'Great to be home': Trump shunned by nation's leader after arriving in Scotland
May 1, 2023, 9:14 AM ET
For customer support contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
Former gun company exec warns about the danger of growing radicalization in the industry
June 03, 2023
From the movie theater to the shopping mall, inside a church and a synagogue, through the grocery aisle and into the classroom, gun violence has invaded every corner of American life. It is a social epidemic no vaccine can stem, a crisis with no apparent end. Visual evidence of the carnage spills with numbing frequency onto TV shows and floods the internet. Each new shooting brings the lists of loved ones lost, the galleries of their smiling photos and the videos of the police response. And each mass shooting brings another surge of national outrage.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns became the leading killer of children in 2020, overtaking car crashes, drug overdoses and disease for the first time in the nation’s history. Yet as the one-year anniversary of the massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, passes, nagging questions loom.
Why haven’t lawmakers acted with forceful correctives? What will it take to regain a sense of safety? When will change happen? And how, exactly, did America end up here?
Ryan Busse, former executive at Kimber America, a major gun manufacturer, recently shared his thoughts on these questions with ProPublica. He was vice president of sales at Kimber America from 1995 to 2020 but broke with the industry and has become a gun safety advocate. He testified about mass shootings and irresponsible marketing last July in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and authored the book “Gunfight: My Battle Against the Industry That Radicalized America.”
In June 2021, he became a senior adviser for Giffords, a gun violence prevention group led by Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman gravely injured in 2011 during a mass shooting. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Where are we, as a nation, on guns? And where do you think we need to go?
I think we might be on the precipice of things getting much worse. I think this Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruling, quite possibly will unleash so many lawsuits against so many counted-upon regulations that citizens may wake up to the equivalent of, like, no stop signs in their town anymore, except for it’ll be on gun regulation. [The Bruen decision has been called one of the court’s most significant rulings on guns in decades. It struck down New York’s concealed carry law as unconstitutional, saying it conflicted with the Second Amendment.]
What do you attribute this trend to?
As I write in my book, there was a time not that long ago, maybe about 15 to 20 years ago, when the industry understood a sort of fragile social contract needed to be maintained on something as immensely powerful as the freedom to own guns. And so the industry didn’t do certain things. It didn’t advertise in egregiously irresponsible ways. It didn’t put, you know, growth, company growth, above all other things. There were just these unspoken codes of conduct the industry knew not to violate. And those seem to have broken down. And now it’s kind of a victory at all costs. And sadly, I think there’s a lot of cost.
What do you say to people who make the argument that guns are protected by the Second Amendment and that yes, a deranged person here or there may do something bad, but is it fair to punish or penalize law-abiding gun owners with unnecessary or extra government intervention?
I am a gun owner. I hunt and shoot with my boys. I want to continue doing that. I believe and I think that I have a right to do those things. On the other hand, I do not believe that right can exist without a commensurate amount of responsibility. And that responsibility either has to be voluntary or it has to be legislated.
I don't think universal background checks are an infringement. I just don’t buy that. I think it’s part of the responsibility of exercising this right. I don’t think strengthened red flag laws are in any way an infringement. I think that’s what we must do as responsible citizens. I don’t think that controlling irresponsible marketing is an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. In fact, I think it’s our responsibility to do it. I think there’s a small thread of truth in the position you portray, but democracies function in a sort of carefully balanced gray area. And I think our balance in the country right now is way, way off.
Are there others in the gun industry who share your view?
There were people who agreed with everything I said before the sort of radical shifts started to happen in about 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. But, you know, as with most things, when you earn a paycheck from something, you’re likely to be greatly influenced by it. And so, over time, most of the people in the industry have either converted to a true belief in the sort of radicalized Second Amendment absolutism that now I think is very dangerous, or they have just left the industry. There is only a place for complete, 100% devotion.
What caused the radicalization?
It was a combination of factors. After Columbine in 1999, the National Rifle Association in very well-publicized meetings now, thanks to sleuthing and digging by reporters at NPR, we now have tapes of the meetings where they literally said, are we going to be part of the solution here? Or maybe we can use these things to drum up hate and fear in our members? We might even be able to use them to drive membership. And they chose the latter. They perfected that system for about seven or eight years, getting their feet underneath them. They figured out it can drive politics. And then an explosion hit. That explosion was the future Black president leading in the polls in 2007. And then Barack Obama won in 2008. So you have this sort of uncapping of hate and conspiracy, much of it racially driven, that the NRA was tapping into. Prior to 2007, people in the United States never purchased more than 7 million guns in a single year. By the time Barack Obama left office, the United States was purchasing almost 17 million guns a year. And so I think it’s impossible to discount the degree to which Obama’s presidency lit this whole thing on fire.
When Trump was elected, there was what was called in the industry the “Trump Slump,” meaning since a Republican was elected, the fear of Obama was gone, and Hillary Clinton didn’t get elected. The sort of fear and conspiracy subsided, and sales stagnated for a little while because the industry and gun owners believed that the threat had passed. But with Trump, we experienced a whole new, never seen before level of fear, racism, hatred and conspiracy that culminated in 2020. In that year, you had George Floyd, COVID lockdowns, Black Lives Matter, Antifa protests and Kyle Rittenhouse. I mean, it’s the most tumultuous year any of us can remember with the most hatred and conspiracy and nastiness. None of us can remember a year like that. In that year, the United States consumers bought almost 23 million guns in a single year, more than three times as much as before Barack Obama took office.
Last year there was a rash of youth-related mass shootings. Uvalde comes to mind. The tragedy at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket comes to mind. How do race, conspiracy and these political headwinds you mention result in young people committing these massacres?
When those things happen, they’re not products of one particular event or series of events. They are the culmination of lots of turmoil in our society. And we’ve always had turmoil in our society, and every society has always had turmoil in it. What no other society has had is 425 million guns and this culture, on the right, that tells young men that to be real young men, they must purchase an AR-15 and go out and solve their problems. The industry 15 years ago would not even allow the AR-15 to be used or displayed at its own trade shows. I mean, they were locked up in a corner. You had to have military or police credentials to even go in there. Now, they’re spread around like crazy, and the marketing campaigns are so aimed at young men that in some ways, it’s not shocking that Uvalde or Buffalo or [the July 4 shooting at a parade in the Chicago suburb of] Highland Park, all three heinous crimes, all three committed with AR-15s, all by very young men. It’s not shocking to me that those happen; it’s shocking to me that they don’t happen every day.
What is more powerful in this country right now than social media advertising? And if it’s not so powerful, why do all the gun companies and the tactical gear companies maintain such polished social media accounts? Advertising is something that happens over time, and creates a perception and creates brands, and creates ways of thinking. And I think that certainly happened with the Buffalo shooter.
The Buffalo shooter wrote in his manifesto about perusing YouTube videos, social media accounts, all the places where tactical gear — which are some of the most egregiously advertised items in the firearms industry right now, bulletproof vests, helmets, gloves, all things that weren’t marketed at all 20 years ago. He studied very carefully what bulletproof vest to wear, what tactical gear to wear, he used the exact same gun that was used in Sandy Hook, the Bushmaster XM-15, the same gun that was advertised in [Remington Arms’] man card campaign that told young men: “You don’t have a man card if you don’t have one of these rifles. And you do have a man card if you do have one of them.”
Now, can you draw a direct line from that ad to those two shooters? I don’t know that you can draw a direct line, but I think you could damn sure draw an obtuse line. I mean, two young men who, obviously, I mean, come on, like, that’s not a mistake. And if advertising doesn’t matter, then why are they doing it?
What are the fixes? Are there any fixes?
What did Winston Churchill say? “Americans will eventually do the right thing.” And I think we may be in for more ugliness before we do the right thing. Some of that will be demanding that the Supreme Court not apply foolish originalist reasoning to instances like this. So part of that will be demanding that either through public pressure or through eventually, in the long game, replacing those justices with ones who don’t believe that way.
The other thing is, we’re going to have to, as a society, just rise up and demand responsibility, the same kind of responsibility that the industry that I worked in once imposed on itself.
You know, I tell the story that 15, 20 years ago, the industry named guns like the Smith & Wesson 629 or the Remington 870 because you had [industry] attorneys that knew that even the names of guns could be important. They could encourage people to do irresponsible things. And so you’d never wanted to even name things that might encourage bad things to happen. Now we have a gun called the Wilson Urban Super Sniper. I mean, what are you supposed to do with that? We now have a gun called the Ultimate Arms Warmonger. What are you supposed to do with that? We now have an AR-15 company called Rooftop Arms, as in when you don’t get what you want, you vote from the rooftops. And what happened in Highland Park? A kid got up and killed people from a rooftop. You see the old self-imposed responsibility; those old norms of behavior have been just completely trashed.
