Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[cherdano]

It's true, in the UK it's illegal to show movies with guns in cinemas. They can't be shown on TV before 11.30pm either. That's why there are so few gun deaths in the UK.

[Winstonm]

Almost forgot the troll trap:

[pilowsky]

 

All of this shooting seems to be so they don't have to worry about creating an actual storyline.

 

 

I once read an explanation of how to tell the difference between a pornographic film and art (at the time - read European film).

In pornography the 'story' is there only to connect episodes of gratuitous sexual activity.

This became an issue after Deep Throat appeared.

Violence can also be pornographic if it fits this explanation.

[Chas_P]

Good thing that Tombstone never got shown outside the United States

 

Otherwise places like Canada and the UK would be having similar problems with mass shootings...

 

You're such an ignorant little *****wit

And the worst thing is, you probably think that you were being clever.

So was that the fault of the NRA? Or Hollywood? Winnie's implication was that the NRA promotes gun violence by offering weapons to kids. I don't belong to the NRA, but from what I've read they teach gun safety, not gun violence. So if anybody's ignorant here it's Winnie....and maybe you, an arrogant, foul-mouthed, greasy little turd.

[barmar]

So was that the fault of the NRA? Or Hollywood? Winnie's implication was that the NRA promotes gun violence by offering weapons to kids. I don't belong to the NRA, but from what I've read they teach gun safety, not gun violence. So if anybody's ignorant here it's Winnie....and maybe you, an arrogant, foul-mouthed, greasy little turd.

The NRA has multiple facets.

 

The traditional role of the NRA was mostly educational, and teaching proper use of guns was a big part of their mandate.

 

But later on they expanded into lobbying for the gun industry. That's the role that has made it difficult for politicians to institute gun safety legislation.

[kenberg]

The NRA has multiple facets.

 

The traditional role of the NRA was mostly educational, and teaching proper use of guns was a big part of their mandate.

 

But later on they expanded into lobbying for the gun industry. That's the role that has made it difficult for politicians to institute gun safety legislation.

 

Perhaps your first sentence is the key. I suppose the NRA can claim that they advocate the responsible use of guns, but it's like the liquor industry saying that they advocate the responsible use of liquor. Sure, they don't explicitly advocate irresponsible use, but the NRA wants more people to buy more guns, and then, well of course, use them responsibly. They have their own definition of responsible use.

 

As we live we think some things through carefully, other times we just go with the flow, not giving a matter much thought. Part of going with the flow is to see what the law says is legal. In this country the law allows arming yourself to the teeth and only occasionally punishes those who are careless about who has access. The results are predictable, and these predictable results happen with horrible frequency and horrible consequences.

 

We need to do something, and thinking that the NRA will be useful because they maybe offer a course in gun safety is naive at best. The NRA has an agenda, and it leads to more guns, more violence, more death. Perhaps the NRA only advocate more guns and deplores more violence and more death. Well, yeah, perhaps. Some mixture of self-interest and idiocy. Surely we can do better.

[hrothgar]

Quick bit of history here:

 

The NRA has existed in multiple incarnations.

 

It was originally founded by Union officers after the civil war who were concerned about poor marksmanship on the part of Union soldiers during the civil war.

 

Later on it started focusing on safety and responsible gun ownership

 

A while after that it became very actively involved in the conversation movement and hunting

 

50 odd years ago, there was a leadership coup and the organization was taken over by a bunch of far right nut jobs. (Very similar to what happened with the Southern Baptists a few years earlier)

 

These days is is pretty much a marketing and advertising wing for gun manufacturers in the US, however, the recent engagement with Russian money laundering has been fascinating to watch

[Chas_P]

Quick bit of history here:

 

The NRA has existed in multiple incarnations.

 

It was originally founded by Union officers after the civil war who were concerned about poor marksmanship on the part of Union soldiers during the civil war.

 

Later on it started focusing on safety and responsible gun ownership

 

A while after that it became very actively involved in the conversation movement and hunting

 

50 odd years ago, there was a leadership coup and the organization was taken over by a bunch of far right nut jobs. (Very similar to what happened with the Southern Baptists a few years earlier)

 

These days is is pretty much a marketing and advertising wing for gun manufacturers in the US, however, the recent engagement with Russian money laundering has been fascinating to watch

Thank you for a well-researched response. However, try though I may, I find nothing there that supports Winston's assertion that mass shootings in the U. S. A. are NRA-inspired. Enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

[pilowsky]

The NRA may have been a kind of Boy Scout movement for older white men when it started but has changed a wee bit into a social movement for toxic white masculinity.

