You really should read this short article by The Political Animal‘s Martin Longman which discusses the implications of the Missouri legislature’s override of Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656 (deregulated “constitutional” carry)> and the Voter ID (voter suppression) bill. As Longman sees it, this type of legislation is dangerous in more than the obvious ways :

I could go into more detail on the merits and pitfalls of both bills, but I’d rather focus on the message they send. In making it much harder to vote at the same time that they make it much easier to carry a firearm, the Missouri GOP is inviting the conclusion that political disputes are best settled (and perhaps can only be settled) with violence.

That might sound extreme, but using the legislature and referendums to enact unconstitutional restrictions of your political opponents’ power is delegitimizing to representative government and therefore eats away at the consent of the governed. What you’re saying is that we need less democracy, less dissent, and more guns. It’s almost a recognition that, in undermining the legitimate governmental function of the state, you’ll need to arm yourself for protection.

I agree with Longman, and would suggest that what we see in this spate of increasingly extreme and weakly justified gun proliferation and voter suppression laws is part of the same phenomena that includes both the destructive, fantastical rhetoric and the hitherto unimaginable levels of legislative obstructionism on the part of Republican politicians.

These strategies are employed as tools by elected officials, often to further the goals of wealthy interests , the Citizens United crowd, who now expect to freely purchase government, and who saw the election of Barack Obama as antithetical to that end – and who view Hillary Clinton as the same type of threat. Combine that impetus with the latent racism stimulated by the election of the first black president, and you’ve got the situation that Longman describes, “when people lose faith in the ballot box and turn to the gun” in order to “arrest the march of history.”

Given the pervasive emphasis on guns in recent elections, there seems to be a lot of such people in Missouri. As we have seen, it has been fertile ground for the NRA. And, given recent state-level polls, not a bad place for growing Trumpkins.

Jason Kander (D) – Warrensburg – August 14, 2016.

Jason Kander’s (D) U.S. Senate campaign released an ad today titled “Background Checks”:

[Jason Kander][wearing a blindfold, disassembled rifle]

Jason Kander (D): [assembling rifle] I’m Jason Kander and Senator Blunt has been attacking me on guns. Well, in the Army I learned how to use and respect my rifle. In Afghanistan I’d volunteer to be an extra gun in a convoy of unarmored SUVs. And in the state legislature I supported Second Amendment rights. I also believe in background checks so that terrorists can’t get their hands on one of these. I approve this message [assembled rifle, removes blindfold] because I’d like to see Senator Blunt do this.

[Jason Kander for U.S. Senate]

[Paid for by Missourians for Kander, Approved by Jason Kander]

Devastating.

This ad was made possible by an environment where the republican gubernatorial nominee, Eric Greitens (also a veteran) ran ads of himself firing a minigun and shooting at an exploding target. This ad is probably the one Eric Greitens (r) should have run.

There is a difference – Jason Kander definitely knows guns, he also knows he doesn’t have to expend ammunition to make his point.

Jason Kander (D) [2016 file photo]

A veteran’s PAC is making a big media buy in Missouri in support of Jason Kander’s campaign for the U.S. Senate.

John Hussey, Iraq Veteran, St. Louis, MO.: Jason Kander could have gone anywhere after law school. [Jason Kander] He chose here, Afghanistan.

[Roy Blunt Attack Ads] Now, Roy Blunt is trying to smear his record. Well, Senator, let’s talk about your record. You lied to Missouri.

[Fox News: Questions Raised Over Blunt’s Vietnam-era Deferments 2/11/16] You didn’t level with us about your draft history.

You even voted against increasing veterans benefits for guys like me. [Voted Against Increasing Veterans Benefits Vote 46 2/27/14]

Senator Blunt, remember this. Jason Kander had our backs over there. Now we’ve got his.

[Paid for by VoteVets, VoteVets.org, Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. VoteVets is responsible for the content of this advertising]

[Roy Blunt 20 Years Is Long Enough]

VoteVets is responsible for the content of this advertising.

The Press Release from the VoteVets PAC:

[….]
VOTEVETS PAC LAUNCHES $400,000 TV AD BUY FOR JASON KANDER
Ad features Iraq War Veteran Standing Up for Kander, Against Roy Blunt’s Attacks
 
SPRINGFIELD  – VoteVets PAC is launching a $400,000 broadcast and cable buy, today, featuring an Iraq War Veteran standing up for Democratic candidate for Senator, Jason Kander, while calling into question Roy Blunt’s sketchy record on his own draft record, and record on veterans’ issues.
 
[….]

The initial ad buy is $400,000 broadcast and cable, in the Springfield market, but VoteVets says it is planning an expansion of the buy.
 
Founded in 2006, the mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans to public office, with a focus on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century troops and veterans. Though VoteVets.org PAC is non-partisan, candidates it backs must support VoteVets.org’s core mission and beliefs.
 

###

[emphasis in original]

This morning in west central Missouri:

Ground fog at sunrise.

This morning is west central Missouri:

Sunrise. F 5.6, 1/100, ISO 400, 55 mm. Panorama stitched from seven frames.

I implied in an earlier post earlier today that havoc (or some related type of unpleasantness if you find “havoc” too hyperbolical) might ensue if our elected officials decide to ignore the preferences of most of their constituents and override Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656, legislation that would largely deregulate gun ownership as well as decriminalize impulsive gun violence via a stand-your-ground provision. I quoted reports that the NRA views this legislation as a big stakes issue, a reasonable stance since the organization’s purpose is to lobby for the gun industry’s bottom line and widespread adoption of legislation like SB656 would surely promote that goal.

But who else stands to gain? How does the NRA and their favored politicians get so many every day, never-gonna-get-rich-off-guns citizens to take the bait?

The key to that question might lie in a consideration of some jaw-dropping remarks that Kentucky’s Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, made yesterday. Bevin implied that, in the words of TPM’s Allegra Kirkland, “there will be a bloody clash between ‘tyrants’ and ‘patriots’ if Hillary Clinton wins this year’s presidential election”:

I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically,” the tea party politician said in a Saturday speech at the Values Voters Summit, an annual gathering of religious conservatives. “But that may, in fact, be the case.”

Bevin said he was asked in a recent if the nation could “survive” a Clinton presidency, and he responded that it would be “possible” but at a great “price.”

“The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what?” Bevin continued. “The blood, of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren.”

Bevin tried to soften the impact of these words later, but we’ve heard them before. They’re the meat and potatoes of much of the 2nd amendment crowd, especially the well-armed patriot militias – which have proliferated in Missouri as in many red states after the election of the first black president.

And if we are to believe reports, the image of violent revolution that these words elicit reflect the paranoia, anger and racial anxiety that fuels many  Trump supporters. Trump’s advisor, Roger Stone, echoed the theme as he reinforced a Trump campaign effort to delegitimize a potential Clinton presidency by suggesting a conspiracy to “rigg” the election:

“If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government,” Stone said. He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempt to “steal” the election.”

Another word for this projected bloodbath? “Civil war,” “treason,” “sedition,” “subversion,” “mutiny,” or just run of the mill “criminal,” as in the Bundys’ armed takeover of a nature preserve in Oregon – you choose.

Essential ingredient for such a bloodbath? Guns.

What kind of people poke at the sore spots of poorly informed rightwing hysterics for personal and political gain? Could they be deplorables?