At the beginning of the semester, I chose the Right to Bear Arms as my social movement. Then and now I am still in favor of gun rights for the American individual. I was not always in support of gun rights though. Up until I started my current job working in the inner-city high crime areas, I was a proponent for heavy gun control. I did not see a point for someone to carry a gun when there was the police. I think it also had something to do with the fact that I grew up in an area where one did not have to worry about crime on a daily basis. Now I have seen countless acts of violent crime and have dealt with many victims of crime who could have prevented the action if they had been carrying a gun. I have now seen that police response is usually no less than 2-5 minutes for an emergency situation, long after the actual crime has usually taken place, and that is if one was able to even call the police during the situation. One of the main reasons I am against most gun control laws is the fact that it makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are over 200 million guns in the U.S., and many of those are stolen by criminals every day. These criminals will then use them to commit robberies and other violent crimes, and no law would have stopped them. In many states though, a law-abiding citizen has to go through so many channels in order to legally obtain a gun that many just do not do it. I do agree with most of the gun laws here in Arizona though. An FBI background check is required for purchase, there is no waiting period, I can legally openly carry a gun with no permit or license, and an 8-hour class with shooting qualification is required for a concealed carry permit. Why should law-abiding citizens have to suffer under laws that criminals have no problem breaking? There is also no plausible way for a ban on guns altogether; there is no way that every person will turn in their guns, especially criminals, leaving normal citizens defenseless against armed crime.
I feel that the wording of the Second Amendment is clearly worded in that it gives the right to a militia and an individual person the right to own a gun. This thought of mine was reaffirmed in 2008 when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision decided that the Second Amendment did, in fact, protect the individual's right to have a gun. There is an excellent article by Brian Doherty from Reason magazine in 2008 that chronicles the case and the results of D.C. Vs Heller. (Doherty 2008) Another interesting article I found was by Gary Kleck from the American Behavioral Scientist in 2009. In this article, he discusses the fact that despite the many gun laws already on the books, none of them stopped the Columbine shooters or any other school shooters. Kleck also discussed why proposed gun control laws would have had no effect on the shootings either. Kleck brings up good points about the fact that no assault or fully automatic weapons were ever used during the shootings. Also, most guns used in school shootings, and normal street crime, are obtained through theft, not legal purchase. There are good sections that discuss why locking up of guns does not work and why an assault weapons ban is meaningless. He does concede, as do I, that some gun controls are all right, but most would have no effect if put into place. (Kleck 2009) For the most part, health institutions, both private and government affiliated, have labeled gun violence as a health crisis since the 1980’s. That is why it was a pleasant surprise to read the article by Jacob Deakins written in 2008. In this article, he discusses why labeling the gun issue in America as a health crisis is fear mongering, and nothing else. He calls the fact that for decades the medical community has blindly been following this line of thought as “medical inertia.” After explaining why the medical community is spitting out nothing but fear, he goes on to discuss the many positive aspects of guns in society, listing numerous studies and statistics showing that it is not a health crisis. (Deakins 2008) In an article by several authors written in 1997, they ran a study on whether gun control laws actually had any effect. They found that gun laws had a mild effect on crime, while socioeconomic factors played a larger role. (Bae .et al 1997) In an article written by Jeffrey Miron in 2001, he discusses how it is not gun availability which causes the violence in America, but drug prohibition and how heavily it is enforced. He found that the black market for drugs creates much of the gun violence, and gun prohibition tactics can also lead to more violence. This creates a new aspect to the case for gun control, as it shows how the illegal drug trade may be causing most of the violent criminal elements. (Miron 2001)
In conclusion, I see the right to bear arms as a legal and important factor of living in America. I also have found that the gun control movement is based highly on emotional arguments and not facts. Sure, there are accidents, suicides, and homicides, but there are many other things out in the world that will kill you long before you die of any of those things. I will concede that some control is needed, but the constant threat of gun banning, assault weapon banning, mandatory gunlocks, waiting periods, gun and ammo registration, permits, licenses, etc. are irrelevant and hurt the law-abiding American citizen. Gun control advocates need to look at other factors besides ways in which to limit gun availability and freedom. It appears from my personal experience and readings that it is usually the illegal drug trade that brings the violence. Even if guns are banned, you would still see on the news every night gun homicides from illegal weapons used in the illegal drug trade. I am still, and forever will be, for the right to bear arms.
Bae M, Kwon G, Safranski R, Scott B. The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc [Serial online]. Jan 1997;56(1):41-50. Available from JSTOR. Accessed July 2, 2009
Deakins J. Guns, Truth, Medicine, and the Constitution. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons [serial online]. Summer2008 2008;13(2):58-60. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Doherty B. How the Second Amendment Was Restored. Reason [serial online]. December 2008;40(7):52-60. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Kleck G. Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control. American Behavioral Scientist [serial online]. June 2009;52(10):1447-1464. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 2, 2009.
Miron J. Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics [serial online]. Oct 2001;44(2):615-633. Available from: JSTOR. Accessed July 2, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wed Assignment 4
Almost every day we see in the news that some sort of suicide attack or IED attack has happened in one of several Middle Eastern Countries. On the American news stations, oftentimes these attacks are portrayed as random acts of violence against innocent women and children. The news paints a picture for us that these suicide bombers are religious wackos who kill themselves and others because of their religious faith. This could not be further from the truth according to researchers of suicide bombings. In Robert Pape’s 2005 article, “Blowing Up an Assumption,” Pape argues that the number one strategic goal of suicide bombers is “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Religion is often secondary, mainly used for recruitment and funding purposes. Pape brings up a good and valid point about the suicide missions in Iraq since the U.S. has been there, with the fact that there were no suicide missions before America entered the country as an occupying force. In the 2002 article, “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual,” by Charles Tilly, he argues that terror is used most often for political bargaining and profit-taking. Terror is a political strategy to increase power and gain resources for the particular movement.
Terror, such as suicide bombings, is actually used by both secular and religious groups, and in most continents. We have seen it used repeatedly in the Israel-Palestine conflict, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even here in the United States. Robert J. Brym in his chapter in Goodwin and Jasper states that the more a particular group is repressed, the more they may use harsher and possibly more lethal methods of protest. According to Brym, suicide bombers are not crazy and not religious nuts. It is mainly political reasons why a person will become a suicide attacker. There are also strategic reasons why a group might use suicide bombings such as opposing occupation of land by a much stronger nation. Last Brym states that another main reason why groups use suicide bombers is for retaliation. This is seen in the Israel-Palestine situation. Israel is constantly bombing and assassinating Palestinians in response to the Palestinian suicide bombers.
In my opinion, suicide bombing cannot be seen as just random, senseless violence like most Americans are led to believe. According to the authors of this week's articles and chapters, these suicide bombers use this method as a means to an end. Political and strategic reasoning are the main ideas behind suicide bombing. In a way, these groups that use suicide bombing are for the most part protesting, rather violently, occupations of territory. I do agree with Pape, Tilly, and Brym that this method, along with other terrorist methods such as kidnapping, and property bombings, are politically and strategically motivated. In a 2007 journal article by Lahiri, the author explains the use of suicide bombing by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam against the Sri Lankan government. The suicide bombings demonstrated how far the group was willing to go for their cause, and how they created a strong sense of group cohesion. The author argues that the group’s use of suicide bombings helped mobilize internal group support. The use of suicide bombings actually helped lead to peaceful negotiations between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. (Lahiri 2007) In a 2006 journal article by Helmer, he discusses the tactic of suicide bombing used by Hezbollah. Before any attack, Hezbollah would identify their political goals. Each attack was meant to deal a huge blow politically and militarily to their enemies. One of the earliest goals was to kick out any foreign government, especially superpowers such as the U.S., that Hezbollah saw as enemies. The only reason Hezbollah used suicide bombers is because after careful consideration they viewed it as a practical and viable option that would work against the enemy. Most groups that initiate suicide attacks or unconventional warfare such as IED attacks are unable to face a superpower in conventional military tactics, so the tactic of suicide bombings is used. Hezbollah also used suicide bombers as a tactic to gain legitimacy, which worked. The people of Lebanon saw Hezbollah as the only group that would fight off the foreign occupiers. The suicide bombings also helped recruit members to the cause. (Helmer 2006) A 2006 article by Araj and Brym discusses how not all suicide bombings are due to political or strategic reasons. According to their study of the second Intifada in Israel, they found that 82 percent of the bombings were in reaction to something Israel did, and not to be proactive. These reactive reasons ranged from the killing of Palestinian leadership to killing of Palestinian civilians, significant Israeli political events, and significant Israeli religious events. (Araj, Brym 2006)
From the research gathered by Pape, Tilly, and the others, I think that terrorism can be seen as a form of protest. I may not agree with it, and many others may not agree with it, but I think it is clear that for the most part suicide bombings are trying to make gains politically, strategically, or as a type of protest in response to actions taken by an occupying superpower. The groups that use suicide bombings, along with other forms of terror, most often are using these methods because they feel it is the best method to gain the results they want. This is the same for any form of protest. Rallies, marches, riots, etc. are all used to get results from the powers in charge.
