Pro Guns and Pro Control

Alasdair Spark’s lecture and personal further research has highlighted the complexity and pervasiveness of the US gun culture. 

This culture is widely celebrated in every kind of popular entertainment media, products and accessories are widely and easily available, and it is embedded in political discourse, history and myths. Furthermore, and this aspect is a key factor of the pro-gun lobby, there is the legal foundation of the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution as the Second Amendment. This link to civil rights and freedom and liberty – and in particular, the notion of negative freedom: to be free from Government interference, was found to be a headline statement within so many Pro-gun websites.

 In fact, ‘The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance exists to fight for the 2^nd Amendment rights of all Idaho citizens.’

https://www.idahosaa.org/about/

Making comparisons with the arguments, beliefs and attitudes of the pro-control lobby, it can be seen how intensely polarised the two groups are.[i] The pro-control group makes frequent use of the emotional and psychological aspects of gun culture -often based on the criminal and bodily damage perpetuated on individuals and the community.

A further factor noted from the research was the reality of the overwhelming political power of the pro-gun lobby, particularly as demonstrated by the National Rifle Association (NRA), with 3.5million members, sponsorship from fire arms manufacturers and close involvement with election campaigns at every level.

I was interested to find out how pro control groups could combat such a behemoth and choose to research a consortium: The Violence Policy Center

http://www.vpc.org/

“The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration. Founded in 1988, the VPC informs the public about the impact of gun violence on their daily lives, exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates on the federal, state, and local levels, and works for policy changes that save lives.”

This mission statement illustrates their binary position in opposition to the pro gun groups, emphasising violence, fear, the impact on every day life and the links to the fire arms industry. The drop down menus contain an encylopedia of research and information on gun violence, the gun industry and extensive investigation into the lobbying power of the NRA. The information is comprehensive and appears well researched. The site relies heavily on written text with limited other imagery. It has positioned itself as a resource and is a mine of information.

By complete contrast and using an entirely different approach, the NRA is using the full resources of its TV facilities to attract, educate and support its latest targeted new market segment – affluent, upwardly mobile, professional and stylish young women.

The studio has created a mini bio-pic series where we follow the narratives  of 3 women -‘Love at First Shot.’

https://www.nratv.com/series/love-at-first-shot

  Each story is carefully framed around notions of positive gun ownership: independence, skills, power (through respect in the work place) and the right to be safe. It emphasises the great outdoors, hunting skills and competition – usually masculine conceits- wrapped around with warm, feminine friendships, hugs and interspersed with intimate chats over coffee. The locations are a similar mix of the masculine and feminine- out on the range with a smiling, encouraging female coach. It makes for engaging viewing with the ‘soap opera episodes’ being interspersed with adoration of the gun and rifle and the hallowed cardboard target.

The tone is positive and colourful throughout with articulate and energetic actors and direction. There are virtually no negative images except for the ‘stalker’ who is depicted as the motive for Jasmine turning to guns. There is no reference to many of the messages and concerns explored by  the pro control lobby. The production values  do help to make the series  feel very 'main-stream' - the high ground which is claimed by both pro gun and pro control groups.

---

[i] Glen Utter and James True, “The Evolving Gun Culture in America” Journal of American and Comparative Culture.

8. 'JPFO' and 'Ceasefire Oregon'

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - http://jpfo.org/

"Founded by Jews in 1989, JPFO initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed. JPFO has always welcomed people of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim-disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all. It was the brainchild of Aaron Zelman (1946 - 2010), a leading national civil-rights activist."

This organisation markets itself as 'America's most aggressive civil rights organisation'. This is interesting as it clearly considers this a selling point, perhaps providing insight into their target audience. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation considers protection of the 2nd amendment as a civil rights issue puts it in the same league as issues such as racism and voting rights, demonstrating the perceived importance of this right to groups such as these. 

The website states that "Matters in our country are getting worse daily. We're surrounded by police-state "security" measures that do little to make us safe but a lot to make us feel humiliated, bullied, and spied upon. Virtually all our freedoms are being curtailed – from the right to travel or speak freely to the right to have our homes secure against violent invasion by military-style police.

