In tonight’s final US presidential debate between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it first began addressing America’s gun control policy. It started off in reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller where Clinton defended her previous support of the Second Amendment, but voiced her opinions and support of gun control. The first question was aimed towards Clinton, “Secretary Clinton, you said last year, let me quote, “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” And now, in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the Judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?” Clinton’s rhetoric and persuasive communication in response to this question led to a concise and self-explanatory answer.
Saving 33,000 lives?
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee, Donald Trump had different approaches in rhetoric when answering this question. Hillary Clinton expressed her stance on gun control through a key rhetorical strategy of Identification—attempting to identify to the country as a whole. Her goal for her response was to not only identify with the Democratic Party with plans of expanding background checks of gun owners, but over and over again she explained that she in fact supports the Second Amendment. Clinton first begins in attempt to appeal to Second Amendment supporters by stating, “I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country.” Her response was appropriate and effective. She continued as she then voiced her opinions on “reasonable regulation” and her attempt to prevent the 33,000 lives taken each year by guns. Donald Trump approached his question on the Second Amendment by solely stating his own opinions and attacking his opponent’s response. FOX News states, “The candidates also sparred over gun rights, with the Republican nominee charging that the Second Amendment is “under absolute siege” and would be eroded if his opponent wins.” Although Donald Trump’s response was direct, I’m not quite sure it was effective. Hillary Clinton spoke to the country as a whole in reference to this Second Amendment Supreme Court issue, in an effective and presidential manner.
While I definitely recognize that your facts and information is correct concerning the responses of both Clinton and Trump regarding this issue, I don’t know if those are enough to really encompass their “rhetorical strategies”. I think that there is much beyond the way that they simply answer the questions to explore in terms of rhetorical strategy. I personally feel like its interesting to look at the way that these comments are simply one small piece of their rhetorical goals. I think that in context, Hillary definitely does not address the nation as a whole. For example, she has spent considerable time in making speeches to African American groups in response to shootings that have affected families. I think that even looking at the Second Amendment issue in the context of the debate, while useful, is very narrow in the grand scheme of how this rhetoric infiltrates voters’ minds.
I would have to disagree that Hillary does not appeal to the nation as a whole. If I remember correctly at one point in the debate she said that she is speaking to the entire nation. While she may be speaking to a specific group on this issue, those affected by gun violence, I think it encompasses more than the African American community. I believe this issue reaches out to far more citizens than that.
Clinton seemed to have taken a different approach to gun rights than usual by appealing to 2nd Amendment supporters; however, do you think 2nd Amendment supporters were actually receptive to her stance during the debate. If I was a supporter listening, I would be a little critical of her trying to appeal to me. I think it would make me disregard what she has to say as opposed to accept them. Do you think 2nd Amendment supporters felt the same way, or were they more receptive to her stance?