Below is the abstract from Melzer's PhD thesis (2004)

 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was dramatically transformed from a gun enthusiast's group to a conservative social movement organization (SMO) in the late 1970s. The NRA became the primary SMO defending "gun rights," as well as a powerful lobbying group now claiming over four million members. Their success is due in part to a public discourse expanding NRA's mission beyond Second Amendment defender to protector of the Constitution, individual rights, and freedom. Mirroring other conservative reactive mobilizations during both the late 19th and late 20th centuries, the NRA responded to widespread societal changes threatening white male privilege as well as specific gun control threats following political assassinations. The NRA's commitment to oppose gun control centers on what 1 label "frontier masculinity," which bolsters white men's hegemony. Following the 1977 internal coup by uncompromising gun rights defenders, the NRA has significantly increased its membership, resources, and political influence. NRA success is due to leadership framing gun control as a threat to hegemonic masculinity, and, shortly after the NRA's transformation, expanding political opportunities for conservative groups due to the rise of the Republican right. Using ethnographic fieldwork, in-depth interviews with NRA members, and content analysis of NRA literature, I analyze how gender and race have influenced the NRA's shifting organizational priorities and framing strategies over the last sixty years. 1 argue that NRA leadership and membership construct the defense of the Second Amendment as a defense of freedom itself and perceive threats to gun rights and other freedoms as challenges to white male privilege. Since 1977, their rhetoric became more hyperbolic, exaggerating the threat to gun owners' rights. My interviews with NRA members, most of whom are white men, found that those who were most committed were also the most conservative. Drawing from theories of gender, social movements, and political sociology, I claim that the NRA's framing and defense of frontier masculinity continues to resonate not only with a small core of fundamentalist gun rights defenders, but also broadly held values associated with our nation's frontier "gun culture" history and individual responsibilities and freedoms.

[Chas_P]

The NRA may have been a kind of Boy Scout movement for older white men when it started but has changed a wee bit into a social movement for toxic white masculinity.

Below is the abstract from Melzer's PhD thesis (2004)

 

Could you please give us a count of the mass shooters....Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Ramos, etc.....who were NRA members? Thank you in advance.

[hrothgar]

Could you please give us a count of the mass shooters....Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Ramos, etc.....who were NRA members? Thank you in advance.

 

What a pathetic attempt at distraction

 

People are trying to prevent these individual from purchasing guns, not from joining the NRA.

[hrothgar]

Thank you for a well-researched response. However, try though I may, I find nothing there that supports Winston's assertion that mass shootings in the U. S. A. are NRA-inspired. Enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 

OK *****wit

 

Lets give this a try

 

1. Mass shooter use guns to kill people

2. The NRA is dedicated to blocking any meaningful form gun control

 

Let me know is this is still too complicated and I'll try to bring it down to your level

[Gilithin]

Could you please give us a count of the mass shooters....Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Ramos, etc.....who were NRA members? Thank you in advance.

You provide an accurate membership list and we'll be happy to do the cross-checking. There are a few confirmed shooters but in most cases the membership status of the perpetrator is impossible to uncover without NRA cooperation.

[pilowsky]

You provide an accurate membership list and we'll be happy to do the cross-checking. There are a few confirmed shooters but in most cases the membership status of the perpetrator is impossible to uncover without NRA cooperation.

 

Well, they did make Oliver North President.

He and other Republican cronies were responsible for funding a bunch of terrorists who set about murdering, raping, burning and torturing quite a few people.

But the victims didn't live in Florida at the time so maybe they don't count as human?

[y66]

Of all we have heard at the hearings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Judge J. Michael Luttig’s testimony on Thursday stands out. Luttig is a leading conservative thinker, a giant in Republican legal circles, who worked in the Reagan administration, was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to a federal judgeship, and was on the short-list for a Supreme Court seat during President George W. Bush’s term. In January 2021, then–vice president Mike Pence’s staff turned to him for support to make sure Pence didn’t agree to count out electors; Luttig opposed the scheme absolutely.

 

Luttig’s words carry weight among Republican lawmakers.

 

On Thursday, Judge Luttig examined the ongoing danger to democracy and located it not just on former president Donald Trump and his enablers, but on the entire Republican Party of today, the party that embraces the Big Lie that Trump won the 2020 election, the party that continues to plan to overturn any election in which voters choose a Democrat.