We have -- as Ben Franklin warned us we should never do -- traded away our freedom to get a little security. The result is exactly as Franklin predicted: We are increasingly less free and less secure.

What's the solution? Re-establishing a Bill of Rights Culture as the Founding Fathers intended."

This too is intriguing as they play on emotions and fears of insecurity and violence as opposed to facts (e.g. 'violent invasion by military-style police' is surely a rarity). Perhaps this shows that the argument is an emotive one that uses the fears of the modern world to its advantage. The link with the founding fathers also ties in to this sense of patriotism by forcing the reader to reflect upon their country's past, with an inevitable sense of pride that naturally evolves to an advocacy of the views held by the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. Seeing as the morality and national status of the founding fathers is not in question, using their quotes and views to advocate gun rights is a simple yet powerful tool, and one that is hard to dispute.

Finally, the premise of this organisation revolves around the religious affiliation of its members. The significance of this is open to interpretation, although on a superficial level, the jewish aspect of the group describes its origins within that community. Alternatively, we may suggest that by appealing to a large religious group, the JPFO finds it easier to generate a 'movement' by grouping people who are already culturally similar, this adds strength to their focus on gun rights. Furthermore, the links with Judaism enable the group to develop arguments based on the racist aspects of gun control laws and the historical injustices towards disarmed Jews. This gives this group some exclusive arguments which, when combined with the standard arguments for gun rights, gives this group perhaps an added sense of appeal to prospective members. 

Ceasefire Oregon - https://www.ceasefireoregon.org/

In contrast with the website for 'JPFO', the website for 'Ceasefire Oregon' is significantly calmer in language, colour and layout and is far less crowded in terms of information.The opening message of this website is "Together, we can work toward a more peaceful future for our communities, schools and families", marking a stark departure from the fearful rhetoric of the JPFO.

A huge part of this website is focused on acting on gun control, through providing the viewer with countless links to petitions and areas to donate money to the cause. This is perhaps because Oregon is notable for its particularly relaxed gun laws. For example; no state permit is required to purchase long guns or hand guns, open carry laws apply to long/hand guns, no owner licenses required, no regulation or classification of assault weapons. On average, 456 people have died per year in oregon due to firearm-related injuries since 2010. Of these, 83% are suicides and 13% are murders.

These statistics link in with the website which features a section on suicide. Similarly to the JPFO website, 'Ceasefire Oregon' is based largely upon emotive arguments, as is evidenced by the family-oriented rhetoric and images of children and depression. This is interesting as both sides of the argument use similar tactics in order to generate support for their cause, yet they apply these in a slightly different way to produce the desired outcome.

Finally, the website's mission statement opens with "Ceasefire Oregon works to prevent gun violence by advocating reasonable, effective gun laws.". This is interesting as they seem to acknowledge the obstacles they face in introducing gun legislation, hence their use of the word 'reasonable'. They understand that they would have very little support if they sought to completely eradicate gun rights in Oregon so they instead aim to appeal to the 'reasonable' portion of our minds and encourage their readers to reflect for themselves upon the shortcomings of the current legislation.

Freedom of Religion

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The video above is from the YouTube channel ‘CrashCourse’ which makes brief lessons on different subjects. This video explains the First amendments ‘free exercise’ of religion clause and its effect on how people are allowed to practice their faith. The Freedom to practice your own faith was one of the ideas central to why many people immigrated to America in the first place.

The clause not only protects people’s right to practice whichever religion they please, but also actions which are made on behalf of religious beliefs. Although the clause does not allow for extreme violation of laws, e.g. a religious fundamentalist will still go to prison if involved with terrorism, the clause does seem to allow some minor violation of the law if the person does it because of their religious beliefs.

The other thing which is mentioned about religion in the first amendment is that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’. This is important because it stops the USA having a state church, like the Church of England. Although the First Amendment basically prohibits a national religion, many Americans believe that the USA is a Christian country as somewhere between 60-70% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. The view of America being Christian is also backed up by the pledge of allegiance which says ‘one Nation under God’. This goes against the first amendment, although in the Massachusetts court case ‘Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School Dist.’ It was decided that the pledge of allegiance was not in violation of the constitution.