References
-Lahiri S. Why Suicide Bombing?: The Motives for Suicide Protest in Sri Lanka. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association [serial online]. 2007 Annual Meeting 2007:1-22. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Brym R, Araj B. Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada. Social Forces [serial online]. June 2006;84(4):1969-1986. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Helmer D. Hezbollah's Employment of Suicide Bombing During the 1980s: The Theological, Political, and Operational Development of a New Tactic. Military Review [serial online]. July 2006;86(4):71-82. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
Terror, such as suicide bombings, is actually used by both secular and religious groups, and in most continents. We have seen it used repeatedly in the Israel-Palestine conflict, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and even here in the United States. Robert J. Brym in his chapter in Goodwin and Jasper states that the more a particular group is repressed, the more they may use harsher and possibly more lethal methods of protest. According to Brym, suicide bombers are not crazy and not religious nuts. It is mainly political reasons why a person will become a suicide attacker. There are also strategic reasons why a group might use suicide bombings such as opposing occupation of land by a much stronger nation. Last Brym states that another main reason why groups use suicide bombers is for retaliation. This is seen in the Israel-Palestine situation. Israel is constantly bombing and assassinating Palestinians in response to the Palestinian suicide bombers.
In my opinion, suicide bombing cannot be seen as just random, senseless violence like most Americans are led to believe. According to the authors of this week's articles and chapters, these suicide bombers use this method as a means to an end. Political and strategic reasoning are the main ideas behind suicide bombing. In a way, these groups that use suicide bombing are for the most part protesting, rather violently, occupations of territory. I do agree with Pape, Tilly, and Brym that this method, along with other terrorist methods such as kidnapping, and property bombings, are politically and strategically motivated. In a 2007 journal article by Lahiri, the author explains the use of suicide bombing by the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam against the Sri Lankan government. The suicide bombings demonstrated how far the group was willing to go for their cause, and how they created a strong sense of group cohesion. The author argues that the group’s use of suicide bombings helped mobilize internal group support. The use of suicide bombings actually helped lead to peaceful negotiations between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. (Lahiri 2007) In a 2006 journal article by Helmer, he discusses the tactic of suicide bombing used by Hezbollah. Before any attack, Hezbollah would identify their political goals. Each attack was meant to deal a huge blow politically and militarily to their enemies. One of the earliest goals was to kick out any foreign government, especially superpowers such as the U.S., that Hezbollah saw as enemies. The only reason Hezbollah used suicide bombers is because after careful consideration they viewed it as a practical and viable option that would work against the enemy. Most groups that initiate suicide attacks or unconventional warfare such as IED attacks are unable to face a superpower in conventional military tactics, so the tactic of suicide bombings is used. Hezbollah also used suicide bombers as a tactic to gain legitimacy, which worked. The people of Lebanon saw Hezbollah as the only group that would fight off the foreign occupiers. The suicide bombings also helped recruit members to the cause. (Helmer 2006) A 2006 article by Araj and Brym discusses how not all suicide bombings are due to political or strategic reasons. According to their study of the second Intifada in Israel, they found that 82 percent of the bombings were in reaction to something Israel did, and not to be proactive. These reactive reasons ranged from the killing of Palestinian leadership to killing of Palestinian civilians, significant Israeli political events, and significant Israeli religious events. (Araj, Brym 2006)
From the research gathered by Pape, Tilly, and the others, I think that terrorism can be seen as a form of protest. I may not agree with it, and many others may not agree with it, but I think it is clear that for the most part suicide bombings are trying to make gains politically, strategically, or as a type of protest in response to actions taken by an occupying superpower. The groups that use suicide bombings, along with other forms of terror, most often are using these methods because they feel it is the best method to gain the results they want. This is the same for any form of protest. Rallies, marches, riots, etc. are all used to get results from the powers in charge.
References
-Lahiri S. Why Suicide Bombing?: The Motives for Suicide Protest in Sri Lanka. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association [serial online]. 2007 Annual Meeting 2007:1-22. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Brym R, Araj B. Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada. Social Forces [serial online]. June 2006;84(4):1969-1986. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
-Helmer D. Hezbollah's Employment of Suicide Bombing During the 1980s: The Theological, Political, and Operational Development of a New Tactic. Military Review [serial online]. July 2006;86(4):71-82. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 1, 2009.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday Assignment #4
Gitlin states that the “observer changed the position of the observed.” (Pg 333) Gitlin is talking about the way media frames social movements, or for that matter, any story that is on the news. Depending on the viewpoints of political elites and the owners of newspapers, stations, and magazines, a social movement will be framed in a certain way. Most news outlets have a specific political side, either left or right, which causes them to frame events in order to please the left or right audience. Look at the two main cable news outlets as an example. Fox News is known to be more geared towards the right wing, whereas CNN is geared more towards the left wing. A look at the recent Tea Party protests, which blasted stimulus spending, shows how the media can control the way a movement is viewed. If doing a simple search of Fox News’ web site for "tea parties," you will get just over 14,000 results, whereas on CNN’s web site you will get under 400 results. If watching the news commentary shows on either channel for even an hour, one can see how the gay rights movement, environmental movement, equal rights movement, immigration movement, and anti-war movement are framed by both channels.
One movement that I think was most affected by the presence of media coverage was the Civil Rights Movement. Taking place in the later 1950’s and into the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Movement saw the beginning of mass media coverage, much like the anti-war movement. According to a study about the media coverage written by Friedman and Richardson in 2008, the media’s attention to the Birmingham protests was central to gaining public support for the movement, and the eventual action by the federal government. It was the images of police brutality against peaceful demonstrators that finally made President Kennedy take action. Before this, most of the demonstrations and protesters were seen as criminals or violent in the news media. King knew he had to change that perspective, and gain media attention for a waning movement. King used the media by recruiting schoolchildren to be beaten, arrested, and jailed for the national public to see. The study also looked at coverage in several newspapers from around the United States. They found that newspapers in the South were more likely to frame the African American protesters as the enemy, and the police as the only entity maintaining control. Other newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times looked at the police as the aggressors, and the protesters as the victims. There were also differences in how African Americans were labeled and how Martin Luther King Jr. was labeled. (Friedman, Richardson) Gitlin states that if a movement becomes revolutionary for a non-revolutionary cause, then it can kill the movement in the media. I think that although the Civil Rights Movement did have a revolutionary aspect in the Black Panther Movement, the non-violent methods used by King prevailed and were more popular, thus keeping the movement alive within the media. According to a journal article by Jack Nelson in 2001, King knew how to use the media to his advantage, and thus create or evolve his tactics. Oftentimes, King would show up for his speeches so late that the media was unable to put his quotes on the evening news. The media is also why King chose the deepest southern states with the most white pride, and the most public figures he could make examples of. Although newspapers had a large effect on the way the Civil Rights Movement was viewed, it was television news that created the most uproar. (Nelson) Looking at another journal article by Festle in 2005, she examines why the Civil Rights Movement was successful, and how to apply it to the gay rights movement. She states that non-violent direct action by Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the keys to the success, because it kept the media interested. At first, it was the creativity of the sit-in protests that interested the media, and later it was the violence used against the many peaceful protesters that glued the media to the movement. Protesters would often wear nice clothes and keep quiet even when faced with hostility. If the protesters were arrested, they accepted the penalty with no resistance. This tactic tried to dispel the stereotype through the media that blacks were poor, ignorant, and criminals. (Festle)
It is easy to see why the media played such a big role in the Civil Rights Movement. It is also interesting to see the tactics Martin Luther King Jr. used in order to keep the movement in a positive light in the media. On a parting note, an interesting element that the Civil Rights Movement, along with other movements, used is creating their own news sources. Today, most large cities, including Phoenix, have African American-run newspapers, and the internet has also helped, allowing people to get the news where they want to get it, rather than having large corporate news agencies tell them what is and is not news. Many organizations in social movements also maintain web pages, newsletters, or magazines in order to inform members or potential members of important news items. Look at the NRA web page, for example. They have entire sections devoted to news that might affect the right to bear arms movement.
