[Chas_P]

 Winstonm, on 2022-June-14, 16:40, said:

I was thinking today the best chance the NRA offers to save kids is to hand out Colt 45s to all grade school students and instead of history show them the movie Tombstone.

Did the NRA produce Tombstone? Please answer. Let's place the guilt where it lies.

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-16, 17:50, said:

Did the NRA produce Tombstone? Please answer. Let's place the guilt where it lies.

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.

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-16, 17:50, said:

Did the NRA produce Tombstone? Please answer. Let's place the guilt where it lies.

I liked Hopalong Cassidy when I was quite young. Red River with John Wayne came out when I was nine and thought that was much better. Key Largo was the same year and I liked that. Laer I saw a war movie, I can't remember the name, where someone used a flamethrower to kill someone in a tree. That was the last war movie I saw for quite a while.

I don't get it with all of these hyper-violent movies. AFAIK I do not have a gender identity issue. As a young child I played equally with boys and girls, as a teen I dated girls and worked on cars with my male friends (females welcome but none seemed interested), but I never got into hyper-violent movies. I did like On The Waterfront. I still do. "I could have been a contender" is a much-quoted line but my favorite comes in an intense confrontation where Brando tells Eva Marie Saint "You know you love me" and she says "I didn't say I didn't love you, I said for you to go away".

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

Splendor in the Grass (1961) was on TCM the other night. Becky and I have both seen it before, more than once. She watched it all again, I came in for the last half. It was Warren Beatty's first film role (I think) and very likely his best. Anyway, he and Natalie Wood are teens with parents who, for one reason or the other, are at best useless. The Natalie Wood character goes to pieces and spends two and a half years in a mental institution. I got to thinking this could be a good parable with the government in the role of the parents. The country needs some serious therapy.

The title comes from a poem by Wadsworth https://apoemaday.tu...ur-in-the-grass

[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg said:

https://www.bloomber...author_18529680

The most important comments from the third public hearing this month of the House Jan. 6 committee came right at the end. After the panel heard testimony detailing the efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to illegally try to overturn the election, former Judge J. Michael Luttig pointed out that even now, “Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.”

That’s “because to this very day, the former president and his allies and supporters pledge” — if they lost next time — “they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election … but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.” Luttig, who advised Pence prior to Jan. 6, continued: “I don't speak those words lightly. I would have never spoken those words ever in my life, except that that's what the former president and his allies are telling us.”

Quote

Even in the deadly serious business of investigating an attempt to overthrow the government, hearings can provide light moments, giving us entertaining characters — some sympathetic, some not at all — and memorable phrases and anecdotes. We heard on Thursday that Pence reacted to Trump lawyer John Eastman’s suggestions that he break the law by saying it was “rubber room stuff.”

More appears to be left on the cutting-room floor. Referring to White House lawyer Eric Herschmann and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, my Bloomberg colleague Timothy L. O’Brien was surely correct to point out “the contrast between Herschmann's clear, principled testimony and the smug, scurvy testimony from Kushner that those worried about illegalities were ‘whining.’”

But that contrast would have been so much more notable had we had live testimony rather than taped highlights from both Herschmann and Kushner. This wasn’t going to happen given the schedule the committee set — a choice it could have made differently.

Such criticisms aside, what the committee is presenting continues to be devastating. Thursday’s hearing detailed how Trump and his allies were committed to using methods of trying to overturn the election that were obviously contrary to the law, and that they knew and simply didn’t care. Earlier in the week, we heard how they also knew, and didn’t care, that their accusations of fraud were not true.

We learned again, too, just how close the nation came to an even worse disaster on Jan. 6 — that the mob stirred up by Trump came within only 40 feet of Pence and his security escort as they fled to safer ground.

It’s still almost hard to believe that it all happened. And that many Republicans are running in 2022 — and already for 2024 — on a platform of making sure they’ll finish the job next time.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It’s still almost hard to believe that it all happened. And that many Republicans are running in 2022 — and already for 2024 — on a platform of making sure they’ll finish the job next time.

Here is Oklahoma, every Republican primary ad deifies Trump and makes promises based on Trumpian nonsense. One even wants to have a Donald J Trump highway in Oklahoma. I would go along with that as long as it intersected with Benedict Arnold Overpass.

[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:https://www.youtube....h?v=v1mE_lyVKRQ

[pilowsky]

 kenberg, on 2022-June-17, 07:00, said:

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.
Speaking of Warren Beatty - here he is discussing sexual activity with the Australian media.

[Chas_P]

 hrothgar, on 2022-June-17, 06:35, said:

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]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-17, 18:49, said:

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]

 barmar, on 2022-June-18, 11:06, said:

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]

 hrothgar, on 2022-June-18, 15:18, said:

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)

Scott Melzer said:

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]

 pilowsky, on 2022-June-18, 19:22, said:

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]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-18, 19:30, said:

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]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-18, 18:54, said:

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]

 Chas_P, on 2022-June-18, 19:30, said:

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]

 Gilithin, on 2022-June-19, 03:45, said:

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]

Heather Cox Richardson said:

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.”

Quote

“[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://heathercoxri.../p/june-18-2022