Hamm-Handed Throughout History
By Mitch Berg
““You don’t like the fact that thou hast no representation on tax issues? Move thee to the West Indies, knave!.” (Lord Chauncey Hamm, Adjutant Governor of the Delaware Colony, 1774)
““You don’t like the fact that you’re a slave just because of the color of your skin? Drop out of life!” (Rep. Zebulon Hamm (D, SC), 1859)
“Jüdenmord und die Endlösung gefällt euch nicht? Bring sich um!…er, haha! Das wäre Irönie, nicht?” (Obserturmbannführer Friedrich Hamm, Gauleiter, Blausack-am-Rhein, 1937)
“You don’t like sitting in the back of the bus? Walk!” (Klavern Kop Ronnie Joe Hamm, Hattiesburg, MS, 1958)
““You don’t like the fact that you can’t have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school.” (Peter Hamm, The Brady Factory Campaign, 2007)
October 31st, 2007 at 8:49 am
Hey Mitch, saw a flyer taped to a bus stop yesterday……some racists are holding a “Jenna Six” rally and concert. It’s sponsered by a couple of hate groups from the UofM and MacCalester (imaging that).
October 31st, 2007 at 9:31 am
Ha!
“I laughed till milk came out of my nose.”
-Gene “Hamm” Shalad
October 31st, 2007 at 9:36 am
Boohoo, right wing kooks are being persecuted again! This time they’re being told they can’t bring assault rifles to sociology class. How can they be expected to learn?
Waaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!
October 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am
I’m not sure why — although I’ve got my theories — but spokesmen for the gun grabbers seem to be getting clumsier with their PR lately. Check out http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2603 from the Mark Karlin PR agency. It’s as though they don’t notice that their spokesdroid, Vogel, was clumsily refusing to address the issue that Gibson kept raising and re-raising, until Gibson had had enough.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“To suggest that anyone who disagrees with his personal view about firearms and personal protection ought to voluntarily sacrifice their higher education makes Hamm seem like an elitist snob,”
October 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“Gun Grabbers” – why is it every whine coming from the right starts off with an unreasoned, irrational appeal to fear?
Badda – gee, that’s sure what Peter said, “Don’t agree with my ENTIRE view on firearms and protection – you can’t go to school” – indeed, that’ was the exact quote – or – you exagerate into a strawman, I’m voting the latter.
What he said was, “If you want to bring firearms into the dorm, you need to be elsewhere.” Now I don’t agree with him, but then again, alchohol and guns don’t mix real well, and I know just a few too many students who drink too much and think too little. That said, other than Va Tech, there really isn’t some rampant issue with students shooting up the place (on college campuses). So there is no solid reasoning to say X (guns in the dorms) will lead to Y (greater gun violence on campus).
However, if a college, which owns the dorms and buildings and property of the college (if private) or the state owns (if public) wants to say “you can’t have firearms on our premsises.” That’s ENTIRELY their right as property owners. Now going on to say “leave school”, well, that’s hyperbolic nonsense, and he’s an idiot for uttering those words.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
sorry, into the dorm OR CAMPUS.. should have said campus.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Gun Grabbers” – why is it every whine coming from the right starts off with an unreasoned, irrational appeal to fear?
a) Why is it that whenever every single lefty commentator, big or small, these days refers to conservatives’ complaints, they call it “whining?” As in, every single one, about every single issue? It’s almost as if they are all being told exactly what to say. Hmmm.
b) Looking at the record in Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, the UK, Canada and Australia, it’d seem to be vastly more irrational to trust government’s integrity.
However, if a college, which owns the dorms and buildings and property of the college (if private) or the state owns (if public) wants to say “you can’t have firearms on our premsises.” That’s ENTIRELY their right as property owners.
And it’s entirely the right of those students to protest and, ideally, to change the rules of the state schools to actually treat the students as the adults they by law are, and try to enlighten the “owners” of the private schools (or at least spread the word around that the “owners” erroneously regard support for Second Amendment rights as a mental illness – with the economic consequences that’ll attend that institutional opinion).
October 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Mitch said:
“And it’s entirely the right of those students to protest and, ideally, to change the rules of the state schools to actually treat the students as the adults they by law are, and try to enlighten the “owners” of the private schools (or at least spread the word around that the “owners” erroneously regard support for Second Amendment rights as a mental illness – with the economic consequences that’ll attend that institutional opinion).”
Agreed, although I’m not sure there’s much of a ponit there. I never argued against it.