References
-Friedman B, Richardson J. "A National Disgrace.". Journalism History [serial online]. Winter2008 2008;33(4):224-232. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 25, 2009.
-Nelson J. The Civil Rights Movement: A Press Perspective. Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities [serial online]. Fall2001 2001;28(4):3. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 25, 2009.
-Festle M. Listening to the Civil Rights Movement. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 26, 2009.
One movement that I think was most affected by the presence of media coverage was the Civil Rights Movement. Taking place in the later 1950’s and into the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Movement saw the beginning of mass media coverage, much like the anti-war movement. According to a study about the media coverage written by Friedman and Richardson in 2008, the media’s attention to the Birmingham protests was central to gaining public support for the movement, and the eventual action by the federal government. It was the images of police brutality against peaceful demonstrators that finally made President Kennedy take action. Before this, most of the demonstrations and protesters were seen as criminals or violent in the news media. King knew he had to change that perspective, and gain media attention for a waning movement. King used the media by recruiting schoolchildren to be beaten, arrested, and jailed for the national public to see. The study also looked at coverage in several newspapers from around the United States. They found that newspapers in the South were more likely to frame the African American protesters as the enemy, and the police as the only entity maintaining control. Other newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times looked at the police as the aggressors, and the protesters as the victims. There were also differences in how African Americans were labeled and how Martin Luther King Jr. was labeled. (Friedman, Richardson) Gitlin states that if a movement becomes revolutionary for a non-revolutionary cause, then it can kill the movement in the media. I think that although the Civil Rights Movement did have a revolutionary aspect in the Black Panther Movement, the non-violent methods used by King prevailed and were more popular, thus keeping the movement alive within the media. According to a journal article by Jack Nelson in 2001, King knew how to use the media to his advantage, and thus create or evolve his tactics. Oftentimes, King would show up for his speeches so late that the media was unable to put his quotes on the evening news. The media is also why King chose the deepest southern states with the most white pride, and the most public figures he could make examples of. Although newspapers had a large effect on the way the Civil Rights Movement was viewed, it was television news that created the most uproar. (Nelson) Looking at another journal article by Festle in 2005, she examines why the Civil Rights Movement was successful, and how to apply it to the gay rights movement. She states that non-violent direct action by Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the keys to the success, because it kept the media interested. At first, it was the creativity of the sit-in protests that interested the media, and later it was the violence used against the many peaceful protesters that glued the media to the movement. Protesters would often wear nice clothes and keep quiet even when faced with hostility. If the protesters were arrested, they accepted the penalty with no resistance. This tactic tried to dispel the stereotype through the media that blacks were poor, ignorant, and criminals. (Festle)
It is easy to see why the media played such a big role in the Civil Rights Movement. It is also interesting to see the tactics Martin Luther King Jr. used in order to keep the movement in a positive light in the media. On a parting note, an interesting element that the Civil Rights Movement, along with other movements, used is creating their own news sources. Today, most large cities, including Phoenix, have African American-run newspapers, and the internet has also helped, allowing people to get the news where they want to get it, rather than having large corporate news agencies tell them what is and is not news. Many organizations in social movements also maintain web pages, newsletters, or magazines in order to inform members or potential members of important news items. Look at the NRA web page, for example. They have entire sections devoted to news that might affect the right to bear arms movement.
References
-Friedman B, Richardson J. "A National Disgrace.". Journalism History [serial online]. Winter2008 2008;33(4):224-232. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 25, 2009.
-Nelson J. The Civil Rights Movement: A Press Perspective. Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities [serial online]. Fall2001 2001;28(4):3. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 25, 2009.
-Festle M. Listening to the Civil Rights Movement. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 26, 2009.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday Assignment 3
Throughout the history of social movements, there have usually been two routes the social movement could go. Either the movement could follow the adherence to civil disobedience like the one Martin Luther King Jr. advocated, or the more radical approach of any means necessary advocated by Malcolm X. Sometimes a movement uses both routes, non-violent and more radical or violent approaches. Are any of these forms of more radical protest acceptable, and if so, under what circumstances? Can it be acceptable in one situation and not another?
It is difficult to think about whether a certain type of protest can be considered radical. For example, the sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement may not be radical to them, but to the outsiders it can seem to be. Oftentimes, pro-life groups will picket the entrances of abortion clinics with big signs with catchy sayings on them, or even pictures of alleged aborted fetuses, in order to stop women from going in. In the minds of the pro-lifers, abortion is a matter of life and death; they are there to save the unborn children, so holding a few signs in order to further their agenda seems rather trivial. To outsiders though, this constitutes a violation of women’s rights. This form of protest causes fear and regret in women who want to exercise their right. The Clothesline Project, which addresses issues by decorating shirts with their message and hanging them up at university campuses, can have a more radical side. At the University of Maryland, they wanted to list accused rapists on their shirts for the public to see. Although rape and sexual assault are serious crimes, the article by Glenn Sacks lists several studies showing that around 40%-60% of rape accusations are false. People are accused of crimes against women, or even men, every day in this country, and many end up being innocent. It is unfair to people who have not been found guilty to be painted as guilty in their regular social realms. This form of radical protest obviously has problems. Even though the university banned the shirts with named accusers, there were still several people from Students Against Violence who wore the shirts.
The thought of anarchism is also interesting. Is it ever acceptable to overthrow an entire government or part of government? Is there ever a need for something as radical as anarchism? “While anarchists disagree about strategies and tactics, including the need for formal organizations and the use of violent action to overthrow existing violent institutions, most agree that the focus must not be on merely destroying the current order, but on fashioning new, more humane and more rational alternatives to take its place.” (Highleyman 1995) I think it is very possible and needed that some parts of the government’s way of doing things be dismantled. Moral, ethical, and many other issues, which are now federal or state laws, have no business being so. Anarchism was important, although overshadowed by other causes, during the 1960s movements including feminism, gay liberation movements, and the anti-war movements. (Highleyman 1995) Every once in a while, the establishment of government needs to realize that they are here for the people of the United States rather than themselves. I think the United States would actually be better off with more protests involving an anarchist undertone. It seems every day in the news that there are more laws, rules, and regulations going into effect regarding issues in which the government should have no authority. Yes, anarchism protests can be radical, but sometimes radical things need to be done. Where would the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war(s) movement, etc. be without radical and oftentimes anarchical protests.
To some, the above forms of protest may seem radical, especially anarchism, but to others they may not. I think there are several political and social circumstances that make it acceptable to take it to the next level of protesting. If someone’s life or livelihood is threatened, or repeatedly threatened, then I think it is okay for protesters to turn it up a notch. A good example would be the Civil Rights Movement. African Americans were lynched, sent to prison, not allowed the same jobs, not allowed to live around white people, not allowed to eat around white people, not allowed to go to the same schools as white people. While this was happening, those in the political field of the United States continued year after year to oppress African Americans with racially- motivated laws and oppression by the police forces. This is a perfect example, in my mind, of when it is okay to take protests to the next level. Another is the gay rights movement. For years, they have had oppression from the state and their peers regarding their way of life, and most importantly, their right to live their lives how they see fit. I think oppression by the police forces and the inability for political leaders to listen to a particular group is also a good example of when it is okay for “in your face” tactics. If your audience, as a social movement, is not listening, then you must turn up the volume.
It is difficult to think about whether a certain type of protest can be considered radical. For example, the sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement may not be radical to them, but to the outsiders it can seem to be. Oftentimes, pro-life groups will picket the entrances of abortion clinics with big signs with catchy sayings on them, or even pictures of alleged aborted fetuses, in order to stop women from going in. In the minds of the pro-lifers, abortion is a matter of life and death; they are there to save the unborn children, so holding a few signs in order to further their agenda seems rather trivial. To outsiders though, this constitutes a violation of women’s rights. This form of protest causes fear and regret in women who want to exercise their right. The Clothesline Project, which addresses issues by decorating shirts with their message and hanging them up at university campuses, can have a more radical side. At the University of Maryland, they wanted to list accused rapists on their shirts for the public to see. Although rape and sexual assault are serious crimes, the article by Glenn Sacks lists several studies showing that around 40%-60% of rape accusations are false. People are accused of crimes against women, or even men, every day in this country, and many end up being innocent. It is unfair to people who have not been found guilty to be painted as guilty in their regular social realms. This form of radical protest obviously has problems. Even though the university banned the shirts with named accusers, there were still several people from Students Against Violence who wore the shirts.