 

“[T]he former president and his party are today a clear and present danger for American democracy,” Luttig reiterated to NPR’s All Things Considered.

 

And, as if in confirmation, delegates to a convention of the Texas Republican Party today approved platform planks rejecting “the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and [holding] that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States”; requiring students “to learn about the dignity of the preborn human,” including that life begins at fertilization; treating homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice”; locking the number of Supreme Court justices at 9; getting rid of the constitutional power to levy income taxes; abolishing the Federal Reserve; rejecting the Equal Rights Amendment; returning Christianity to schools and government; ending all gun safety measures; abolishing the Department of Education; arming teachers; requiring colleges to teach “free-market liberty principles”; defending capital punishment; dictating the ways in which the events at the Alamo are remembered; protecting Confederate monuments; ending gay marriage; withdrawing from the United Nations and the World Health Organization; and calling for a vote “for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

 

Luttig said that Republicans must start speaking to Democrats as ”fellow Americans that have a shared destiny and shared hopes and dreams for America.” “We cannot have in America either political party behaving itself like the Republican Party has since the 2020 election.”

“[T]o my knowledge, I’ve never spoken publicly a single word of politics,” Luttig told NPR about his extraordinary statements. In a later note he added: “I wanted to do this for America and I understood I had an obligation to do it for America. It was my ‘moment’ in my life to stand up, step forward, and bear witness to what I believe and what I do not believe.”

 

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-18-2022

[kenberg]

Where do we go from here? The citation from Heather Cox is very much worth reading. For example:

I’ve been thinking a lot since Thursday of Luttig’s clear-eyed view of the dangers we face in this country today, and of his willingness to cast aside old political loyalties to call them out in order to protect our democracy. They remind me of nothing so much as Abraham Lincoln’s description of the way northerners reacted to the 1854 passage of a law permitting the spread of enslavement into western lands from which it had previously been excluded. The passage of that law woke up Americans who had not been paying attention, and convinced them to work across old political lines to stop oligarchs from destroying democracy. Northerners were “thunderstruck and stunned; and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. But we rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher's cleaver” to push back against the oligarchic enslavers, Lincoln later said. Regardless of where they started politically, they stood up for democracy together. And while they came from different parties, he said, they were “still Americans; no less devoted to the continued Union and prosperity of the country than heretofore.”

 

"Americans who had not been paying attention" will always be a very important group. Many of us could think of ourselves as part of that group, to one degree or another. For example, I hope I am never required to pass an exam on what took place when during the hearings. Luttig's testimony is extremely important for us. "Regardless of where they started politically, they stood up for democracy together." is an extremely important historical quote.

One thing that I think could be useful Trump gave a speech before the assault on the Capitol speaking of the necessity to march on the Capitol to stop Pence from certifying the election. The mob was shouting to hang Mike Pence, and shouting that they were there are behalf of the president. Mike Pence, and I believe the family of Mike Pence, were in serious physical danger, and Trump knew of it. Anyone, anyone at all, can understand the connection between Trump's speech and the danger for Mike Pence. Trump eventually made a weak speech basically telling the mob they had done enough damage, at least for the moment, and they should leave. "Too little too late" is an understatement. Trump damn near got Pence killed. "Americans who had not been paying attention" can easily understand this, "regardless of where they started politically".

Trump never said "Hang Mike Pence" in exactly those words? OK, but people understand "Make him an offer he can't refuse".

At a basic level, we are speaking of straightforward stuff. Mike Pence is a hero. Luttig is a hero. They did the right thing, heroically so. Trump and his lackeys are scum. This truth does not depend on political affiliation. A person does not need to be a deep political thinker to see the truth of it.

My political thoughts are a mixture of conservative and liberal. I don't have to think about my political views to be very happy that Mike Pence was not killed, and very unhappy that it was a close call that he wasn't.

[y66]

Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath? (2012)

 

I didn't know psychopaths are estimated to make up 1 percent of the population. Seems like getting people in positions of responsibility in government, the health care industry and the gun industry to recognize that and say that is a huge part of rationally discussing and addressing the mass shooting problem and other problems that the criminal justice system has to contend with.

[barmar]

Could you please give us a count of the mass shooters....Harris, Klebold, Lanza, Ramos, etc.....who were NRA members? Thank you in advance.

