Rhetorical Analysis On Robert Peele

1754 Words8 Pages
Columbine. Hook Elementary School. Aurora Colorado Theatre. One thing all of these tragedies have in common is what was used to perform the mass killings. As Explained by Kevork Djansezian, a reporter for U.S. News, everyday in the U.S. eighty-six people died from gun related incidents. Thirty of these everyday incidents are homicides (Cite). Americans are starting to ask when enough is enough. Although the majority of U.S. citizens are pro gun control, all it takes is a small group of senators to hinder the passing of gun control laws. At first no one questioned anything, but over time more people began to speak up. Through the use of pathos, mockery, sarcasm, situational irony, overstatement, and verbal irony, satirists have begun to criticize…show more content…
At first the video is serious and right before congress signs the second amendment into law, congressman Peele explains a potential flaw in the amendment. Peele asks “what if someday there was a gun that could kill fifty people before anyone could stop the killer?” (Key and Peele) The rest of the gentleman in the video laugh at Peele saying such a thing could never exist. Peele yells he is from the future and knows the damage the amendment causes. He than Proceeds to pull two automatic guns out of his coat and fires (Key and Peele). The men laughing at Peele after his explanation of the potential destruction of guns and than Peele firing automatic weapons into the crows goes from the seriousness of signing an amendment to the ridiculousness of someone being from the future with automatic weapons uses pathos to highlight an issue that people in todays society see as a large flaw in the second amendment. That the amendment is out dated and does not appropriately address the issues of todays advanced guns. When the second amendment was signed a single gun could kill one person a minute from thirty feet away. Nowadays guns are capable of killing more people at a greater distance. This is an issue that satirists want resolved by passing new laws for the present, not relying on legislation of the past to protect
Open Document