The thought of anarchism is also interesting. Is it ever acceptable to overthrow an entire government or part of government? Is there ever a need for something as radical as anarchism? “While anarchists disagree about strategies and tactics, including the need for formal organizations and the use of violent action to overthrow existing violent institutions, most agree that the focus must not be on merely destroying the current order, but on fashioning new, more humane and more rational alternatives to take its place.” (Highleyman 1995) I think it is very possible and needed that some parts of the government’s way of doing things be dismantled. Moral, ethical, and many other issues, which are now federal or state laws, have no business being so. Anarchism was important, although overshadowed by other causes, during the 1960s movements including feminism, gay liberation movements, and the anti-war movements. (Highleyman 1995) Every once in a while, the establishment of government needs to realize that they are here for the people of the United States rather than themselves. I think the United States would actually be better off with more protests involving an anarchist undertone. It seems every day in the news that there are more laws, rules, and regulations going into effect regarding issues in which the government should have no authority. Yes, anarchism protests can be radical, but sometimes radical things need to be done. Where would the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war(s) movement, etc. be without radical and oftentimes anarchical protests.
To some, the above forms of protest may seem radical, especially anarchism, but to others they may not. I think there are several political and social circumstances that make it acceptable to take it to the next level of protesting. If someone’s life or livelihood is threatened, or repeatedly threatened, then I think it is okay for protesters to turn it up a notch. A good example would be the Civil Rights Movement. African Americans were lynched, sent to prison, not allowed the same jobs, not allowed to live around white people, not allowed to eat around white people, not allowed to go to the same schools as white people. While this was happening, those in the political field of the United States continued year after year to oppress African Americans with racially- motivated laws and oppression by the police forces. This is a perfect example, in my mind, of when it is okay to take protests to the next level. Another is the gay rights movement. For years, they have had oppression from the state and their peers regarding their way of life, and most importantly, their right to live their lives how they see fit. I think oppression by the police forces and the inability for political leaders to listen to a particular group is also a good example of when it is okay for “in your face” tactics. If your audience, as a social movement, is not listening, then you must turn up the volume.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday Assignment #3
This post will look at how emotions of social movements can play a major role in recruiting members, keeping members involved in the particular cause, or even the strategies used by members of the social movement. The tactics used by an organization will also be looked at. For several years, emotions have been seen as irrational, being uncontrollable, and seen as a negative aspect of protesters or social movement participants. In fact, emotions shape the goals of actions, and without them, social action might not even happen at all. Emotions help explain why people might join a particular group, and they are also used during protest activities to “create ties among fellow members and feelings toward institutions, people, and practices outside the movement…” (Jasper Pg 175, 180)
There are several emotions which the National Rifle Association uses to gain members in their organization. First, there is a solidarity or loyalty created between gun owners that makes them feel connected to each other. They view themselves differently than non-gun owners, and this could possibly cause them to join and stay in the NRA, or one of the smaller pro-gun groups. Along with solidarity, the NRA tries to create emotions of American pride and patriotism. According to the NRA, they are fighting for your rights as an American citizen, and the government and other gun control groups are trying to take that away on a daily basis. The NRA tries to instill in its members that they are true American citizens, and it is this emotion that translates into their action, which we will discuss in a bit. The thought that their guns will be taken away can also lead to an emotional response of fear, that their right to bear arms will no longer exist. One quick look at the NRA news sections on their web site will also show you they are trying to create a sense of suspicion and paranoia in potential recruits and members. There are constantly articles about how the government is trying to make a new law at the local, state, federal level that will take away all or part of gun rights. The NRA creates mistrust about democratic-led government, whether it be the Congress or President. Google the terms “Obama and Ammo,” and you will discover page after page of blogs and news articles discussing how Obama is going to tax or take away ammo and handguns. This creates a sense in NRA members that action is needed.
Several of these emotions then translate to the actions, or tactics, which are used by the NRA. Common tactics used by other groups in the past include sit-ins during the 1960’s used in the Civil Rights Movement. Environmental groups used a “send-back” campaign against McDonald's where they mailed food packaging back to their corporate office in order for them to stop using foam. (Wapner Pg 230) Tactics can also include protests, both violent and nonviolent, and boycotts, among others. The most significant of the emotions concerning pro-gun individuals is the one concerning American pride, patriotism, and an American tradition. I think this translates to actions being taken through what appear to be normal channels. With almost four million members and millions of dollars (back in 2000) (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/24/us/gun-control-groups-use-nra-tactics-for-fall-elections.html), the NRA uses tactics such as letter writing to congressmen, voting in local, state, and national elections, lobbying at every level of the government, and if need be, suing the government when laws seem unconstitutional. Another tactic used is one of knowledge and education. The NRA web site is filled with news regarding any gun legislation that is upcoming; also, there are links to gun laws, hunting laws, and any other possible bit of information regarding guns. The NRA is also a big proponent of gun safety education, certification, and training.
The “face” of the organization does not appear to be different in regards to how it looks to the public, members, or potential recruits. The face they put forth is one of emotional response. They are digging into one of American’s primal emotions, one of freedom. On the NRA’s web site, in news articles about them, and in television interviews, they often label the right to bear arms as a “unique freedom” held by Americans in this great nation. I do not think it is possible for the “face” of the organization to be different concerning the public, potential recruits, and members because all information they give is free on their web site, and most aspects of the group can be had even by non-members. It appears the NRA wants as much information regarding the right to bear arms out in the public in order to gain more members, or even instill an emotional response in Americans that will cause them to join the NRA, participate in an event, or just donate money to the cause.
There are several emotions which the National Rifle Association uses to gain members in their organization. First, there is a solidarity or loyalty created between gun owners that makes them feel connected to each other. They view themselves differently than non-gun owners, and this could possibly cause them to join and stay in the NRA, or one of the smaller pro-gun groups. Along with solidarity, the NRA tries to create emotions of American pride and patriotism. According to the NRA, they are fighting for your rights as an American citizen, and the government and other gun control groups are trying to take that away on a daily basis. The NRA tries to instill in its members that they are true American citizens, and it is this emotion that translates into their action, which we will discuss in a bit. The thought that their guns will be taken away can also lead to an emotional response of fear, that their right to bear arms will no longer exist. One quick look at the NRA news sections on their web site will also show you they are trying to create a sense of suspicion and paranoia in potential recruits and members. There are constantly articles about how the government is trying to make a new law at the local, state, federal level that will take away all or part of gun rights. The NRA creates mistrust about democratic-led government, whether it be the Congress or President. Google the terms “Obama and Ammo,” and you will discover page after page of blogs and news articles discussing how Obama is going to tax or take away ammo and handguns. This creates a sense in NRA members that action is needed.
Several of these emotions then translate to the actions, or tactics, which are used by the NRA. Common tactics used by other groups in the past include sit-ins during the 1960’s used in the Civil Rights Movement. Environmental groups used a “send-back” campaign against McDonald's where they mailed food packaging back to their corporate office in order for them to stop using foam. (Wapner Pg 230) Tactics can also include protests, both violent and nonviolent, and boycotts, among others. The most significant of the emotions concerning pro-gun individuals is the one concerning American pride, patriotism, and an American tradition. I think this translates to actions being taken through what appear to be normal channels. With almost four million members and millions of dollars (back in 2000) (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/24/us/gun-control-groups-use-nra-tactics-for-fall-elections.html), the NRA uses tactics such as letter writing to congressmen, voting in local, state, and national elections, lobbying at every level of the government, and if need be, suing the government when laws seem unconstitutional. Another tactic used is one of knowledge and education. The NRA web site is filled with news regarding any gun legislation that is upcoming; also, there are links to gun laws, hunting laws, and any other possible bit of information regarding guns. The NRA is also a big proponent of gun safety education, certification, and training.
