Larry Pratt Gun Nut Extraordinaire on Hardball

[PA Democrat]

Larry Pratt who is the Director of Gun Owners of America advocates arming teachers, principals, school janitors and says that the people who banned guns in schools "have blood on their hands." Then he goes on to make some even crazier statements about needing guns to control our government. Listen to his statements. This guy's extremist statements need to go viral.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#50230330

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. I find it amazing

that these fools think just anyone is capable of killing another human being. Or that every parent wants their child sitting in a classroom with a teacher emotionally prepared to kill someone.

[locks]

2. On UTube

Just saw that this crazy rant is on UTube. Wow, he almost makes the NRA sound reasonable!

[earthside]

3. The gun is a god to these people.

Really.

They clearly believe that the gun has some kind of mysterious, magical power to punish all evildoers if the 'righteous' can only get their hands on one.

Contrast this with the religious right nuts who have no explanation for why their omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Jesus abandoned those little children in that school.

[PA Democrat]

4. Pratt is an insecure, inadequate, frightened poor excuse for a man.

He needs to be able to threaten politicians with a violent death if they fail to acknowledge him. What a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Real men don't need to wave their big bad guns around to show how manly they are.

[Dokkie]

5. That wasn't how I saw him

He looked very confident, calm and articulate and also I didnt see him waving anything around.

Lastly, I will like to know why you think the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution? I have read a lot of these gun thread comments and noticed that even the pro gun people here think it for the ability to hunt game with our guns

[PA Democrat]

6. For the same reason the framers allowed the trade of human beings (slavery)

in Article 1 Section 9. They lived in a different world.

I disagree with your description of Pratt as "confident, calm, articulate" He's a wacko who is threatening to KILL democratically elected representatives if HE feels they do not represent HIM. Big man has to wave around the threat of assassination to "persuade" politicians. He cannot do it by the power of his words alone. If you admire that, I feel sorry for you.

[Dokkie]

7. The same people

Also gave us the bill of rights, the 1st amendments, 4th amendments etc. So yes, they got 1 thing wrong and it has been corrected. The problem we have now is that this would have to be corrected first, but as we speak right now, the 2nd amendment is there to stop a tyrannical govt. Hunting is just extra

I don't care for Larry Pratt, the NRA or whatever pro gun lobby there is, what I care about is the 2nd amendment with the original intent of it seeing as am not a hunter or target shooter.

[PA Democrat]

8. I disagree with your interpretation of the intent of the 2nd amendment.

It's always best to take into consideration events of the time.....

But what does the Second Amendment actually say? Here it is, in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


By lopping off the first half of the sentence, the pro-gun lobby and its apologists have eliminated the Founders’ rationale for this amendment: That those who bore arms did so as members of a well-regulated militia. This was never a license for freelance vigilantism.


Just months before the Constitution was forged, our new nation endured Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-7, in which a militia had to be called out in Massachusetts to suppress an uprising against the government’s fiscal policies before order was restored. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to subdue violent dissent, not enhance it. At the time, we hardly had an army to speak of, so the safest way to ensure the security of the federal and state governments against subversion was “a well-regulated militia.” It derives from Article One of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Second Amendment says nothing about administering personal justice or taking the law into one’s own hands.


One of the ironies of its deification by the current Supreme Court is that Justice Antonin Scalia, a self-styled “originalist,” has ignored the historical context and the clear intent of the Founders in providing legalistic cover for the gun lobby.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html