search
top

21-22 Years Old? College Student? Got a LTC?

Peter Hamm says you might want to consider dropping out of college if you don’t like the fact that you can’t carry on campus.

57 Responses to “21-22 Years Old? College Student? Got a LTC?”

  1. Dano says:

    Yea, otherwise you’d scare the Liberal Arts majors.
    (hmm… snark mode must be on).

  2. Peter Hamm says:

    aw, you guys. you are SO easy to get under the skin of. Go to the Rathskellar and have a beer.

  3. Sebastian says:

    You offering to buy Peter? :)

  4. random says:

    Doesn’t it seem unacademic to tell someone that if they have a different viewpoint such as being pro-freedom they should leave?

  5. BobG says:

    “Doesn’t it seem unacademic to tell someone that if they have a different viewpoint such as being pro-freedom they should leave?”

    Not under left-wing acadamics…

  6. Sebastian says:

    I’m still waiting to hear whether Peter is offering to buy us some drinks at Brickskeller in DC. And I’m pretty sure that’s Brickskeller, not Rathskeller. But I wouldn’t expect the Brady folks to be all that familiar with the DC bar scene these days. I mean, considering their losses lately, I would say they aren’t doing too much wining and dining of politicians. Just taking Ted Kennedy out to the Brickskeller for one night could be enough to cause Brady to have to let Zach go, you know :)

  7. Peter Hamm says:

    Sure, Sebastian! I’ll buy. We can toast President-Elect Clinton.

  8. Sebastian says:

    *grin* Well, hopefully that’ll never happen.

  9. Sebastian says:

    Plus, haven’t you heard Peter? Hilly is our best friend now.

  10. SayUncle says:

    So, petey, any luck talking Fenty out of pressing Heller?

  11. Peter Hamm says:

    Let’s keep this civil. Don’t call me Petey. Or I’ll have to shoot you.

  12. SayUncle says:

    And we’re the violent ones, right petey?

  13. Pretty sure Pete was joking :).

    But I do think the point stands–people who want to defend themselves shouldn’t be told they should leave their education behind in order to do so.

  14. SayUncle says:

    “Pretty sure Pete was joking ”

    Probably. But I’m just practicing my humorless scaremongering. Who did I learn that from?

  15. straightarrow says:

    No, but people who don’t want to defend the founding principles of the nation should drop out. That means you, Petey.

    There are myriad places you can go that already have your proposed system in place. Go, enjoy yourself. I wish you all the best, somewhere else. Somewhere where their bedrock beliefs are in keeping with yours. This isn’t it.

    Why, when there are places that are the way you want them to be, do you insist on changing those places that are better?

  16. Molon Labe says:

    “Sure, Sebastian! I’ll buy. We can toast President-Elect Clinton.”

    Sebastian- You better buy the rounds. That is, unless you like drinking Schlitz from a can. I’ve heard that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership’s financial situation isn’t too stable lately.

  17. Jim W says:

    Threats of violence from my Brady Campaign? It’s more likely than you think!

  18. Jim W says:

    Also, I’d like to add that many of the students here at FSU Law have concealed carry permits. Quite a few are former military and/or law enforcement.

    How come it is perfectly safe for us to carry guns off campus or in service of our country, but when we step across a line in the pavement, we become dangerous criminals?

  19. Joe Huffman says:

    Typical behavior from a bigot. If you are the object of their bigotry, don’t “stay in your place”, or don’t show them the “proper respect” they will threaten to or actually hurt you.

  20. Mr. Bruce says:

    “Let’s keep this civil. Don’t call me Petey. Or I’ll have to shoot you.”

    Good evening, I’m Leonard Pinth Garnell. Welcome to Bad Owen Wister Rewrites.

  21. straightarrow says:

    Oh, and Petey, I’ve been shot twice. Neither of the people that did it, still think it was a good idea.

    So, let’s just pretend you didn’t really mean it.

  22. How come it is perfectly safe for us to carry guns off campus or in service of our country, but when we step across a line in the pavement, we become dangerous criminals?

    Why, because little Petey said so, and he knows what’s best for you. Know your role, peasant!

  23. jlb says:

    Peter Hamm, you are making terroristic threats on an interstate communications medium – making it a federal crime. Are you aware of the consequences of this?

    You should be arrested and charged.

  24. Joe Huffman says:

    Unfortunately, it could be very tough to prove it was actually Petey that left the comment.

    And of course it was a joke. But there was a great deal of projection in that comment too. It shows what he really thinks of us.

  25. dwlawson says:

    Can anyone say ‘zero tolerance?’ Good thing li’l Petey didn’t draw it out in crayon, then we’d have something for the cops to go on.