The “face” of the organization does not appear to be different in regards to how it looks to the public, members, or potential recruits. The face they put forth is one of emotional response. They are digging into one of American’s primal emotions, one of freedom. On the NRA’s web site, in news articles about them, and in television interviews, they often label the right to bear arms as a “unique freedom” held by Americans in this great nation. I do not think it is possible for the “face” of the organization to be different concerning the public, potential recruits, and members because all information they give is free on their web site, and most aspects of the group can be had even by non-members. It appears the NRA wants as much information regarding the right to bear arms out in the public in order to gain more members, or even instill an emotional response in Americans that will cause them to join the NRA, participate in an event, or just donate money to the cause.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Wednesday Assignment #2
Most social movements of past and present have had one or more iconic figureheads that are associated with the movement. The Civil Rights Movement had people such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X. The Iraq Anti-War Movement had Cindy Sheehan, the right to bear arms movement had Charlton Heston, and the environmental movement has Al Gore. These people became symbols of their respected movements, oftentimes sparking certain events to take place within a movement, or act as a media figurehead for the movement. These icons are oftentimes selected not because of what they do, but because of who they are, what they do, when they do it, and how they go about it.
There are several advantages of having an icon in a particular movement. Take for example Cindy Sheehan, the icon of the recent Anti-War Movement. She is an average mother who lost her son in the Iraq War. Normal people can relate to that. “Unlike Jane Fonda, who spoke out against the Vietnam War from her privileged perch in Hollywood, Sheehan emerged as a middle-aged, middle-class Everymom…” (Houppert) and Rosa Parks, according to Paul Hendrikson, was a normal civic activist and youth leader, someone whom people could identify with. The most important factor when selecting a movement icon is how well they can relate to their target audience. Look at the Mormon movement against the ERA in the 1970s. Although not a specific person, women of the congregations were the only ones allowed to canvas neighborhoods so women would get the idea that other women were against the ERA. These icons also bring an incredible amount of media coverage and publicity to the movements. National media coverage can very quickly change people’s minds about a specific topic, educate them to a cause they may not have known about, or even get them involved in a specific movement. In the case of Cindy Sheehan, she started her own antiwar group, Gold Star Families for Peace. The attention from Rosa Parks ignited the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Along with the positives of social movement icons, there are some pitfalls also. This was avoided largely in the case of picking Rosa Parks instead of one of the other numerous bus protesters of the civil rights movement. It is also seen in the case of Cindy Sheehan. Enemies of a particular movement will use a person’s background against them in order to try to defeat a movement. In the article “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women,” this is seen when looking at other women who did not get off the bus. Claudette Colvin was arrested about nine months before Rosa Parks, but has no mention in any history book. This was because she was a 15 year-old who came from a house with no indoor toilet, and according to her, “They didn’t want me because I didn’t represent the middle class….They didn’t want me involved because of where I lived and what my parents’ background was.” (Hendrickson) They will also spin the circumstances of the icon getting involved with a movement so followers might second-guess who they are supporting. Many counter-protesters of Cindy Sheehan feel she is manipulated by radical lefties and speaking beyond her expertise. Another pitfall of having an icon for a movement is that people get tired of the particular person, or the icon then tries to change the original message like in the case with Sheehan. Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times is one who can no longer stand Sheehan, even though originally supporting her, stating that she has lost her “good sense.” An icon may not even know much about the movement they got themselves involved with. Sheehan’s son did die, which got her involved, but does she understand the complexities of the entire situation? This could be used against her and the movement.
If creating a Frankenstein icon for the Civil Rights movement, there would be several factors that would make the icon successful. First of all, the race of the icon would have to be African-American. No respectful African-American would put any trust into a white Civil Rights Movement activist. They could be either male or female because each has their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to different aspects of the movement. The icon would also have to be left-wing, most likely a democrat, because according to polling, African-Americans most often vote democrat. Also African-Americans tend to be religious, veering towards different denominations of Christianity, so the icon would have to be publicly affiliated with some church or church organization. The icon would have to be educated but still know how to get across to the uneducated, and even if he may not be poor, the icon would have to be able to reach out to the poor along with the rich.
Things could have been very different for the Civil Rights Movement if Claudette Colvin had become the icon instead of Rosa Parks. I feel that the movement might not have been as successful if it had gone that route. Claudette was only 15 at the time, and according to Hendrickson, she was mocked at school and called crazy. It appears she did not have the maturity to handle such a big situation if she would have become the icon. People wanted to see someone like Rosa Parks, older and wiser in their minds, not some 15 year-old girl from a poor upbringing. If Claudette Colvin had become the icon, who knows if the bus boycott would have even happened.
There are several advantages of having an icon in a particular movement. Take for example Cindy Sheehan, the icon of the recent Anti-War Movement. She is an average mother who lost her son in the Iraq War. Normal people can relate to that. “Unlike Jane Fonda, who spoke out against the Vietnam War from her privileged perch in Hollywood, Sheehan emerged as a middle-aged, middle-class Everymom…” (Houppert) and Rosa Parks, according to Paul Hendrikson, was a normal civic activist and youth leader, someone whom people could identify with. The most important factor when selecting a movement icon is how well they can relate to their target audience. Look at the Mormon movement against the ERA in the 1970s. Although not a specific person, women of the congregations were the only ones allowed to canvas neighborhoods so women would get the idea that other women were against the ERA. These icons also bring an incredible amount of media coverage and publicity to the movements. National media coverage can very quickly change people’s minds about a specific topic, educate them to a cause they may not have known about, or even get them involved in a specific movement. In the case of Cindy Sheehan, she started her own antiwar group, Gold Star Families for Peace. The attention from Rosa Parks ignited the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Along with the positives of social movement icons, there are some pitfalls also. This was avoided largely in the case of picking Rosa Parks instead of one of the other numerous bus protesters of the civil rights movement. It is also seen in the case of Cindy Sheehan. Enemies of a particular movement will use a person’s background against them in order to try to defeat a movement. In the article “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women,” this is seen when looking at other women who did not get off the bus. Claudette Colvin was arrested about nine months before Rosa Parks, but has no mention in any history book. This was because she was a 15 year-old who came from a house with no indoor toilet, and according to her, “They didn’t want me because I didn’t represent the middle class….They didn’t want me involved because of where I lived and what my parents’ background was.” (Hendrickson) They will also spin the circumstances of the icon getting involved with a movement so followers might second-guess who they are supporting. Many counter-protesters of Cindy Sheehan feel she is manipulated by radical lefties and speaking beyond her expertise. Another pitfall of having an icon for a movement is that people get tired of the particular person, or the icon then tries to change the original message like in the case with Sheehan. Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times is one who can no longer stand Sheehan, even though originally supporting her, stating that she has lost her “good sense.” An icon may not even know much about the movement they got themselves involved with. Sheehan’s son did die, which got her involved, but does she understand the complexities of the entire situation? This could be used against her and the movement.
If creating a Frankenstein icon for the Civil Rights movement, there would be several factors that would make the icon successful. First of all, the race of the icon would have to be African-American. No respectful African-American would put any trust into a white Civil Rights Movement activist. They could be either male or female because each has their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to different aspects of the movement. The icon would also have to be left-wing, most likely a democrat, because according to polling, African-Americans most often vote democrat. Also African-Americans tend to be religious, veering towards different denominations of Christianity, so the icon would have to be publicly affiliated with some church or church organization. The icon would have to be educated but still know how to get across to the uneducated, and even if he may not be poor, the icon would have to be able to reach out to the poor along with the rich.
Things could have been very different for the Civil Rights Movement if Claudette Colvin had become the icon instead of Rosa Parks. I feel that the movement might not have been as successful if it had gone that route. Claudette was only 15 at the time, and according to Hendrickson, she was mocked at school and called crazy. It appears she did not have the maturity to handle such a big situation if she would have become the icon. People wanted to see someone like Rosa Parks, older and wiser in their minds, not some 15 year-old girl from a poor upbringing. If Claudette Colvin had become the icon, who knows if the bus boycott would have even happened.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday Assignment #2
A social movement can explode with popularity or die a quick death depending on how its particular argument is framed. According to Goodwin and Jasper, “frames are simplifying devices that help us understand and organize the complexities of the world; they are filtering lenses.” (Pg. 55) Frames are used to attract potential recruits and also keep people committed to a particular movement. Collective identity, or “who” a group actually is, is also important to any social movement. “Feeling part of a broader group can be exhilarating, providing a major incentive for collective action.” (G&J Pg. 105) A collective identity for a particular movement can be as simple as being a member of an organization. The gun rights movement, or pro-gun group’s collective identity, lies with the National Rifle Association. The NRA is the largest Second Amendment support organization in the United States. There are two primary frames that the NRA has used in order to recruit members. First, gun rights are seen as a deterrent to crime. It is believed that with more gun control there will actually be more crime because people would not be able to protect themselves. In 1934, Ken Frederick of the NRA stated, “We oppose crime partly through the organized forces of the police and law enforcement agencies, but we also oppose crime by the resistance of the victims of crime.” Second, the NRA has framed gun ownership as patriotism, part of being a U.S. citizen, and as a freedom. (Goss 114) Wayne LaPierre, the Vice President of the NRA, in interviews constantly calls gun ownership an American freedom. These slogans and ideas are what attract people to join this collective identity.
