Both movements employ language that explicitly and implicitly illustrate a perception of white male victimization. A theoretical overview of masculinity and victimization is also utilized to illustrate essentialist narratives in masculinity.Findings – This research raises questions about the lived experience of the racialization of masculinity in movements, the complexity of identity formation of movement members, and challenges assumptions about the limitations of essentialism in these types of social movements. The focus of the study is how racialized constructions of masculinity shape similar discourses of victimization in the mythopoetic men's movement and the Militia of Montana.Method – Content analysis of the movement members’ written work available to the general public is analyzed. Purpose – This research is an analysis of expressions of masculinity among members of two social movements. It concludes that the most sensible reading of the amendment would return to the unanimous Miller precedent of 1939 and allow the banning of certain weapons by states and localities. The article then re-examines the context of the Second Amendment to determine its most relevant historiography as a basis for assessing the Supreme Court’s reading of the amendment. This article examines the majority opinion and the two dissents in Heller to show how each of these justices used the historic context of the Second Amendment to construct its original meaning. Furthermore, embracing original meaning as a hermeneutic method requires the careful consideration of historic context to achieve a proper reading of the text at hand. After tracing the evolution of the precept of original meaning back to James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, this article demonstrates that the precept is widely used as an interpretive method by constitutional scholars and conservative and liberal members of the Supreme Court. Heller, a landmark decision that diminishes the precedents preceding it. This article argues that the precept of original meaning is a valid hermeneutic method employed by both the majority and minority in the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. En While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |