Skip to main content

Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America is a gun nut.  For those who don't know, he and his crew think the NRA is too soft--and that's saying something.  But recently, he revealed something else.  He's OK with our lawmakers having to worry about some yayhoo shooting them.

On Sunday, Pratt dropped by WLW in Cincinnati to have a chat with Bill Cunningham--whom you may know as the guy who warmed up a crowd for John McCain by finding nearly every way in the book to insult Obama and Hillary.  Pratt mentioned that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be a restraint against government abuse--and used the occasion to tell a story about a congresswoman who admitted she was afraid that a GOA member lobbying her would pull a gun and shoot her where she stood.

Cunningham: Larry Pratt of Gun Owners, why does the media have such a bias against the Second Amendment?

Pratt: They, I think they might understand what it’s real purpose is. And its real purpose is to serve as a restraint on government abuse. And since they want to be involved in government abuse, they kind of take it personally, I think. The Second Amendment is intended for people just like them  –  or perhaps we could say, like Piers Morgan – those who were born to rule and we were born to be ruled. And for us to have guns kind of upsets that order of things that they think ought to be. So I think they take it very personally.

I was told of a conversation that one of our members had had with a member of Congress. And he was lobbying on a gun issue, but he was, I knew the guy well enough to know that almost certainly he was mild-mannered, he was just explaining our position. And apropos of nothing, the congressman – congresswoman, actually – said, ‘You want to shoot me, don’t you.’

Well, that’s probably a healthy fear for them to have, even though that’s not the guy’s – he wasn’t saying anything about that, it wasn’t in his demeanor. But you know, I’m kind of glad that’s in the back of their minds. Hopefully they’ll behave.

People for the American Way got a clip at SoundCloud (sorry, it won't embed).  

Apparently it suits Pratt and his ilk just fine to have our lawmakers living in fear of being shot.  They may call this being patriotic--but saner people call this domestic terrorism.

Originally posted to Shut Down the NRA on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Now why on earth would any congresswoman (17+ / 0-)

    assume somebody would just walk up and shoot her?

    Oh. Well, besides that?

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:31:11 AM PST

  •  How come it took him so long (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jilikins

    to determine that "I knew the guy well enough " was actually a woman, unless he was making this all up?

    My children are the joy of my life

    by Tom Stokland on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:34:05 AM PST

  •  A healthy fear for them to have? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ichibon, Joy of Fishes, jilikins

    Hmmm... I would assume when our entire gun laws seem to be based on the racial fears of people like Larry Pratt, that's an unhealthy fear.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:15:31 AM PST

  •  I was having this exact conversation (9+ / 0-)

    when someone posted a diary about the whack jobs in Colorado wanting to remove then ban on CCW at city planning meetings.

    It's an intimidation tactic. As a matter of fact, the FBI classifies merely carrying a weapon on you as a level of force, especially one that can be seen.

    If you know that several people in a crowd are carrying a weapon, and you know that they are supporting a certain piece of legislation that that they are beyond passionate about, but you are steadfastly against it- don't you think having those guns in the crowd is going to, at the very least, give you pause?

    It's not about keeping the government at bay (rolling my eyes), it's about intimidating people, actively or passively, into doing what you want.

    You can get animals addicted to a harmful substance, you can dissect their brains, but you throw their own feces back at them, and suddenly you're unprofessional. -Amy Farrah Fowler/The Big Bang Theory -7.50, -5.03

    by dawgflyer13 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:11:59 AM PST

    •  I agree. The discussion is coming up more and more (5+ / 0-)

      in CA because of a suit on permitting concealed carry.

      I know enough crazy types to know that intimidation is at the top of the list in terms of how they operate and I want no part of it.

      And while we're at it, let me mix in something I have been chewing on for a while regarding religious discrimination.  Apply that to guns.

      If a Quaker owns a business and doesn't want guns in their  place of business (which has nothing to do with descrimination of a PERSON per se, rather an object silimar to no shit, no shoes...) would the right support that?

      Would WE support that?

      The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

      by cany on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:29:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any business owner can prohibit guns in their (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cany, jilikins, DavidMS

        place of business. They can put a sign on the door that guns aren't allowed. It does not require any new legislation.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:34:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. But I posed the question to speak to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jilikins

          the hypocrisy of the right. They have little interest in Quakers, Mennonites, etc. I presume.

          And the question is meant for the left, as well. Do you think that groups who want to be able to carry regardless of legislation will just leave this alone?  I dunno if they will or won't, but would be surprised if they did.

          The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

          by cany on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:42:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But sometimes it has to be a very special sign (6+ / 0-)
          But ironically, legislators have used detail-laden regulation to stymie business owners' rights to prohibit guns on their premises.

