Rhetorical Analysis

In politically charged blogs, the use of various stereotypes and misconceptions frequently appear. In a blog titled “My ticket to the gun show: A godless, gunless liberal’s account”, the author uses vivid imagery and appeals to people’s preconceived fears to describe how a typical liberal, in this case, from Indiana, would feel walking into the “lion’s den” and “Palin’s real America”. He also groups all gun-owning conservatives into the types that like to scare liberals such as him. The following will describe how he uses these things to create an effective and occasionally entertaining essay on a place where liberals are considered taboo.

In a blog by Austin Considine, he describes himself as a liberal who has always wanted to go to a gun show. Mostly politically charged, the blog describes typical thoughts on gun culture and the types of people who frequent gun shows. He describes the types of people in these shows as right-wing gun-toters who like to scare liberals. He also analyzes the politics in gun shows and compares them to mainstream right-wing thinking.

The biggest rhetorical device in the blog is Considine’s use of imagery. He doesn’t waste time when he describes gun shows as “real America”, and that “freedom is best served cold as polished steel” (obviously referring to guns). These observations serve to inform the reader what it is like in gun shows so that they may get some of the experience without actually having to go. He goes on to describe how gun shows are like “an alternate universe where…everyone is going to be talking a lot of shit about Obama, and about the public option, and about liberals in general”. This statement primarily appeals to the readers’ political beliefs and persuades self-described liberals to stay away if they are offended. He also goes on to give the fact that “crazy people” such as Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh absolutely adored gun shows before they were involved in their respective federal offenses. This is a clear example of using fear to maintain that bad nature of gun shows by using the guilt-by-association argument. He also pokes fun at the current gun laws in Indiana by saying that gun shows “have a loophole so big, you could fit the entire Waco compound inside of it”. This is another attempt to play on the fear of Waco crazies and the dangerous-sounding combination of gun shows and loopholes.

To his credit, Considine admits that not everyone at gun shows is crazy, referring to the person he met manning the National Rifle Association booth. He told the author that he had given up his guns years ago. This serves to provide some contrast to the otherwise disparaging nature of the authors perceptions at his first gun show. In the end, though, he says that the creepiness had won out, and that he had seen about “ten disturbing things too many” (most likely referring to the person selling carvings of severed digits and ears). This final observation serves to warn others of what they might be getting themselves into if they were ever to patronize such an event.

By using common fears and perceptions about gun shows, the author serves up an effective piece of writing that provides insight into a journey into a liberal’s version of no man’s land. By using an appeal to fear, the author can try to persuade everyday people not to go to these events, lest they be branded as a right-wing, Obama-hating nut job.