  26. Kristopher says:

    When Petey said “have to shoot you”, he really meant “have jackbooted thugs commanded by the politicians I support shoot you”.

    Murdering uppity peasants is so unpleasant … just have the hirelings take care of it.

  27. Kongman says:

    Gosh, Petey the Pistol(ero), I thought you wanted to end gun violence, not commit it. I guess the person you threatened to shoot has a valid reason for wanting to carry a gun everywhere he/she goes, including at school. It just wouldn’t be right for you to ambush said person leaving the school grounds knowing full well they aren’t allowed to carry a gun even w/ a permit there, would it?

  28. kaveman says:

    Morning Petey and all.

    In case you were unaware, Paul has fired Zach Ragbourn for daring to debate us on the BC blog(and telling a few easily discredited whoppers). Zach is now working as an aide for congresswoman Betty Sutton of Ohio. You can call and congratulate him on his new job at 202-225-3401. I already did.

    So Petey, when is the BC going to open up their own blog to comments? Don’t you want healthy debate?

    Quick question, Petey, If you’re going to shoot sayuncle, what will be your choice of firearm to do the dirty deed? You being a gun expert and all, I can’t wait to hear what type of firearms you own.

  29. Sebastian says:

    Fired? Or they ran out of money and had to let him go? Or did he leave on his own? And how do you know this and get his number? :)

  30. kaveman says:

    One quick question for Sebastion.

    I remember you saying a while back that Petey was actually a decent guy, just misguided. I wish I could believe that, but he has now threatened to murder an innocent person in a very public forum. Not only is this a federal crime which the FBI should pursue, it shows a very poor level of judgement.

    That being said, I’ll still let him buy me a beer, I just won’t ever turn my back on him. Does the BC pay you enough to be able to afford a round of drinks, Petey? Are we going to have to tolerate Schlitz?

  31. Sebastian says:

    Actually, looks like he’s press secretary for Betty Sutton. That’s a step up in the world for him. Are you sure he was fired? Either way, I’m glad to see he’s got a new gig.

  32. kaveman says:

    Sebastion:

    I tried calling Zach’s number from the BC site(or a link) and got some new guy who said that Zach “had moved on” and that he had taken Zach’s place. This means that the postition wasn’t cut from the budget. I forget his name now but when I said that I was trying to reach Zach and if there was anyway I could reach him, the guy told me he now works for Betty Sutton. I googled “zach ragbourn betty sutton” and several sites popped up where Zach’s new number is listed after a short bio for Sutton. I called and left him a message on friday says congrats and offered to buy him a beer if he was ever on the west coast.

    http://sutton.house.gov/news/story.cfm?id=78

  33. kaveman says:

    I do remember that Zach saying that he was never going to get rich working for the BC, so it’s possible he left on his own. I know I certainly urged him to do so. My feeling is that he was let go by Paul because he had the nerve to respond to our posts. Anyways, I’m glad I found this site and will be back.

  34. Sebastian says:

    I’d be willing to wager that he left on his own. Non-profit doesn’t pay as well, and Brady is losing money. Being a press secretary for a Congress Critter is move up the DC food chain for him. Sutton’s record on guns is pretty bad, so I’m sure we’ll be seeing Zach around on our issue in the future :)

  35. Sebastian says:

    My feeling is that he was let go by Paul because he had the nerve to respond to our posts. Anyways, I’m glad I found this site and will be back.

    I appreciate you coming to check things out. So it was just speculation then. I thought you had some bit of juicy inside information that I was not privy to!

  36. kaveman says:

    I hope everything works out for him, I do respect the fact that he at least tried to debate the issue. I also agree that the BC is losing money in a big way. I’m on the email action alert list and constantly recieve messages to donate. I even called the BC and told them that I would no longer donate any further funds to them(LOL) until they open up the comments section on Paul’s blog. The lady on the phone sounded dissappointed and said, “Oh, I see.”

    My main reason is that I just hate the format on Huff Post and only about half my posts ever appear. No profanity, no threats, they just dissappear in cyberspace. This website has a nice format tho and posts display instantly, nicely done. It’s also nice to finally find out where Peter rears his head, I’ve been sending him 6-7 emails a day for 2 months and he never responds. I guess Paul won’t give him permission.

  37. kaveman says:

    This was a big factor in my speculation.

    Posted by: Paul Helmke at 11:13 am on July 27, 2007
    Brady Blog updates
    In the coming weeks, we’ll be making some changes here at the Brady Blog.

    Some changes will happen behind the scenes as we manage our staff and technology. Others will be more visible. Please bear with us as we roll out the next phase of the Brady Blog.

    Translation: we’re going to shut down the blog and fire anyone who doesn’t lie so well.