          In Texas, people are free to bring guns into private businesses, such as loaded long guns (no permit required) or concealed handguns (for permit holders).

          In Texas, what a lot of well-meaning entrepreneurs probably don't know is that their gun-prohibiting sign must be a special sign. To prohibit guns inside a business, one must post a sign that's compliant with Texas Statute 30.06. This statute spells out such onerous items as detailed verbiage, dual language and even font requirements (where a simple, universal illustration would surely suffice).
          http://www.chron.com/...

          The article goes on to explain that RKBA activists have a web site where they track posted signs that are not 110% in compliance on all aspects, and encourage their group to "bring gun intimidation to places such as (to name a few listed on the website) the San Antonio Children's Museum, the Houston Red Cross building and, yes, Chuck E. Cheese restaurants and hospitals."

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:48:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yikes! (3+ / 0-)

            The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

            by cany on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:22:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  See diaries by wjhamilton29464 about SC's new law, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i saw an old tree today

              e.g. http://www.dailykos.com/...
              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              It's even more farcical -- and yet it's now law in SC:

              SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.

              (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

              (B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

                (1) clearly visible from outside the building;

                (2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

                (3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

                (4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

                (5) a diameter of a circle; and

                (6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

              (C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:

                (1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;

                (2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

                (3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;

                (4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;

                (5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

              •  Wow. Surely there is some sign company (0+ / 0-)

                that actually sells these according to "code"?

                My sign would simple say.... No damn guns of any kind in this here establishment.  And that means YOU. (and okay, I could use the gun/circle/slash...)

                I would be so in violation.

                The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

                by cany on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:19:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  We have plenty of standardized signs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru

            Imagine if every state and municipality had their own standard for road and highway signage.  Or if some "No Smoking" signs did not have the crossed out cigarette had a crossed out pipe or cigar?

            Likewise, other signs are standardized like Hazmat signs.  It really helps to know what's in the container without needing to know every chemical name and hazard.  

            The same argument can be made for the federally required notices to employees that employers must post.  You can buy labor law compliant posters without difficulty.  

            30-06 is not complicated.  Most business owners should be able to figure it out from reading the Wikipeida article.  

            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

            by DavidMS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:44:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sheesh- I know... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cany, Sharon Wraight

        One of the reasons I move to Cali from NC was Cali's strict gun laws and now....  

        But VCLib is right, any person can prohibit the carrying of firearms onto their property (with the exception of LE), they just need to post a sign.

        You can get animals addicted to a harmful substance, you can dissect their brains, but you throw their own feces back at them, and suddenly you're unprofessional. -Amy Farrah Fowler/The Big Bang Theory -7.50, -5.03

        by dawgflyer13 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:39:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you think that's legally challengeable? (0+ / 0-)

          And yeah, I'm very disappointed that CA is now in the cross hairs.

          The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

          by cany on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:43:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cany, Sharon Wraight

            but that's a good question.  I am not sure who would support it though, it being "religious freedom" and all...

            You can get animals addicted to a harmful substance, you can dissect their brains, but you throw their own feces back at them, and suddenly you're unprofessional. -Amy Farrah Fowler/The Big Bang Theory -7.50, -5.03

            by dawgflyer13 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:07:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No I meant, the current situation of, apparently, (0+ / 0-)

              where business owners can chose and post not to have guns inside.

              Is that going to be challenged do you think?

              The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

              by cany on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:21:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  There is no suit on concealed cary (5+ / 0-)

        there is a suit that the plaintiffs won regarding the requirements to be issues a concealed handgun permit.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:36:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  dawgflyer13, I am very interested.... (2+ / 0-)

      ... in this statement:

      As a matter of fact, the FBI classifies merely carrying a weapon on you as a level of force, especially one that can be seen.
      Do you know more about this?
    •  Yeah but the FBI also classifies anyone paying (0+ / 0-)

      with cash a terrorist.

      "You know you're a terrorist if..."

      Included in that list if you believe in privacy, If you have more than 7 days of food in your house, if you believe the constitution must be followed, if you're a libertarian, if you buy electronic parts, etc.

      The FBI's opinion isn't law, it's criminal.

      Andthe Supreme Court has made it clear that the mere carrying of a weapon is not evidence of any crime.

      If someone is intimidated because another American exercises a right they don't agree with, it's time that person grew up and I'd strongly suggest they get exposure to firearms.  It's human nature to fear the unknown.

      Personally, you know what I fear?  Our armed LEO, they can summarily execute me with impunity. Making up some excuse that I yelled, "death to cops" or be "investigated" by themselves and "their actions being found to be reasonable". The guy down the street will be caught and prosecuted.