An Aspect of American Liberty- Freedom of Speech

An expression of American Liberty and how it relates to the founding principles.

The first amendment grants Americans freedom of speech. It states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’. It allows American citizens the liberty of being able to express criticism of the government, whilst protecting them to an extent. Within this broad term, it includes the freedom not to speak, to use offensive language for a political message, contributing money to political campaigns and symbolic speech to name but a few.

Whilst it does prevent government intervention on your speech to an extent, it does not protect you from others acting against you. A historic case in regards to the first amendment includes the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case went to the Supreme Court as some students believed their school breached their first amendment rights, by not allowing them to wear armbands in protest of the Vietnam War.

Here, this video depicts a variety of ways people were using their freedom of speech against the announcement of 2016 President Elect, Donald J Trump. What is interesting about the source is that it is taken from the ‘CBS This Morning’ news. With the broadcasting of real footage, it emphasises the huge impact a group of ordinary American citizens can have when they believe their rights are at risk. The widespread protesting was suggested to be in at least 38 different cities in America. Their bold signs of ‘Not my President’, ‘What have we done?’ and ‘Love Trump hate’ particularly stand out during the video and convey their political message. The video also shows Americans using their rights by burning effigies of Trump, marching in protest and chanting.

While the escalation of these actions can be a negative expression of liberty, it does present very clearly how Americans can exercise their rights when they feel they are at risk. This can also relate to the foundations of American Liberty, when the colonists had just won the revolution against what they saw as a tyrannical sovereign government. Therefore, the protection of these rights remains vital to Americans to this day.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpYHtLTNnc

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/tinker_des_moines.html

A Tourist's Impression on American Liberties

 (Play up to 2 minutes)

The video I have chosen is by a small Youtuber called Adrian Bliss. He is known for his month-long series, 'Vlogvember' and 'Vlune', during which he, along with his friend Greg, pokes fun at mainstream Youtubers by pretending to be a Youtuber and highlighting the floors and issues involved. In 'Vlune', Adrian and Greg embark on a trip to the United States of America with the aim of reaching Vidcon (a large Youtube event in Southern California) by the end of the month. In this video, 'Vlune 5 - MEETING THE PRESIDENT', Adrian and Greg visit Washington DC and film their experiences and reactions at popular landmarks in the city. While Adrian's focus up until this point had been to create purposely terrible content, making fun of the stereotypes of the Youtube community, 'Vlune 5.' concentrates on the ignorance displayed by some people towards American history and ideology. 

Firstly, Adrian, a British citizen, could travel to and enter the USA. This was most likely done by purchasing an ESTA, which is an advanced security check now required before any international travellers from countries under the Visa Waiver Program (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom) can enter the USA. The advanced security checks have only come into place since the 2007 '9/11 Commission Act', which tightened the whole country's security, hindering the freedom of entry to the USA of tourists.    
The fact that Adrian could film and publish a video in a foreign country, indicates there is more leniency in the USA towards the media. Obviously, Adrian is not an official member of the press. But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had decided to do the same in somewhere like North Korea. However, he later (1 minute 2 seconds) eludes to the hysteria surrounding the filming of children and its immediate association with paedophilia. This suggests there are limitations to what's acceptable to film in the USA, but in a more 'de facto' manner, rather than by law.
33 seconds through the video, Adrian points out the Capitol Building. It is at this point where he rather crudely states that the "blue ones like gays and the red ones like guns". This is in reference to the Democrats and Republicans and their views on two very relevant topics of debate within the USA. The right to bear arms is written in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which stretches back to the 'Founding Fathers' of the USA. This liberty is highly contested and due to the number of shootings within the USA, is unlikely to dissipate. In addition, the topic of the rights of homosexuals to marry, only became 'resolved' in 2015, with the Supreme Court ruling bans on equality unconstitutional. This is a far more recent liberty, with homosexuality being outlawed for much of the 20th Century and only legalised nationwide in 2003.
At 1 minutes 12 seconds through the video, Adrian announces that "we don't have freedom in England, we're not used to it". Although intended as a joke, due to the nature of America and its obsession with being the 'land of the free', this ideology is true for some people. Immigrants who enter the USA (legally or otherwise) are often from countries that don't offer the same liberties and opportunities as the United States, so it is likely that they would be in awe of American society, similarly to the way in which Greg celebrates his 'newfound freedom' in the video.  
Later in the video, Adrian films himself at the grave of Abraham Lincoln. This represents the emancipation of the slaves that Lincoln oversaw in 1863. It is at this location where the March on Washington in 1963 took place. It signified 100 years since the abolition of slavery and how African Americans were still be oppressed, despite the amount of time they had been supposedly free. This is still a relevant topic today, as there have been protests this year in America against the treatment of African Americans by the police. There still seems to be a hindrance to their liberty, despite the vast amount of legislation passed and the high number of protests that have occurred. 
The final point is displayed 1 minute 40 seconds, where Adrian and Greg go to the White House, because they have been 'invited' by the President. This is a jibe at how Youtubers are often given incredible opportunities that most people would never be able to do. But it also poses the question of democracy and whether the country is truly ruled by the people as a democracy should truly be. Adrian finds himself (unsurprisingly) unable to go and meet the President of the USA. This introduces ideas concerning whether the US government are truly fulfilling the wish of the American people behind those barricaded doors and why there is such a notion of almost nobility among some of the elite within the White House.

