In case y’all didn’t notice this, I don’t let things go down the memory hole.

After my last response to Koji, his frat-brother running mate Joey Meehan jumped into the fray, deleting everything I’d written, everything Koji had written, and everything my friend Dan had written. He left intact, however, a couple of posts that added nothing to the discussion and instead served just to (lamely attempt to) insult me. Brilliant!

Then, Joey said:

Joey Meehan wrote at 7:33 pm:

Dan & Laurel,I am sorry if you two are taking offense to our standpoint on the issue. We feel that the college environment poses too many threats towards violence enough, let alone with firearms involved. We both understand that there are pros and cons for both sides of the argument; however, we have told you once what we are standing for and we would both appreciate it if you two would discontinue posting your concerns on this issue. This is not a myspace blog. If you have any other concerns with campus policy and our standpoints, please feel free to post another question. We encourage everyone to get involved. Thank you.

Joey Meehan

Joey,

I would expect transparency out of ASUI Senators, as well as ownership of prior statements. Thus, now that you have deleted the entirety of my exchange with Koji under the pretense of decluttering your group’s wall, I assume you won’t object to me posting a simple link to where I’ve copy and pasted everything Koji and I said:

[link to Facebook group]

Your constituents do have a right to know where you stand on this issue, do they not - as well as a right to see how Koji speaks to those who challenge him?

Chris - my apologies, next time I’ll try to use smaller words to make my points easier for you to understand.

Cheers and good evening, everyone!

Laurel, you exacerbate me with the exuberance of your vociferous. If such a misuscule issue is going to abhor your from voting for a candidate, then how can you muster the gumption to vote for anybody at all. My commendations for you would be to run for ASUI senate yourself, however from what I have read you have excessively proven you are far more contented to be a petulant, shortsighted, CRETIN!

Laurel, your response to me makes no sense…would you like to try and articulate a more coherent response, or should all of us just settle on the presumption that you are in fact “touched”? = )

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:42pmhey

i appreciate ur concern with the issue. stop leaving aggressive posts on our wall. for one it is disrespectful. were not trying to argue with u so u need to relax. for two it makes our group look like shit because we have two people talking shit back and forth on the wall. u dont see us throwing facts and opinions at you. show some respect.

—

Dan Ritter
Today at 7:56pm

The problem here Mr. Meehan is exactly what you just said…you aren’t throwing facts back at me. Koji, your boy, was making you look bad. I’m looking for reasonable people to represent me, not people who 1) dodge the question 2) complain that I’m being aggressive 3) have nothing constructive to say

—

Joey Meehan
Today at 7:57pm

then were not ur guys

Koji Moy wrote at 5:45 pm:

wow…is this an nra meeting?

Koji Moy wrote at 6:03 pm:

One question for both of you little lovebirds..
Would Virginia Tech allow the posession of concealed weapons on campus?
how about Northern Illinois University?
you may have legitimate points and clearly have deeply investigated this issue;however, i do not feel that there is a clear necessity to carry a weapon on campus. End of discussion

1. Wait, let me get this straight: If a man and a woman share common views, that means they’re “lovebirds?” Would you like to bring any other sexist allegations into this discussion, or are you done now?

2. Should I infer from your reference above to your status as a Delta Chi brother that this kind of discourse is condoned by your fraternity?

3. Do you believe it is appropriate to resort to ad hominem attacks against somebody who challenges your stance on something, especially when the people challenging you are those you are asking for a vote? You do realize you are insulting people you would serve as a representative, right?

4. Since you are missing the point completely: Both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University have policies prohibiting carry on campus. And somehow, the murderers at both universities (and every other murderer who enters a “gun-free zone”) passed through the magic forcefield of said policies and killed people anyway. Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that criminals disobey laws… and those who would seek to carry legally in defense of themselves and those around them were disarmed?

5. Perhaps you are unaware, but this IS an issue that will be coming before the Idaho legislature again this year, and will almost certainly be discussed at the ASUI Senate. It is also being discussed, legislated and litigated across the country. (Allow me to point you at http://concealedcampus.org/ for more information.)

It is entirely inappropriate for someone seeking the office of ASUI senator to be both utterly ignorant on an issue and unwilling to conduct a discussion about it. Such an attitude is contrary to the whole point of representation, and dangerous to the legislative process.

I truly hope individuals on BOTH sides of the concealed carry issue will ask for higher standards from their ASUI Senators than you are offering with your candidacy.