      Police have killed more Americans than soldiers whom have died in the Iraq war.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:07:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And... (0+ / 0-)

    ....where is our over-muscular anti-terrorism establishment?

    Is his organization subject to eavesdropping by the FBI?  Have secret NSLs been served on his Internet provider?  Did the NSA put them on their list of suspect phone numbers and email addresses?

    In other words, why is this organization still being allowed to operate?  They are unabashedly a domestic terror organization.  Or does being an angry white guy of below average intelligence exempt you from being charged for anything?

  •  But, but, but (3+ / 0-)
    a healthy fear for them to have
    I've been told repeatedly that there should be no reason for people to feel intimidated by those bearing arms.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:38:56 AM PST

  •  No, we have a problem with guns... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandra Lynch

    Because everytime you psychos lose an election you threaten to overthrow the government. If you are going to act like children then perhaps letting you own weapons isn't a good idea.  

    •  Isn't that what just happened in the Ukraine? (0+ / 0-)

      I do believe so.

      Hey, but our SOS, Kerry went right in and took photo ops with the newly appointed leaders, in a vain attempt to legitimize their standing.  As per the leaked phone conversations we found out about.

      So, with these facts on the table.  I must ask:  When can the people rise up and overthrow their criminal government?

      At what point do you believe force is justified by the citizens?

      The Ukraine had lawful elections and a duly elected President yet still violently overthrew their government.  When would Americans be justified in doing so?

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 06:21:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You see today's gun nuts as freedom fighters? (0+ / 0-)

        Because all I see are a bunch of sore losers threatening to kill people at the drop of a hat the moment they don't get their way. The issue isn't guns themselves so much as the people who have them. These guys take Fox and Limbaugh at face value. They aren't fighting corruption, they are fighting FOR it.

        Threatening to set up your own compound in the middle of nowhere just because an election didn't go your way is not my idea of fighting a corrupt government. It's my idea of being a bigot and not wanting to deal with other people who aren't like you. And BTW, we already have a corrupt government and the gun nuts are voting for them. What's gonna happen when we get a president Hillary or a president Warren and all of a sudden some town in Arkansas decides it no longer wants to be part of the United States anymore?

        Part of protecting yourself from a corrupt government is education and understanding who is really working for you and who isn't and I'm not convinced the guys talking about "second amendment solutions" understand that. It's not a coincidence these same guys hold up bibles with the other hand. By the look of it, that "free" country they are fighting for has no place for anyone who isn't like them.

        •  Thanks, you really didn't answer the question (0+ / 0-)

          it seems.

          The people in the Ukraine have done exactly what you're claiming these idiots want to do.  

          They didn't like the results of their own elections and stormed the castle. Only to install the more criminals but now ones that will be controlled by the US.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 11:29:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what is the alternative? (0+ / 0-)

            Arm everyone? Live in the wild west? Part of the problem is too many guns to begin with.

            •  Really??? Tell the Supreme Court that. (0+ / 0-)

              We've never left the wild west.

              The Police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone.

              A gun doesn't make me violent.  How I'm raised, what I'm taught and how I chose to live, does.

              We have to move past the manipulations and propaganda and teach our children non-violent dispute resolution techniques.  We have to teach them critical logical thinking and then we have to live peacefully ourselves.

              As yet, we've failed horribly.  How you act is how your children will act.  You can ban guns tomorrow, next year you'll be banning knives, the year after that it will be clubs, then rocks, then whatever else man can use to harm another person with.  Fix the human and the problem will be solved permanently.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 10:17:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I would clarify (4+ / 0-)

    Larry Pratt is a right wing nut.  If you rapture every gun out out of existence with a giant magnet in the sky, Larry will still be a right wing nut.  

    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

    by DavidMS on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 10:34:13 AM PST

  •  Sadly I think Mr. Pratt is mistaken. (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  They're all sofa samurai. (0+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:05:34 PM PST

  •  Heiligefliegendekindersheisse! (0+ / 0-)

    "The Gun Lobby says we need guns to protect ourselves from
    the present government. Heiligefliegendekindersheisse! Have they looked at the fuckin' government lately? To protect ourselves against the fuckin' current government, each citizen needs at least 1700 tactical nuclear weapons, at least 100 earth-to-air missiles, 50,000 flame throwers, 10,000 grenade launchers, and at least a hundred times as many assault weapons as the NRA now owns, plus biological and chemical (viral) weaponry.

    Maybe instead of going to war with Washington, when they have us totally outgunned, we should try outsmarting the bastards?"

    --- Robert Anton Wilson, TSOG, 2002.

    (The numbers are even bigger now, but the conclusion is the same.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site