Ban The Things Ban Them All Analysis

425 Words2 Pages
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437). Basically, “fourteen-year-olds are not part of a well-regulated militia”(437). Ivins then compares an automobile with a gun, and how they can both harm people, if not used correctly. Ivins also makes a very good point when she says that, “we do, however, license [cars] them and their owners, restrict their use to presumably sane and sober adults and keep track of who sells them to whom. At a minimum, we should do same with guns”(437).…show more content…
Of course, it literally isn’t the gun killing, as others may see it, but the person who decided to shoot it; had there been no gun, “no one would have died. Guns do kill” (437). Ivins explains that, “there is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food,”(437) its exactly the opposite; “it is a crowded overwhelmingly urban country in which letting people have access to guns is a continuous

More about Ban The Things Ban Them All Analysis

Open Document