military bases and schools, with schools being one of the most horrific settings for gun violence in the past years. Obama and Democrats have attempted to affect legislation that would expand background checks and ban assault weapons. Mr. Trump fired back with saying, “The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own”.
Through his typical bold and seemingly rash rhetorical tactics in this election season, Donald Trump undoubtedly elicits a unique response in voters’ minds. He attempts to remind Americans that the right to hold these handguns can provide an added level of protection that cannot possibly be guaranteed at all points and relying solely on law enforcement. He suggests that there are real genuine and trustworthy people that can, if we simply agree, protect our families and loved ones just as the early Constitution suggested in the Second Amendment. At this point, the determinant factor is whether his emotive argument can “trump” hers.