What does that have to do with it? This is like asking whether drunk drivers work for the liquor industry. You don't have to be a member to be highly influenced by the NRA's rhetoric or take advantage of the gun "freedoms" that they advocate.

[kenberg]

Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath? (2012)

 

I didn't know psychopaths are estimated to make up 1 percent of the population. Seems like getting people in positions of responsibility in government, the health care industry and the gun industry to recognize that and say that is a huge part of rationally discussing and addressing the mass shooting problem and other problems that the criminal justice system has to contend with.

 

An interesting article. As to "Then last spring, the psychologist treating Michael referred his parents to Dan Waschbusch, a researcher at Florida International University.", I found that Waschbusch is now at Penn State.

https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/persons/daniel-waschbusch

The article speaks of 9-year-old Michael having temper tantrums and throwing things, and also speaks of another child who cut the tail off his cat, a little more each day, and another who pushed his sister into a swimming pool and watched her drown. These latter two cases are more like my idea of psychopathy, although perhaps Michael was gravitating in that direction. The NYT article was published in 2012, an update could be of interest.

Browsing a bit, it appears that psychologists think that reward for good behavior is more effective than punishment for bad behavior. Well, perhaps. My parents, at least my father, favored punishment. So when my first child was born I vowed to do no spanking. Well, I did keep it to a minimum. When my second child was born I said, ok, this time I'll get it right, no spanking at all. When she was 6 or so she was very defiant and I said, loudly, "Do you want a spanking?" She leaned forward with her hands on her hips and said "Yeah". I broke up in laughter so she didn't get her spanking.

It's all a tricky business. Psychologists mean well and sometimes they might even be useful. I know I have mentioned before that when I was in eighth grade I could not get my mother to stop bragging to the neighbors about my good grades so I set out to get bad grades and was pretty successful at it. Yep, it's tricky.

[Winstonm]

https://scitechdaily...-normal-people/

 

Neuroscientists from Nanyang Technological University (NTU Singapore), the University of Pennsylvania, and California State University have discovered a biological distinction between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, scientists discovered that the striatum, an area of the forebrain, was 10% bigger in psychopathic people compared to a control group of individuals with low or no psychopathic traits.

 

Although not the article I originally read, this confirms the first one that was written by someone who claimed similar deviancies in his brain structure were discovered, and his psychopathy created a situation where he had to watch others to learn appropriate responses to things like mourning a death. His conclusion was a psychopathic brain does not have to lead to improper lives but it requires training in acceptable responses.

[y66]

from the article winstonm quoted:

 

The neuroscientists say that within their study of 120 individuals, they examined 12 females and observed, for the first time, that psychopathy was linked to enlarged striatum in females, just as in males. In human development, the striatum typically becomes smaller as a child matures, suggesting that psychopathy could be related to differences in how the brain develops.

 

Asst Prof Choy suggested “A better understanding of the striatum’s development is still needed. Many factors are likely involved in why one individual is more likely to have psychopathic traits than another individual. Psychopathy can be linked to a structural abnormality in the brain that may be developmental in nature. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the environment can also have effects on the structure of the striatum.”

 

Prof Raine added “We have always known that psychopaths go to extreme lengths to seek out rewards, including criminal activities that involve property, sex, and drugs. We are now finding out a neurobiological underpinning of this impulsive and stimulating behavior in the form of enlargement to the striatum, a key brain area involved in rewards.

 

The scientists hope to carry out further research to find out the causes of the enlargement of the striatum in individuals with psychopathic traits.

Perhaps this is also relevant for understanding trolls.

[Winstonm]

The MAGgots are now calling for murder and war. I am not one to go to war with those whom I have disagreements; however, I am totally in favor of euthanizing mad dogs.

 

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, an ex-Navy SEAL and current Republican U.S. Senate candidate, released a wild video on Monday encouraging his supporters to go "RINO hunting" (referring to "Republicans in name only.") In the 38-second video posted on Twitter, Greitens is seen holding a long shotgun and surrounded by a group of men wearing tactical gear who then break down a house door and throw in a smoke bomb. Greitens is then seen walking into the empty room and asking his supporters to "join the MAGA crew" and get their "RINO hunting permits." The ex-governor says, "Today, we're going RINO hunting," adding, "The RINO feeds on corruption and is marked by the stripes of cowardice."