  38. Sebastian says:

    It’s my personal hope that they all find employment elsewhere :)

    For the record, I highly doubt Paul is responsible for day to day operation of The Brady Campaign. He strikes me more as a good figurehead and spokesperson for the group than the guy that’s getting his hands dirty actually holding the operation together. I could be wrong, but that’s kind of how things go.

    Why are you sending Peter that many e-mails a day? I can think of much more productive ways to waste time.

  39. Bitter says:

    Kaveman,

    I’m calling bs on most of your comments related to Zach’s job. It’s really unfair to speculate, and by default with this type of assertion, make accusations about a person’s career when you have no information to back it up. Google will find your post when future employers look him up. Regardless of how you may disagree with him on the issue, it’s inappropriate.

    He’s obviously moved offices. Do you know how often that happens here in DC? Turnover is incredibly high here with people moving in and out of Congressional offices as their person wins/loses/stagnates, lobby shops, interest groups, trade associations, etc. It’s hard to say if his new position of Press Secretary is a move up without knowing a full list of responsibilities and salary, but I would generally assume it is. It’s only for the House, but that’s not too bad.

    And don’t assume that it wasn’t a budget issue just because someone else answered the phone. A) You typically aren’t paid that well compared to the corporate world, especially not compared to the lobby shops around here. B) Some years if a single fundraiser doesn’t go as well as they hope (which in his case wouldn’t likely be at all related to his job), most people won’t get raises. C) Never underestimate how cheap young labor is in DC. There’s a reason new aides will sometimes live with 5 roommates in a 2 or 3 bedroom place.

    You keep saying you have these feelings about what happened, but you have yet to provide one thing that would signal a reason for those feelings. As someone who actually works in non-profit in DC, I’d love to see what it is that’s driving these feelings which inspire you to make unfounded speculation which could hurt a person’s career.

  40. kaveman says:

    I’m sending emails to try to get them to open up the comments section on Paul’s blog. The format they have is quite good and I miss conversing with those I’ve gotten to know while posting there. The whole point of posting there was to dispute statements made on the BC site. Now I have to bounce around and cut and paste. All the fence sitters and lurkers could see for themselves what was a lie and what was the truth.

    Plus I ask Peter for his advice on whether I should purchase this firearm or that, which caliber he prefers, the best concealed carry piece, stuff like that. It makes me giggle. As for as being a waste of time, you are probably right. But it’s hard to give something up that makes me laugh. To be honest, I send far more emails to newspaper editorials who are totally ignorant of firearms and firearms laws. Still waiting to hear back from CNN about why they didn’t fire John Zarella back in 2003.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  41. Sebastian says:

    Well, it’s just beyond a certain point, they’ll make a filter for you. Which means no one ever gets to see it. It goes right to the bit bucket.

  42. kaveman says:

    Bitter:

    Go to the BC website and read the comments section for the last year. This is why I speculated that he was fired, and I do freely admit and apologize for speculating. But being 3000 miles from DC and getting no response from the BC, speculation is all I have.

    Sebastion has more insight and connection with the BC and so I tend to agree with him if he “feels” Zach left on his own. I already stated that I strongly urged Zach to leave the BC, find another job and such.

    As far as me hurting his career, I think you may be attributing more influence to me than I deserve. If I have done this in any small way, it certainly was not my intent.

  43. Sebastian says:

    Sebastion has more insight and connection with the BC and so I tend to agree with him if he “feels” Zach left on his own. I already stated that I strongly urged Zach to leave the BC, find another job and such.

    My connection with them is I’ve had Peter and Zach comment on this blog. Zach way back when I got started because a MySpace blog using Brady’s name smelled too fishy so I asked them about it. Peter’s here now, and I’ve seen him over on Bryan Miller’s blog.

    As for hurting his career, keep in mind that prospective employers don’t have much to go on, so even an unverifiable report could have a damaging effect, since there’s no real way for a prospective employer to get good information about someone in regards to past employment.

    I think it’s in our best interests if Brady people stay employable outside of the issue. Remember, we want them to be able to find other employment ;)

  44. kaveman says:

    Well said, again I apologize. Will refrain from speculation from now on. I agree that we want them to find alternative employment and I really did call and leave a message for Zach congratulating him on his new job.
    I also left a message for Sutton congratulating her on hiring Zach.

  45. Sebastian says:

    Well, that’s good. I’m not one who thinks we should be uncivil to the other side. This is still a political debate, and I see little reason to make politics personal. If I got angry at every person trying to erode my constitutional rights, I would spend a lot of time being angry at a lot of people, and I prefer spending my time not being pissed off at everything.

    Poking fun at each other is hopefully something we can all handle.

  46. kaveman says:

    Hey Peter, quick questions.

    Would you agree or not with the statement that if an individual does not like the Bill of Rights, they should drop out of America?