Sources:
https://www.esta-registration.co.uk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEzDlL1EDZY
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/emancipation-proclamation

The Bald Eagle as Symbol of American Liberty

The Bald Eagle as Symbol of American Liberty

This video expresses an aspect of American liberty as the American bald eagle is the national emblem of the United States. This was chosen 20th June 1782 due to its long life, great strength and majestic strength. It was also believed back in 1782 that the bald eagle only existed in America, however they can be found in northern Mexico and Canada. The reason to why the eagle is used as the national emblem is that one of the first battles of the Revolution the noise awoke the sleeping eagles in which they flew from their nests and circled over the fighting men whilst raucously calling. "They are shrieking for Freedom" said the Patriots. 

After gaining independence the seal of the United States was designed and issued in Pennsylvania in 1782. The bald eagle was chosen to represent the values of this new nation as it embodies the themes of liberty and freedom.

However Benjamin Franklin was against the bald eagle being the national bird as he described it as "a bird of bad moral character" in that it is very lazy. He wanted the turkey to be the symbol of America as he saw it more as a respectable bird. 

  

http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle9.html 

Two Concepts of Liberty and Connections with Founding Principles

Positive and Negative Liberty - based on an essay by Isaiah Berlin 1958

The video examines the two concepts of liberty, positive and negative  and the essential differences between them. Negative liberty is described as 'freedom from' mainly in terms of outside interference.  Positive freedom is signified as 'freedom to' mainly in terms of following one's own will. Further differences are explored as seeing negative freedom as natural right and positive freedom as entitlement. But these two aspects of freedom are nuanced terms: negative asserts a zone of non-interference from outside whilst positive freedom asserts the right to achieve one's goals regardless. 

Negative freedom and the Declaration of Independence.
The term negative freedom is embedded in the philosophy and wording of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson argued for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - to be achieved without interference.  John Stuart Mills writing in  On Liberty develops these maxims to state that you can do what you want as long as you are not hurting anyone else.

Negative freedom and the First Amendment
The wording of the First Amendment is written in the language of negative freedom and was dsigned to protect people from the interference of government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Positive Freedom and Achievement of Own Goals
This concept came under the spotlight particularly in the time of slave emancipation. People were free but free to do what? Positive freedom is closely aligned with resources such as money, land, health and education.

Roosevelt and the Four Freedoms Speech 1941
Roosevelt looked back to the founding principles to develop what could be viewed as the most important aspects within society. He outlined in greater detail what 'freedom' should mean for the American people. The first two items, freedom of speech and freedom of worship relate to negative freedom. Freedom from want and freedom from fear are positive terms but are entitlements rather than rights.

In real time and since the time of the founding principles, liberty has remained a complex ideology.