So we can, as a society, demand reinstatement of those norms. Those have nothing to do with laws. They don’t require legislation. They don’t require two-thirds of the vote in the Senate. We can demand that. And we may have to.
Justin Cooper, chief of operations at Rooftop Arms, told ProPublica the business name stems from the origins of founders and is in no way related to “voting from the rooftops,” past events or political causes, or views.
ProPublica contacted Remington Arms and Bushmaster for comment but didn’t receive a response.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
'Sharply incriminating': ex-federal prosecutor explains how Jack Smith has upper hand in docs probe
June 02, 2023
Donald Trump's criminal intent in the classified documents investigation won't be difficult to prove if Jack Smith does have a copy of the audio in which the former president admits to possessing military plans and discussing them with others.
If special counsel Smith has the audio, which purportedly includes an admission that he knew he couldn't just instantly declassify documents and was first reported by CNN, that could mean a lot, according to former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner. Kirschner.
Appearing on MSNBC on Friday night, Kirschener was asked by host Ali Velshi if the audio recording actually provides help in the area of criminal intent. Kirschener said it's important to remember that "everything you say is admissible in the court of public opinion" but not in a court of law.
"Guess what? Prosecutors get to introduce at a trial any statement they want that Donald Trump made," he said. "Because under the rules of evidence, it is a statement of a party opponent. They will surgically introducing statements."
IN RELATED NEWS: Here’s why the Trump tape puts the former president in serious legal jeopardy: report
The same doesn't go for Trump's side, Kirschener added.
"Donald Trump's lawyers are prohibited, under the rules of evidence, from introducing any of Donald's out of court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted," he said. "So when we see these statements, conflicting statements from Donald Trump, prosecutors will exploit them by presenting the jury one statement where Donald Trump said I declassified everything with my mind, or automatically when I took them with me."
Watch the video below or at the link:
CONTINUE READING
Show less
The blockbuster CNN report earlier this week that federal prosecutors are in possession of an audio recording of Donald Trump in which he admits to keeping a classified document describing a potential attack on Iran, could have major legal implications for the former president, The Bulwark reports.
According to the CNN report, Trump is heard on the recording suggesting that, although he wishes to share the information, he’s aware that as a former president he can’t declassify them, multiple sources told the cable news channel, indicating he understood he was in possession of classified material.
Kim Wehle writes for the Bulwark that, if reports of the recording are true, it could provide compelling evidence for special counsel Jack Smith, who took over two sprawling investigations of the former president; the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Smith in the Mar-a-Lago case will have to prove what in legal circles is called “mens rea,” which is Latin for proof of a guilty mind.
Wehle writes that “Smith’s team would have to prove in some fashion that Trump acted willfully, knowingly, or intentionally and not just out of hubris, ignorance, or neglect in taking the materials and then repeatedly blowing off the FBI. In general, prosecutors can prove mens rea using circumstantial evidence, which relies on inferences. But direct evidence is better.”
Wehle notes the typical example of indirect evidence would be determining whether it had been raining through inference.
“The Bedminster audio recording, if authentic, is of the direct kind—it presumably reflects Trump’s own words in his own voice expressing his knowledge or belief that he possessed classified information, that he isn’t supposed to share it, and that he does not have the authority anymore to declassify it,” Wehle writes.
“Coupled with his preposterous public talking point that ‘If you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying ‘it’s declassified,’ even by thinking about it,’ the audiotaped meeting suggests that Trump knew he had stuff that he had no legal authority to have.”
Wehle believes the audio may provide the “mens rea.”
IN OTHER NEWS: Another blow to DeSantis: Disney tourism numbers expected to be unaffected by his crusade
“Given how cavalier Trump is about saying the quiet stuff out loud (his town hall attacks on E. Jean Carroll after her $5 million jury verdict produced a request for even more punitive damages), it would be surprising if, Lordy, there aren’t more tapes out there,” Wehle writes.
“So far, the Mar-a-Lago scandal hasn’t weakened Trump’s hold on the GOP base. But as Carroll’s case showed, juries are different. Assuming the reports about this audio recording are accurate, it seems ever more likely that Trump will be held to account, and the American public will have its day in court.”
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}