The framing of the pro-gun movement can actually be compared to other movements such as the pro-life and environmental movements. The pro-gun movement is actually very similar to the pro-life movement. Both of these movements use cultural and emotional approaches to their framing. While the pro-gun movement uses ideas like freedom, American pastime, and empowerment through self-defense, the pro-life movement uses issues of morality, higher powers, and values to convey their message. Both the pro-life and pro-gun movements usually do not use empirical evidence when framing their arguments. They go after people’s core feelings about being American when it comes to guns, and the meaning of life when it comes to abortion. On the other hand, environmentalists use scientific evidence constantly. While they do use emotional frames sometimes, most is in terms of global temperatures, yearly ice cap degradation, or percentage of rain forests cut down each year.
The pro-gun movement, up until recently, had one of the most famous iconic supporters, Charlton Heston. He was a three-time president of the NRA, and an honorary life member, one of the highest honors the NRA gives. No one else in the pro-gun movement even comes close to what Heston did to popularize the NRA and the Second Amendment debate. Although not to the same degree, Heston is to the pro-gun movement as Martin Luther King Jr. was to the Civil Rights Movement, or Cindy Sheehan to the anti-war movement.
The pro-gun movement, which is essentially the NRA, has several strategies for attracting and retaining members. If you have ever been to a gun show, then you will see the NRA there; they are oftentimes at the front gates with a table, free shirts, stickers, and membership sign-ups. The NRA also conducts many interviews on TV, radio, and online to discuss their views, and make the NRA known to possible recruits. The NRA also conducts its own conventions offering education, firearms, and accessory displays. There was one in Arizona not too long ago; it was free and open to the public. The NRA appears to also be successful at retaining members with several strategies. The main strategy is membership. There are several levels of membership, which cost different amounts of money. Recruits will feel a sense of participation because their money goes to fighting anti-gun legislation, plus keeping the NRA up and running. With membership, there are several benefits. These benefits range from free shirts to hunting insurance, accidental death insurance, subscriptions to one of the NRA’s publications, discounts, and invitations to NRA special events. Pro-gun supporters can also view news, NRA programs, and legislation alerts on the NRA web page.
It should be clear by now who is primarily responsible for framing the pro-gun movement--the NRA. Since the 1930’s to the present, it has been the main force coming up with the frames, and reframing certain aspects in order to keep up with the gun-control movement. Because the NRA has primarily framed gun ownership as patriotism and an American freedom that should not be taken away, certain people have been attracted to joining the movement. Primarily gun owners are part of the movement; this makes sense because usually people who do not own guns are probably against gun ownership in the first place. Since gun owners would be the primary members of this movement, we can look at who owns guns to see who is part of the movement. It appears that white men, people in the South, and conservatives are the main gun owners. Also, high school graduates who make more than $60,000 a year are more likely to own guns. (Glaeser & Glendon 1998) This gives a general picture of who might join the pro-gun movement.
The main consequence of framing the pro-gun side using the NRA is that people who do not own guns would probably not join. Many people who do not own guns see the NRA as a radical extreme right-wing group, not moderate, because often the NRA does not want any gun control at all. Also, the NRA frames gun ownership as a defense against crime. If a person lives in a generally safe area and does not experience crime on a personal level, they may view gun ownership as unnecessary. The pro-gun social movement can be re-framed to possibly include more people, even non-gun owners. In the 1980’s, the Surgeon General and the CDC began to frame the gun violence problem as a health issue, specifically to children. This became even more prevalent in the 1990s with the highly publicized school shootings. The gun control movement re-framed their argument from one of crime to one of child safety, which helped to include more people in the movement. (Goss Pg. 117) The NRA could re-frame their argument somehow to deal with child safety, or the safety of the white middle-class America. Instead of gun control at schools and colleges, the NRA could advocate that students, or possibly teachers, should be able to carry guns to protect themselves and/or the children in their classroom.
Goss, Kristin. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Glaeser, Edward, Spencer Glendon. "Guns? Criminals, Victims, and the Culture of Violence." American Economic Review 88(1998): Print.
The framing of the pro-gun movement can actually be compared to other movements such as the pro-life and environmental movements. The pro-gun movement is actually very similar to the pro-life movement. Both of these movements use cultural and emotional approaches to their framing. While the pro-gun movement uses ideas like freedom, American pastime, and empowerment through self-defense, the pro-life movement uses issues of morality, higher powers, and values to convey their message. Both the pro-life and pro-gun movements usually do not use empirical evidence when framing their arguments. They go after people’s core feelings about being American when it comes to guns, and the meaning of life when it comes to abortion. On the other hand, environmentalists use scientific evidence constantly. While they do use emotional frames sometimes, most is in terms of global temperatures, yearly ice cap degradation, or percentage of rain forests cut down each year.
The pro-gun movement, up until recently, had one of the most famous iconic supporters, Charlton Heston. He was a three-time president of the NRA, and an honorary life member, one of the highest honors the NRA gives. No one else in the pro-gun movement even comes close to what Heston did to popularize the NRA and the Second Amendment debate. Although not to the same degree, Heston is to the pro-gun movement as Martin Luther King Jr. was to the Civil Rights Movement, or Cindy Sheehan to the anti-war movement.
The pro-gun movement, which is essentially the NRA, has several strategies for attracting and retaining members. If you have ever been to a gun show, then you will see the NRA there; they are oftentimes at the front gates with a table, free shirts, stickers, and membership sign-ups. The NRA also conducts many interviews on TV, radio, and online to discuss their views, and make the NRA known to possible recruits. The NRA also conducts its own conventions offering education, firearms, and accessory displays. There was one in Arizona not too long ago; it was free and open to the public. The NRA appears to also be successful at retaining members with several strategies. The main strategy is membership. There are several levels of membership, which cost different amounts of money. Recruits will feel a sense of participation because their money goes to fighting anti-gun legislation, plus keeping the NRA up and running. With membership, there are several benefits. These benefits range from free shirts to hunting insurance, accidental death insurance, subscriptions to one of the NRA’s publications, discounts, and invitations to NRA special events. Pro-gun supporters can also view news, NRA programs, and legislation alerts on the NRA web page.
It should be clear by now who is primarily responsible for framing the pro-gun movement--the NRA. Since the 1930’s to the present, it has been the main force coming up with the frames, and reframing certain aspects in order to keep up with the gun-control movement. Because the NRA has primarily framed gun ownership as patriotism and an American freedom that should not be taken away, certain people have been attracted to joining the movement. Primarily gun owners are part of the movement; this makes sense because usually people who do not own guns are probably against gun ownership in the first place. Since gun owners would be the primary members of this movement, we can look at who owns guns to see who is part of the movement. It appears that white men, people in the South, and conservatives are the main gun owners. Also, high school graduates who make more than $60,000 a year are more likely to own guns. (Glaeser & Glendon 1998) This gives a general picture of who might join the pro-gun movement.
The main consequence of framing the pro-gun side using the NRA is that people who do not own guns would probably not join. Many people who do not own guns see the NRA as a radical extreme right-wing group, not moderate, because often the NRA does not want any gun control at all. Also, the NRA frames gun ownership as a defense against crime. If a person lives in a generally safe area and does not experience crime on a personal level, they may view gun ownership as unnecessary. The pro-gun social movement can be re-framed to possibly include more people, even non-gun owners. In the 1980’s, the Surgeon General and the CDC began to frame the gun violence problem as a health issue, specifically to children. This became even more prevalent in the 1990s with the highly publicized school shootings. The gun control movement re-framed their argument from one of crime to one of child safety, which helped to include more people in the movement. (Goss Pg. 117) The NRA could re-frame their argument somehow to deal with child safety, or the safety of the white middle-class America. Instead of gun control at schools and colleges, the NRA could advocate that students, or possibly teachers, should be able to carry guns to protect themselves and/or the children in their classroom.