    How is an individual’s moral character influenced by geographic location? That is, on campus vs off campus.

    Do you find it interesting that you can get a 30 minute or less guarantee from your local pizza joint, but you can’t get this same guarantee from the local police department?

    Isn’t it funny that you never hear about mass shootings at gun shows, where there are several thousand firearms and hundreds of people trained in the use of firearms. The mass shootings always occur in gun-free zones? How can this be?

    Do you believe that instead of relying on personel firearms for self-defence, we should rely on a stranger’s(cops) firearm for self -defence?

    Why are there armed Capital Hill police gaurding the Halls of Congress? Why should we as tax payers shell out cash to hire police to gaurd members of congress who then pass gun control laws that only apply to the little people?

    Hope to hear from ya soon!!!

  47. Sebastian says:

    I think Peter has left the building, Kaveman.

  48. kaveman says:

    I figured as much Sebastion. I enjoy talking with you as well, but it’s just not the same. As long as your here tho, I have to admit that everytime I see your name I think of the big flying dog character in “the never ending story” movie.

    Probably not your reason for choosing the name but I might be wrong. In any case, it was a pretty cool dog.

    You seen the price of ammo, lately? I had sticker shock at the last gun show I went to. They be asking $550 for a case of .308. Had to go down and buy a bunch of .22 to keep going to the range.

  49. Sebastian says:

    Also keep in mind that Peter is now aware that NRA watches gun blogs too, so I doubt he’ll be commenting here again. I’d suggest some other gun control blogs to go get your debate fix, but there aren’t any :)

  50. Sebastian says:

    I don’t want this thread to stray too far off topic. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll do a thread about ammo prices.

  51. Joe Huffman says:

    I’d be happy if Petey just tried to anwer Just One Question.

  52. kaveman says:

    I’d like to take a crack at your question, Joe.

    “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

    When American white slave owners forbade all slaves from possessing firearms, the white slave owners were made safer from a slave uprising.

  53. Joe Huffman says:

    Kaveman, close, but not quite. The “average person” clause in my question was put there to cover exactly that type of response. By singling out the slave owners as being safer you are no longer looking at the true average.

    The Nazi Weapons Control Act of 1938 made Hitler and gangs safer from resistance by the Jews too. The kill ratio between Nazis and the Jews they were murdering was several thousand to one. That wouldn’t have been possible had it not been for the Jews being disarmed.

    But you knew this. You were just making it explicted for Petey and friends. Thanks.

  54. kaveman says:

    Ah, but consider this, Joe.

    The slaves weren’t really considered “people”, they were considered property.

    Now your question sounds silly…

    “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average piece of property was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

    Since a “piece of property” does not and can not experience a state of “safety” or “jeopardy”, isn’t it reasonable that we should all become someone else’s property. Think about it. We live in an unsafe world. The world can not be made safe in the future by its very nature. Nor are we in a constant never-ending state of jeopardy. We experience both at random intervals and variable durations. But if we become someone else’s property, we can live in a state of bliss where that certain someone else will take care of us and shoulder all the burdens and worries.

    I know you must be dazzled by my superior logic, but it gets better.

    Even much later, slaves and former slaves were only three-fifths of a person in the eyes of the law. If you have some wierd combo/ratio of “person” and “slave” you wind up with “perves.”

    Extending this logic, you believe that average people include perves, which I certainly can’t disagree with. But if you want to stand on the steps of Capitol Hill and start shouting “GUNS FOR PERVES!”, I’m not sure how much support you’ll garner.

    Now that I appear to really be losing it, I will call you a knuckle-dragging neanderthal hell bent on feasting on the blood of children as you slowly stroke your AK-47 while lying in a puddle of your own drool, violently whipping off your NRA cap so you can brush all the spiders off your face.

    This is how they see us.

  55. kaveman says:

    But Joe, during slavery, blacks were seen as property in the eyes of the law, not people.

    (i’m practicing my Brady campaign think)

  56. Joe Huffman says:

    You got me. I completely overlooked that fact.

    Should I update my post “Just One Question” to reflect my oversight? Or can we just pretend that I didn’t know about the example of successful gun control?

  57. Sebastian says:

    There needs to be a way to beat Akismet into submission. It’s catching way too many people’s comments as spam

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Poor Petey - [...] Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership tells kids who want to carry guns to drop out of school. Now, he’s…
  2. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Petey, You Can’t Be Serious - [...] the only people who read our blogs. The NRA picked up on “Pistol” Petey Hamm’s comment to Uncle. While…
  3. Brady Campaign’s Peter Hamm: using illegal gun is ‘correct’ « Armed and Free - [...] back to the article from the first link above, the Brady Campaign’s Peter “Don’t call me Petey” Hamm makes…
top