The distinction I made was that saying “keep your guns off our premises” isn’t “gun grabbing”, it’s a lawful and fair execution of the rights of the property owners.
Whether those opinions could be shaped, was never at issue. However, since you raised it, I’ll be willing to bet you $10000 million billion dolloars that you will NEVER be successful getting the overly fearful Average Jo(anne) to accept guns in Dorms. We cultivate a culture of fear, we get what we cultivate.
As for your first two points.
1. I’m no blogger, but given the uncivil responses from many corners lately, I just don’t perceive a need to be ‘nice.’ If you want to turn over a new leaf, well I invited you to it, so clearly, I do too. However, I neither converse with, nor exchange ideas with, the Democratic, or left-leaning, blogosphere, so your suggestion of a conspiracy of thought, is well, paranoia.
2. I don’t trust the integrity of the government, in fact the irony is that since GWB was elected, the right appears to now embrace an all powerful executive, and from that, Government in that they appear to trust them regarding:
a. They won’t abuse the Patriot Act – at least not enough to matter – I think you called it hyperventilating.
b. That they need the additional powers – and won’t abuse them- under the survailance program when they don’t need them (FISA absolutely already offered them tapping ability with retroactive approval to deal with emergencies) and that they won’t use those taps to engage in nefarious and illegal politically motivated actions
c. They didn’t (even though Goodling said they did) engage in crass political nepotism illegally within the DOJ
d. Most importantly, you trusted their intelligence operations, the separate one created by Cheney NEI, to be honest, both with the President, and then with the American People. To tell the truth about Iraq WMD, not just the truth based on cherry-picking the most indicting data, but the WHOLE truth, including the facts that much of the incriminating data came from wholely dishonest sources.
e. As a consequence, you trusted them that we needed to URGENTLY intercede in Iraq – when the truth was, we didn’t. In short, you trusted them to not abuse the most sacred of trusts, to not get us into wars we shouldn’t be in, didn’t need, using ginned up falsehoods.
f. You seem perfectly fine with holding Jose Padilla, or Joseph Hamdi, without charge, in perpetuity – until SCOTUS let you know it was an abomination of conduct… something that should have been obvious.
As far as trusting the Government, seemingly, as long as it’s the GOP – then neo-cons seem just fine (in that you register no complaint) with a great deal of the things that have proven, repeatedly now, to be things they should NEVER be trusted with. I don’t think the Government wouldn’t abuse the ability to govern property improperly – I think it would, but then again, until Kruikshank is overturned, the 2nd amendment hasn’t been incorporated.
Unless a level of intellect and enlightenment that would have NEVER allowed for the Iraq ‘war’ in the first place, becomes more pervasive, I don’t ever see how a populace will agree that a college campus is a reasonable place to need to carry personal protection/firearms. The facts belie that argument – as outside Va Tech) – there just isn’t any epidemic of gun violence on campuses meaning there just isn’t much to be afraid of, nor is there any compelling need.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
For those of you just joining us, that was another attempt by Peev at being concise.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Yup. And of him missing the point. That particular quote doesn’t make the lame Lamm a gun grabber; his career (term used precisely) at the various gungrabber groups does.
I don’t think it’s really at issue whether or not the head of the Brady Bunch can be reasonably called a “gun grabber,” is it? Or are we going to hear some sort of lame demand for video of Lamm actually trying to snatch a gun away from somebody?
October 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
An anecdote from The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt:
Back around a hundred years ago, Teddy Roosevelt paid a visit to Harvard. He left his rooms for a meeting with the Dean and returned a few minutes later, sheepishly explaining that he’d forgotten his revolver.
At the time the Dean of Harvard was an ordained minister.
Oh, how times have changed.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
1. I’m no blogger, but given the uncivil responses from many corners lately, I just don’t perceive a need to be ‘nice.’
Well, that’s fine. But I actually didn’t say a single word about your comportment, or anyone else’s.
Merely that the left’s standard meme lately when responding to the right – everyone from John Stewart to Flash – is to label it “whining” while avoiding engaging the actual issue.
2. I don’t trust the integrity of the government
OK, fair enough, but two posts ago you referred to those with whom you disagree as “unreasoned, irrational appeal to fear” for beliefs that have – I’ll be charitable – every bit as much basis in reality and history as your complaints about the President (and, worse, are aimed at law-abiding Americans).
As far as trusting the Government, seemingly, as long as it’s the GOP – then neo-cons seem just fine
First: “Neocon” has become perfectly meaningless.