Goss, Kristin. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Glaeser, Edward, Spencer Glendon. "Guns? Criminals, Victims, and the Culture of Violence." American Economic Review 88(1998): Print.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Wednesday Assingment #1
In most social movements of the past and present, there are usually two basic forms of strategy used to gain the desired results. These results are usually in the form of rights such as the case in the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, and the Gay Rights Movement. Rights may include equal housing, voting, or employment. One strategy is the use of nonviolence, while the other method involves violence, or acts that can cause violence. In the Carson article, “The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X,” he discusses the differences in opinion between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. King desired to gain results through peaceful methods such as non-violent protests and sit-ins. Malcolm X on the other hand believed firmly in militant action, and doing it by “any means necessary.” At first glance, these two views seem to be completely opposite, and many African-Americans and researchers still believe that today. According to Carson, these tactics are not all that different; he even calls them complimentary to each other. Carson also states that instead of choosing which side you will back, either violent or nonviolent, both ways are a “partial answer to the problems of race.” Both leaders offered different solutions because each came from a different background. Even King believed that after a certain point of the white government ignoring the problem of race, violence would erupt on the streets. The question is, is there room in social movements for both nonviolence and violence. Is one method better than the other, and are these methods reconcilable?
We see the struggle between radicalism and assimilation playing out in many social movements of the past. Look at the numerous riots, assassinations, and killings regarding the Civil Rights Movement. Also, look at the many peaceful protests conducted by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SNCC. Sit-ins, well-orchestrated protests, voter registration drives, etc. were all peaceful tactics that led to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. There is also the Black Panther Party (BPP), who according to their 1966 platform wished that each black man arm himself according to the Second Amendment. The Black Panther Party created a new definition for the words "self-defense," oftentimes aggressively following police with rifles to protect black people who may need help. The group was also involved in several shoot-outs with white police, who the BPP viewed as oppressors. The BPP led several protests while carrying visible shotguns and rifles (Joseph 158-161). There is also the Anti-Vietnam war movement. Most protests were peaceful, taking place at colleges and universities. There was the Weathermen group during the Anti-War movement that thought violence was the only answer to the political problems. The Weathermen staged violent protests, bombings, and robberies. The Chicano Movement, which actually paralleled the Civil Rights Movement, had some violence. In 1967, the Alianza conducted an armed raid on a courthouse. Most aspects of the Chicano movement were peaceful though. People attempted to be elected on school boards and city councils. Chicano studies were implemented into many colleges, where they became recruiting grounds for the movement.
When looking at the social movement of the Right to Bear Arms/Gun Control, it appears Martin Luther King Jr’s ideology of nonviolent direct action would seem more valid. The subjects on the side of the Second Amendment want to show that they are peaceful, that they are not violent people who want guns for violent reasons, or that they are willing to use violence in order to maintain their right to own firearms. Subjects on the side of Gun Control also do not want violence because in their minds they want to stop violence. They believe that controlling, or possibly banning guns, would lower crime, lower homicides/suicides, and keep children safer. Violence would bring them to the level of gun owners in their minds. Neither side would benefit from using violence such as bombings, rioting, or killings. In Martin Luther King Jr’s letter from when he was jailed outlines the four steps to a nonviolent campaign: “collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.” This method of non-violent direct action has worked wonderfully so far for both sides of the Second Amendment debate. Most action is taken through negotiation, whether it is between politicians and normal citizens, or between the differing sides. One such peaceful protest is shown on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html), students carried empty holsters to school in order to protest gun restrictions on school campuses.
So, can the positions of King and Malcolm X be reconcilable: to some extent, yes they can; but for the most part, they cannot. For the most part, normal people viewing a social movement from afar will not tolerate violence. Whether it is tolerated depends on the specific movement, the conditions regarding the movement, and what caused the violence to occur in the first place. King was right in telling Kennedy, “If something isn’t done to give the Negro a new sense of hope and a sense of protection, there is a danger we will face the worse race riot we have ever seen in this country.” (Carson pg16) If nonviolence can gain the desired results, then violence will oftentimes be unnecessary. If violence is used, then the public and media may view it as too drastic and it could actually hurt the social movement. When looking at the Civil Rights movement where violence was used against peaceful protesters, and nonviolent attempts by African-Americans were oftentimes unsuccessful, then violence can sometimes bring about change much faster. Carson was right in saying that each method has its place, and is the partial answer to an entire problem. If you take a person or group to the point of no return, then violence can and will happen.
Joseph, Peniel. The Black power movement: rethinking the civil rights-Black power era. CRC Press, 2006. Print.
We see the struggle between radicalism and assimilation playing out in many social movements of the past. Look at the numerous riots, assassinations, and killings regarding the Civil Rights Movement. Also, look at the many peaceful protests conducted by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SNCC. Sit-ins, well-orchestrated protests, voter registration drives, etc. were all peaceful tactics that led to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. There is also the Black Panther Party (BPP), who according to their 1966 platform wished that each black man arm himself according to the Second Amendment. The Black Panther Party created a new definition for the words "self-defense," oftentimes aggressively following police with rifles to protect black people who may need help. The group was also involved in several shoot-outs with white police, who the BPP viewed as oppressors. The BPP led several protests while carrying visible shotguns and rifles (Joseph 158-161). There is also the Anti-Vietnam war movement. Most protests were peaceful, taking place at colleges and universities. There was the Weathermen group during the Anti-War movement that thought violence was the only answer to the political problems. The Weathermen staged violent protests, bombings, and robberies. The Chicano Movement, which actually paralleled the Civil Rights Movement, had some violence. In 1967, the Alianza conducted an armed raid on a courthouse. Most aspects of the Chicano movement were peaceful though. People attempted to be elected on school boards and city councils. Chicano studies were implemented into many colleges, where they became recruiting grounds for the movement.
When looking at the social movement of the Right to Bear Arms/Gun Control, it appears Martin Luther King Jr’s ideology of nonviolent direct action would seem more valid. The subjects on the side of the Second Amendment want to show that they are peaceful, that they are not violent people who want guns for violent reasons, or that they are willing to use violence in order to maintain their right to own firearms. Subjects on the side of Gun Control also do not want violence because in their minds they want to stop violence. They believe that controlling, or possibly banning guns, would lower crime, lower homicides/suicides, and keep children safer. Violence would bring them to the level of gun owners in their minds. Neither side would benefit from using violence such as bombings, rioting, or killings. In Martin Luther King Jr’s letter from when he was jailed outlines the four steps to a nonviolent campaign: “collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.” This method of non-violent direct action has worked wonderfully so far for both sides of the Second Amendment debate. Most action is taken through negotiation, whether it is between politicians and normal citizens, or between the differing sides. One such peaceful protest is shown on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html), students carried empty holsters to school in order to protest gun restrictions on school campuses.
So, can the positions of King and Malcolm X be reconcilable: to some extent, yes they can; but for the most part, they cannot. For the most part, normal people viewing a social movement from afar will not tolerate violence. Whether it is tolerated depends on the specific movement, the conditions regarding the movement, and what caused the violence to occur in the first place. King was right in telling Kennedy, “If something isn’t done to give the Negro a new sense of hope and a sense of protection, there is a danger we will face the worse race riot we have ever seen in this country.” (Carson pg16) If nonviolence can gain the desired results, then violence will oftentimes be unnecessary. If violence is used, then the public and media may view it as too drastic and it could actually hurt the social movement. When looking at the Civil Rights movement where violence was used against peaceful protesters, and nonviolent attempts by African-Americans were oftentimes unsuccessful, then violence can sometimes bring about change much faster. Carson was right in saying that each method has its place, and is the partial answer to an entire problem. If you take a person or group to the point of no return, then violence can and will happen.