[y66]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/january-6-committee-hearings-trump-supporters/661324/

 

Many sophisticated observers of the January 6 committee will judge its success by two key metrics: whether the panel refers former President Donald Trump for criminal investigation and, if so, whether Attorney General Merrick Garland actually proceeds. But committee members are doing another job at least as important as advising the Justice Department: They are giving an off-ramp to those who accepted Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen out from under him—and who might excuse or even support violence done in his name.

 

Democracies do not fail in a single moment; they gradually break down from within. The same can be said of violent movements. Since the Capitol riot, the United States has been waging what is essentially a counter-extremism effort against Trump and the forces that nearly toppled our democracy. Such movements grow by portraying themselves as successful and their leadership as exceptional. The committee hearings have shown Trump to be not only an insurrectionist and an inciter of violence, but also a desperate sore loser. Almost everyone around Trump was telling him that his public claims of election fraud were “bullshit,” as former Attorney General William Barr put it. The people who continue spreading that myth need to know that Trump is making a fool of them. The savviest of his advisers long ago headed for the exits, and the ones who haven’t are not to be believed.

 

Notably, most of the committee’s witnesses against the former president are or were members of Team Trump or the GOP. Look at them, the committee is saying—there is a way out. Trump, according to Representative Liz Cheney, the committee’s Republican vice chair, was advised by an “apparently inebriated” Rudy Giuliani. This description, based on the accounts of Trump-campaign figures, isn’t idle gossip, but is meant to humiliate Trump, make him seem like a puppet of the unhinged and reckless. Run away from that guy! Trump is also betrayed by his daughter Ivanka, who in videotaped testimony looks deflated and pale as she sides with the forces telling Trump to stop his madness. The implication is clear: If his own daughter isn’t with him, why should you be?

 

The former president’s critics may rightly ask why neither she nor Barr spoke up in the moment. But longtime Trump skeptics aren’t the committee’s target audience. The message to his remaining supporters is: Trump has peaked. His best days are behind him. You won’t be the first to take the off-ramp, but you don’t want to be the last.

 

Instead of subscribing to Trump’s stolen-election fantasies, Republicans can join Team Normal, the term used by the former campaign manager Bill Stepien to describe those who were not instigating violence. If these former Trump loyalists can reject the lies, the committee is effectively telling his current followers, then so can you. And by the way, there was no honor among Trump’s abettors; the committee has evidence, one of its two Republican members has said, that GOP politicians who may have been involved with coordinating the January 6 effort had sought pardons, leaving everybody else exposed to prosecution.

 

According to evidence aired Thursday, John Eastman—a Trump legal adviser who kept insisting that then–Vice President Mike Pence had the power to alter the Electoral College vote—presumptuously declared in an email after the riot, “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.” One of Trump’s White House lawyers testified that he’d told Eastman, “Get a great effing criminal-defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.”

[Winstonm]

Being inundated by Republican primary ads here in Tulsa is like a parody of “A Clockwork Orange” and being forced to be a member of Tucker Carlson’s studio audience after being convicted of the old ultra-violence.

[kenberg]

From the above:"Many sophisticated observers of the January 6 committee will judge its success by two key metrics: whether the panel refers former President Donald Trump for criminal investigation and, if so, whether Attorney General Merrick Garland actually proceeds. But committee members are doing another job at least as important as advising the Justice Department: They are giving an off-ramp to those who accepted Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen out from under him—and who might excuse or even support violence done in his name."

They, and we, should think carefully about this. So far, they are doing an excellent job of making it unmistakable clear what happened. That is a fine thing for an investigating committee to do. After it is absolutely clear what happened, I think the Attorney General will decide whether or not to bring criminal charges. It would be a mistake to have it become whether or not the Attorney General does what the committee recommends. The decision should be based on the Attorney General's assessment, after seeing what has been presented, of the legal case. If the planning that went into the insurrection, and the egging on of a violence-prone mob in a manner that clearly implied that Mark Pence had to be forcefully prevented from certifying the election is not seen as grounds for a fair number of indictments, then Congress needs to pass some important laws. I would be very surprised if no indictments followed from the hearings. Clearly there should be indictments.

What I am getting at: This should not become "Will the Attorney general do what the committee tells him to do or won't he?", it should be "The committee has done its job, now will the Attorney General do what clearly needs to be done, and if not why not?" It's a subtle difference, but I think it is important for it to go down the second path. Among other things, in matters like this, there are (so I understand it) strategic matters of just who gets indicted first and for what. Let the AG plan this out.