For your own personal edification, I present to you a prime example of a rabidly-anti-rights nut lying through his teeth:
“We’ve never taken issue with law abiding citizens who have a weapon legally,” said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “They have the right to defend themselves when in danger.”
If those above two statements were true, then why did the Brady Campaign do everything it could to keep people who “have a weapon legally” from carrying said weapon in national parks, where they might find themselves “in danger”?
If those statements are not lies, then why does the Brady Campaign to Prevnt Gun Violence Ownership “score” states with laws supporting a person’s right to self defense lower than states with laws limiting that right, up to and including bans on firearms and inaccessible-to-”average”-citizens “shall issue” permitting?
If Peter Hamm was telling the truth, then why did Daniel Vice, a lawyer for the Brady Bunch, say, “…getting a concealed weapons permit just means you haven’t committed a crime, yet”?
If the lead anti-rights organization of this time really does hold both those beliefs, then why did Dennis Henigan selectively edit the Second Amendment to minimize and marginalize those rights, and then why did the Brady Campaign embark on a massive revisionist history campaign to hide that quote?
If those statements are representative of his organization, then why does the Brady Campaign enthusiastically support laws that prevent people from defending themselves?
If the Brady Campaign really believes those things, then why does it constantly try to demonize and stereotype firearm-users and -carriers based on the actions of a statistically insignificant number of idiots?
If those statements are, in fact, representative of the organization Peter Hamm represents, then why does the Brady Campaign work against making that right easier for law-abiding citizens to exercise?
If they have never had a problem with people owning guns, then why does the Brady Campaign do everything it can to keep people from owning guns?
If Petey was being honest, why did he leave out the rest of the party line, as defined by his boss’ actions: “.. who have a weapon legally, unless we can come up with any reason, any reason at all, to deny them the right to that weapon.”
And it took me more time to type all that up than it did for me to find those links.
Ok, so maybe Petey did not lie. Maybe the Brady Campaign has been lying for as long as it has been in existance. Actually, that is true. But, in this particular case, I am not betting on 30 years of tradition being overturned due to one glib comment for a news story…
(This learning experience was brought to you courtesy of Jeff at Alphecca.)
I read that first paragraph and my jaw just dropped.. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Talk about rewriting your history. Weren’t they behind the Starbuck’s issue in a state that doesn’t even let you carry loaded?
My head is about to spin like in “Exorcist”.
Where does the “riding the aftershocks” link cite the Party Line?
@Patrick – It really does boggle the mind that he would actually come out and say something like that, does it not? Unfortunately, he forgot the cardinal rule of revisionist history: control all the sources of information. Sucks for him.
@John Hardin – Sorry, should have made that more clear (and I will go back and edit that line to do so). The party line was never vocalized, as such, but when the President’s aid says that what the individual did was perfectly legal, and when the Secret Service basically says that they factor it in, but they do not really care… and the Brady Bunch still whinges and moans about it, they are definitely grasping for any reason they can possibly find.
I do wish they would just come out and say that, though
.
[...] Petey Hamm lies? [...]
You misunderstand what he is really saying…
Brady doesn’t oppose that you have a legal gun, they just want to make sure it is as difficult as possible for you to be able to legally have a gun. If the police are the only people that can legally own a firearm, then the Brady’s are not opposed to that.
Also, I have never heard Brady say they were against militia’s defending the state in a time of war (collective right).
Except that interpretation is entirely dependent upon a fantastical wet dream that only exists in the minds of him and his fellow anti-rights nuts. In this fabulous realm known as “reality”, such a thing is tremendously unlike to transpire, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court rulings, and, as such, we have to take his comments at face value and in the present context.
Which still makes him a liar
.
Paranoia has got to be terrifying some days.
I am very sorry for you, Petey, but you should have known that going to work for an organization that lives, breathes, and eats sheer horror at the prospect of law-abiding citizens exercising their rights in a peaceful and responsible manner was bound to give you more than a slight case of irrational fear. However, if such a plight is so terrible for you, I have to wonder why you do not find a new profession?
Regardless, pray tell – how do your own psychological shortcomings (and I fear that “paranoia” is only the start) excuse your obvious and blatant lies? Or are you trying to claim that being paranoid and a compulsive liar is a disability?
[...] by Project Wonderful! Your ad could be here, right now. searchrecent commentsLinoge on peter hamm liesBob S. on the numbers are out therePeter Hamm on peter hamm liesthe numbers are out there | [...]
Awww how sad! Peter doesn’t respond to anything said in the post, just calls the author paranoid.
No wonder the pro-rights crowd is winning.
Do they go to school some place to learn this tactics?
I’m not talking the standard liberal, we are all a victim of the oppressive white patriarchal society and anything that looks like self reliance should be avoided -I figure that is part of most liberal college education now days.
Nope I’m talking about the ‘small penis’,statistic avoiding, inability to comprehend, you are ‘paranoid because you think crime might happen but I’m not because I’m worried about gun owners shooting people” mindset and vocabulary?
@Mike w. – Hell, how could he respond? I provided nine different links, pointing to eight different sources, talking about nine different incidents that all prove him to be a liar. When faced with that kind of overwhelming evidence, what did you expect him to do, aside from flail around like some bratty little child caught with his hand in the cookie jar?
@Bob S. – Really, it would not surprise me if the Brady Bunch offered that as a training seminar. The NRA teaches you how not to be a victim, and how to defend yourself; the Brady Bunch teaches you how to fail at debates. Seems about right.
@Peter Hamm – Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool…
Careful, Charles, that cuts both ways. We are, to a degree, ridiculing Mr. Hamm here.
Not that I have any sympathy for him or his position, mind.
To be fair, there is a very fine line between ridiculing the person, and ridiculing his actions.
Calling someone paranoid when that someone in question presented factual evidence to substantiate his initial claim? Yeah, that is ridiculing the person (baselessly, at that).
Pointing out that the name-calling is just that? Ridiculing the actions.
But, still, a fine line, and the truth is always a three-edged sword…
[...] Javascript to fully experience the LearnAboutGuns.com website. I would like to point out an excellent article from Walls of the City, entitled “Peter Hamm Lies.” It addresses how the Brady Campaign tries to pass itself off as respecting the gun rights of law [...]
[...] Wherein I steal my co-host’s schtick“Peter Hamm Lies” | LearnAboutGuns.com on peter hamm liesweambulance on orly?thirdpower on peter hamm respondsLinoge on peter hamm liesLinoge on release the [...]