Joseph, Peniel. The Black power movement: rethinking the civil rights-Black power era. CRC Press, 2006. Print.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Assignment 1
Chronology
In 1791, the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It stated, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was not until the early 1900’s that this amendment was challenged. In 1911, the first state law requiring permits to carry any weapon that can be concealed was put into effect in New York. This law was called the Sullivan Act. Covering all state and federal regulations regarding gun control is out of the scope for this post, as there are thousands of laws at the state and local levels according to the National Rifle Association (NRA). However, there are several national events that have directed the path of the gun control movement, or the right to bear arms, depending on the side you take. It was not until the 1960’s that gun control became a prevalent social movement. After the assassination in 1963 of John F. Kennedy, an NRA member, followed by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy in 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. This act was seen as a huge upset to the NRA, but a win for gun control advocates. Although it did not ban any weapons, the act did put restrictions on firearms sales, firearms dealers, transportation of firearms, and labeled who would be a prohibited possessor of firearms. In 1975, gun control advocates began to form social movement organizations to be able to fight the already established NRA. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control Inc. were founded. At the same time, the NRA, an organization that was already well funded and well connected, created The Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). This branch of the NRA was created specifically to fight new gun control legislation and to try to overturn laws already in place at the local, state, and federal levels. The NRA’s first major victory came in 1986 when Ronald Reagan passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. This act reformed some aspects of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Although this was seen as a victory for the NRA, it could also be seen as a victory for the gun control advocacy groups because at this time police organizations split from the NRA due to their being in favor of gun control ideas. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill requiring a waiting period for firearm purchases, which was later changed to an instant FBI background check. In 1994, a ban on assault weapons was put into effect, although this recently was not renewed in 2004. Lastly, the most current event at the national level regarding the right to bear arms is the Supreme Court case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for D.C. to ban handguns for private use. It also said it was unconstitutional to require people to keep their weapons unloaded in their homes. This is a major victory for gun rights advocates. This ruling is one of the first by the Supreme Court to say that the second amendment applies to the private person, not only militias. The battle between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates is far from over, and there will continue to be victories on both sides of the fence, both at the federal and state levels.
Mass Society Theory
Mass Society Theory, according to Goodwin and Jasper, states that social movements occur when society has lost other organizations to join, such as churches, unions, community groups, etc. These groups are seen as intermediaries between an individual and the government. When these groups do not exist for a certain cause, such as the right to bear arms or gun control, then a new social movement occurs. This could possibly be seen with gun rights activists before there were gun clubs, shooting ranges, or other local firearm organizations. Militias or survivalists could be possible groups these disenfranchised people join in order to protect what they believe are their rights. Militias can be defined as a military-type group set up by normal citizens. They are usually locally organized with no connection to other militia-type groups in other counties or states. Gun control and the right to bear arms are usually not topics that normal groups can deal with, especially when trying to enact/stop change in the government. This would cause the start and rise of the social movements for each side.
Cultural/Emotional Theories
In Goodwin and Jasper, they discuss the animal rights movement when describing cultural theories. Their example illustrates that because of change in technology, among other things, people were allowed to recognize nonhuman suffering. The same could be used when explaining the gun control movement. From 1791, the year the second amendment was ratified, to the early 1900’s, most people lived in rural areas, having to use guns to hunt, protect themselves from thieves, or possible Indian attacks. When the 1900’s came around, there were the beginning stages of police forces, more people lived in cities, and the technology of guns had changed dramatically since the 1790’s. People began to see the crime caused by guns, experience prominent figures being assassinated, and learn, through enhanced communications, about gun violence. This changed people’s attitudes towards the right to bear arms. People began to feel emotionally connected to gun violence victims, and the culture surrounding owning a gun began to change.
Resource Mobilization/ Political Process Theories
The theory that best describes the right to bear arms movement is the rational resource mobilization and political process theory. The National Rifle Association began as a shooting and hunting group, having nothing to do with gun rights advocacy. When the NRA began to see what they believed as an American right be challenged, they were able to gather the funds and the members necessary to affect the legislative process at the local, state, and federal levels. The NRA was able to evolve from a hunting and target range group to one of the biggest lobbying groups in the U.S., right next to the big tobacco lobby. The NRA also had, and continues to have, prominent members of their organization, including celebrities and people at all levels of the government, including some presidents. Because of the paid memberships and funding the NRA received from members, they were able to connect all the local gun clubs, shooting ranges, and firearm organizations together to further their agenda. Looking at the current NRA web site, there are links to laws, legislation from all levels of government, news, items to be concerned about, grassroots causes, and many other links which every member and non-member has access to.
In 1791, the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It stated, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was not until the early 1900’s that this amendment was challenged. In 1911, the first state law requiring permits to carry any weapon that can be concealed was put into effect in New York. This law was called the Sullivan Act. Covering all state and federal regulations regarding gun control is out of the scope for this post, as there are thousands of laws at the state and local levels according to the National Rifle Association (NRA). However, there are several national events that have directed the path of the gun control movement, or the right to bear arms, depending on the side you take. It was not until the 1960’s that gun control became a prevalent social movement. After the assassination in 1963 of John F. Kennedy, an NRA member, followed by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy in 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968. This act was seen as a huge upset to the NRA, but a win for gun control advocates. Although it did not ban any weapons, the act did put restrictions on firearms sales, firearms dealers, transportation of firearms, and labeled who would be a prohibited possessor of firearms. In 1975, gun control advocates began to form social movement organizations to be able to fight the already established NRA. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control Inc. were founded. At the same time, the NRA, an organization that was already well funded and well connected, created The Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). This branch of the NRA was created specifically to fight new gun control legislation and to try to overturn laws already in place at the local, state, and federal levels. The NRA’s first major victory came in 1986 when Ronald Reagan passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. This act reformed some aspects of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Although this was seen as a victory for the NRA, it could also be seen as a victory for the gun control advocacy groups because at this time police organizations split from the NRA due to their being in favor of gun control ideas. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill requiring a waiting period for firearm purchases, which was later changed to an instant FBI background check. In 1994, a ban on assault weapons was put into effect, although this recently was not renewed in 2004. Lastly, the most current event at the national level regarding the right to bear arms is the Supreme Court case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for D.C. to ban handguns for private use. It also said it was unconstitutional to require people to keep their weapons unloaded in their homes. This is a major victory for gun rights advocates. This ruling is one of the first by the Supreme Court to say that the second amendment applies to the private person, not only militias. The battle between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates is far from over, and there will continue to be victories on both sides of the fence, both at the federal and state levels.
Mass Society Theory
Mass Society Theory, according to Goodwin and Jasper, states that social movements occur when society has lost other organizations to join, such as churches, unions, community groups, etc. These groups are seen as intermediaries between an individual and the government. When these groups do not exist for a certain cause, such as the right to bear arms or gun control, then a new social movement occurs. This could possibly be seen with gun rights activists before there were gun clubs, shooting ranges, or other local firearm organizations. Militias or survivalists could be possible groups these disenfranchised people join in order to protect what they believe are their rights. Militias can be defined as a military-type group set up by normal citizens. They are usually locally organized with no connection to other militia-type groups in other counties or states. Gun control and the right to bear arms are usually not topics that normal groups can deal with, especially when trying to enact/stop change in the government. This would cause the start and rise of the social movements for each side.
Cultural/Emotional Theories
In Goodwin and Jasper, they discuss the animal rights movement when describing cultural theories. Their example illustrates that because of change in technology, among other things, people were allowed to recognize nonhuman suffering. The same could be used when explaining the gun control movement. From 1791, the year the second amendment was ratified, to the early 1900’s, most people lived in rural areas, having to use guns to hunt, protect themselves from thieves, or possible Indian attacks. When the 1900’s came around, there were the beginning stages of police forces, more people lived in cities, and the technology of guns had changed dramatically since the 1790’s. People began to see the crime caused by guns, experience prominent figures being assassinated, and learn, through enhanced communications, about gun violence. This changed people’s attitudes towards the right to bear arms. People began to feel emotionally connected to gun violence victims, and the culture surrounding owning a gun began to change.
Resource Mobilization/ Political Process Theories
The theory that best describes the right to bear arms movement is the rational resource mobilization and political process theory. The National Rifle Association began as a shooting and hunting group, having nothing to do with gun rights advocacy. When the NRA began to see what they believed as an American right be challenged, they were able to gather the funds and the members necessary to affect the legislative process at the local, state, and federal levels. The NRA was able to evolve from a hunting and target range group to one of the biggest lobbying groups in the U.S., right next to the big tobacco lobby. The NRA also had, and continues to have, prominent members of their organization, including celebrities and people at all levels of the government, including some presidents. Because of the paid memberships and funding the NRA received from members, they were able to connect all the local gun clubs, shooting ranges, and firearm organizations together to further their agenda. Looking at the current NRA web site, there are links to laws, legislation from all levels of government, news, items to be concerned about, grassroots causes, and many other links which every member and non-member has access to.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Pictures from Work
All these guns were found by me while working. All these guns were found on prohibited possessors, or inconjunction with other crimes such as drug possession. All these guns were illegally obtained and were being carried concealed illegally.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
An Introduction
In this blog I hope to explore the many facets and viewpoints regarding firearms in America. I want to look at the history of the movement to regulate and/or unregulate firearms. Where are people coming from who wish to keep this freedom, and why do people think firearms need to be controlled, or even possibly banned? This is a very complex issue which stems from the second amendment of the U.S. Consitution,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)