Had to steal an Uncleism for the title. A few days ago Weer’d noted that he heard Larry on a local radio show blasting Congresswoman Giffords for her position on the Second Amendment. That struck me as a bit tasteless, given the circumstance. I asked him to find a recording, and he has managed to do that.
But listening to the whole thing in context, I don’t think what he said about Giffords was all that tasteless, because the host asked him about her record. I was more appalled by his speculation about what party the dead folks belonged to:
“There was at least one guy who was a Republican that was killed, and that was the federal judge. But the others we might presume could have been Democrats… don’t know.”
The host cut him off at this point, which is probably lucky for Larry. I don’t know where he was going with that, but I’m betting it wasn’t good.Â Other classy moments?
“Your [Carolyn McCarthy’s] solution is to leave us all victims, the way your husband was. He was in a gun free zone when he was mowed down by Colin Furgeson.”
I don’t like the woman’s politics either, but I’m not too keen on using her dead husband to make a point, along with the reminder that he was “mowed down.” It’s one thing to think it. It’s another thing to say it on a public forum, while you’re speculating on what to tell her. This is the kind of stuff I expect on Internet forums, not from a self-professed leader in the pro-gun movement.
12 thoughts on “Larry Prattling”
I was willing to make nice and live-and-let-live with GOA until I heard this.
He made his motives crystal clear.
“I donâ€™t like the womanâ€™s politics either, but Iâ€™m not too keen on using her dead husband to make a point, along with the reminder that he was â€œmowed down.â€ Itâ€™s one thing to think it. Itâ€™s another thing to say it on a public forum, while youâ€™re speculating on what to tell her.”
I must respectfully disagree. This is exactly what this particular person needs to hear. Her Husband was in a designated victum zone. A place where people who are looking for a high body count in their spectacular suicide go because there is practically guaranteed to be no interference until the cops arive. WE know how may rounds can go down range in a few minutes even with the most rudementary of firearms. Even ones with no shoulder thing to go up. She SHOULD know, first hand, how little safety there is in this world. Wackos are out there and there is no predicting where they will strike next. Her husband was stripped of the means, and therefore the right, to defend himself and his child. That is why we fight for our rights, and the rights of others. It is one thing to choose to be helpless, and quite another to be forced to be so. In this case, She is the one trying to push the laws that force this helplessness onto others.
Larry is the “embarrassing” part of the “Embarrassing 2nd Amendment.”
Maybe this doesn’t make sense, because it’s sort of a gut instinct. I haven’t thought this out too much. But here’s an explanation of my issue with the McCarthy quote:
If he had actually said that, to her, not in a public place, I’d have less of an issue with it. Because I agree she’s misplacing grief. I have more of an issue with bringing that up in the form of a public debate. Granted, she does that… but there’s always a bit of a double standard with things like this that can’t be avoided.
If my mother had died of lung cancer, and smoked, it would generally be fine, socially, for me to say that my mother should have really quit smoking, and she was careless in her choice to continue doing so. If someone else says it, it would be considered to be in poor taste. That’s just the way people are programmed it seems. I’m not sure it makes any sense intellectually.
There’s speaking the truth and there’s having some class and tact while doing so. Pratt comes across as an ass more often than not.
The same point could be made with a little less “mowing down” and a little more perceivable sympathy by saying something like “McCarthy’s solution would leave us all victims; just as defenseless as her husband and the other riders were on that horrible day in Long Island.”
Too many pro-2nd folks mistake being a tactless dick for being direct. They’re free to do so but it doesn’t help our cause.
As someone whose father did likely die of smoking-related health problems, it absolutely rubs me the wrong way when someone else speaks up about how he should or should not have lived his life. They don’t know anything about him or why he may have made the choices he did. I kind of get the same way when people assume that everyone should have been carrying a gun. It’s a personal choice, and not one I’m going to shove down someone’s throat one way or the other.
That said, I still absolutely believe that my dad had every right to make the decision to shove as many cigarettes as he wanted between his lips. Even though I fall on the side of freedom in this case, it doesn’t mean I want people using my family to make their point on either side. My siblings and I are the only ones who get to make that choice. If someone wants to have a private discussion about it, fine. But if they seize his name in a public forum, I’m going to be pissed, even if they are on my side.
How about something like this:
“I am sorry your husband was killed. I grieve with you. But I also believe that the only way to prevent tragedies like this is to have more good people armed and trained”.
Yes. Though, “I grieve with you,” is laying it on a bit thick.
Given that she politicized the personal tragedy as a springboard to a one-trick pony show in congress, I’m not so certain Pratt’s out of line here.
OTOH, there’s also the perception issue: McCarthy and her ilk will never have their minds changed, but how does this sort of rhetoric affect perceptions of the uninvolved?
Your OTOH is mostly what I’m concerned with. As I said, it’s generally socially acceptable for people to revel in their own tragedies. Not so much to others to revel in someone else’s tragedy. That’s actually the mistake our opponents have made with this shooting.
Two things: 1. I assumed when I read the news that the other victims would have been Democrats, simply because she was speaking at a political event and people are more likely to turn out for a politician of their own party. If she had been Republican or Libertarian, I would’ve assumed the victims had matched her as well. I was frankly surprised to hear that the judge was a Republican.
2. Larry was obviously not using the best sense or political savvy when making his statements, and he said things that aren’t normally said in polite company… But perhaps we need someone like him to hurt feelings once in a while. I think there’s a place for people like him, simply because most of us ARE too polite to say things nice and bluntly that need to be said.
Comments are closed.