Second: Conservatism is a bit schizophrenic about authority; Hume’s intellectual descendants are very different from, say, Jeffersonian Liberals. And yet we all fit into the same label – which in terms of end goals makes sense, but kinda lacks some coherence in the details.
(in that you register no complaint)
Now, PB? We had our discussion about this “register no complaint” thing the other day. I satirized the absurdity of that bit of rhetorical illogic; don’t make me do it again.
I am under no obligation to answer every complaint against every conservative on every topic that every liberal wants to bring up.
until Kruikshank is overturned, the 2nd amendment hasn’t been incorporated.
Now, I know you’re going to plead “I’m typing fast and from memory”, but I’m going to urge you – again, purely as a writer and former writing teacher – to think about thinking a little more. Cruikshank is an exceedingly trivial case; you’re thinking (I suspect) about Miller. And in any case, neither has anything to do with “incorporating” the Second Amendment, merely its interpretation.
Imprecision with words only harms your point.
Unless a level of intellect and enlightenment that would have NEVER allowed for the Iraq ‘war’ in the first place, becomes more pervasive, I don’t ever see how a populace will agree that a college campus is a reasonable place to need to carry personal protection/firearms.
That’s perhaps the most sweeping non-sequitur I’ve ever read. There are many reasons to support Iraq, and many reasons to support carry on campus; many people cross both lines for eminently defensible reasons; there are gay liberals and feminists who oppose Bush and Iraq (for defensible but wrong reasons) but support self-defense rights (correctly), and – rarely, but it happens – gun-controllers who support Iraq (Rudy Giuliani might be as good an example as exists).
The facts belie that argument – as outside Va Tech) – there just isn’t any epidemic of gun violence on campuses meaning there just isn’t much to be afraid of, nor is there any compelling need.
Illogical:
1) Liberalized carry laws depend on neither an epidemic nor pressing need for their moral backing.
2) I, along with the millions of people in 40 states that support and partipate in Shall-Issue laws, believe there are compelling *reasons* to liberalize; “needs” are something we try to prevent, not react to.
3) You go ahead and tell the families at every school shooting that there’s “no compelling need” for at least a chance that an armed citizen could have changed the story that led to their families’ tragedies – as, indeed, has happened in a number of school shootings (a much larger number, indeed, than the media would dare report).
October 31st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
there just isn’t any epidemic of gun violence on campuses
except for where there is.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:40 am
Mitch whined: “Why is it that whenever every single lefty commentator, big or small, these days refers to conservatives’ complaints, they call it “whining?”
Whining about “whining.” Metawhining.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:22 am
Wow. Think about that for a minute:
ConservativeX: I disagree with (*.* liberal/Democrat opinion/position/policy)
LiberalY: STOP WHINING!
That is as effective of a debate tactic as the knee-jerk reflexive “You’re a racist/homophobe!” line the left likes to spit out every time they feel backed into a corner. It essentially shuts down the debate.
Bravo, you cowardly intellectual microbes. How fscking pathetic. Grow the fsck up.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
Hey, thanks for the high-toned debate there, Bill C. Don’t you think your tone was just the tiniest bit…
WHINEY?
Cause Angryclown sure does. If you wingnuts aren’t whining cause you can’t make everybody worship Jesus, bring a handgun into kindergarten and turn the clock on scientific knowledge back to 1795, you’re whining about people calling you whiners.
Poor persecuted wingnut victims! SITD isn’t a blog anymore. It’s a support group. I just want you to know, Bill C., that Angryclown validates your sense of victimhood.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:14 am
That’s kind of a mug’s game, MoN; I’m surprised you’re playing it. I mean, it’s not like we haven’t seen it before.
Move one: epidemic of gun violence meme.
Response: no, there isn’t.
Counter: n people have been killed with guns, and that’s far too many.
If, in a year, more college students are killed by things that are unargably not a phony “epidemic” than they are in the (thankfully) incredibly rare campus shootings — say, bicycle accidents — it’s clear that there is no “epidemic” of campus shootings, and that anybody making that argument is simply playing semantic games.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:30 am
joelr
I was making light of peevish’s full comment.
“as outside Va Tech) – there just isn’t any epidemic of gun violence”
that’s kind of like saying
“outside of 9-11, there just isn’t any terrorism”
No, there isn’t an epidemic of gun violence on campuses, nor is there an epidemic of people with legal conceal carry permits committing gun violence anywhere.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I rest my case.
You are pathetic.