In case you’re wondering what kind of training in logic and rhetoric modern college students are receiving, here’s a fun exchange with candidate for ASUI Senate, Koji Moy:

I am fully against the right of licensed individuals to legally carry concealed weapons on campus. For one reason, why would they need to? What serious threats do people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from? Last time i checked there were no elk or deer on campus so i really see no reason as to why anyone would like to bring a gun on campus, unless for malicious purposes.

I kid you not, the fourth point of his platform is:

4) Campus safety. Although we would both love to walk every girl home to assure their safety at night, a severe change must be made to campus safety. NO MORE rape and violence victims! We must find a solution to this devastating problem that is effecting our campus.

Absolutely zero cognitive connection, there.

I responded.

Koji,

I was just shown the following message, which was your response to your position on concealed carry on campus:

[QUOTE OF ABOVE MESSAGE - "I am fully against..."]

I’d like to know how you rationalize item #4 of your platform with your position on concealed carry. I am quite familiar with the safety concerns facing University of Idaho students, especially those of us who happen to be female. As a gun owner who trains in the use of firearms in self-defense, I am extremely disturbed by your failure to recognize rape and assault as “serious threats people feel they need concealed weapons to protect them from.”

Your characterization of firearms as valid only for hunting game and/or malicious use shows a fundamental lack of understanding of safety and self-defense, as well as a lack of understanding of the time, training and thought gun owners put into their decision to carry.

Let me make this clear: I am disturbed not just because you disagree with me, but because your response uses reactionary language that shows you don’t really understand the depth of this issue. Because of your narrow-minded and misguided view on this issue, I have to urge the men and women of the University of Idaho who are genuinely concerned about campus safety to withhold their votes from you.

As I was replying, a friend was having a separate conversation with him (he hasn’t responded to anything I’ve said, yet) and sent me the following elaboration from Koji:

First of all, in the terrible unlikely case that we did infact allow people to carry weapons on campus, there would be far more havoc than before. Consider these situations:
1) A man walks behind you points his gun at you and orders you to do various things against your will. Just because you have a gun do you think you are going to stop him? If you shot him you would come under just as much punishment because he had the right to carry a gun on campus!
2) Before class a man comes armed with an automatic weapon and brings it out with intent to shoot. Are you going to stop that? Are you going to shoot him because once again you would come under scrutiny as its his right to have the gun just as much as its yours.

How about a better alternative. How about we make as much of an effort we can to inform women on effective ways to stay safe such as:
-never travel alone at night
-carry a can of pepper spray

Sooo I replied (publicly):

Okay, I have to respond yet again. Koji, you apparently do not understand the legal distinction between aggression and self-defense. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Using a weapon as part of an assault is a crime. A person who uses a firearm for illegal purposes is NOT on equal legal footing with someone who uses a firearm in self-defense. I cannot believe you really think those actions are one and the same!

Furthermore, I am flat-out offended by the idea your solution to campus safety for women is, essentially, CHAPERONES. I should not be required to have an escort after dark to ensure my safety on the University of Idaho campus - you’re honestly saying that, rather than allow me to take responsibility for my own self-defense, you’d suggest my best defense is a babysitter? How chauvinistic!

Regarding pepper spray: I have a female friend who is a police officer in Montana. She shared the story of undergoing OC spray training, where the officers are required to complete a series of combative tasks after being pepper sprayed. Her assessment of the training? The spray did NOT stop her from being able to move or to attack and defeat her targets. It just heightened her adrenaline and rage.

Pepper spray, when effective, is basically designed to allow a victim time to run away. How is that a valid defense for a handicapped person? How about a victim with asthma, which can become life-threatening if they inhale any of the overspray? Or how about a woman like me, who is currently eight months pregnant and not running anywhere very fast? All of the above are ideal victims to an attacker, because we present weak targets. And yet you’re more concerned with an attacker’s rights than my right to carry an equalizing weapon like a firearm?

Again: I am not disturbed merely by the fact we disagree on this issue, but because you are so willing to take extreme, authoritative positions on this issue without an understanding of basic foundational principles like legal self-defense vs. illegal brandishing.

I would hope a candidate for a legislative body would be more interested in educating themselves on laws than you have demonstrated yourself to be, Koji, especially before expressing a definitive opinion on them.

Koji,

Here are some sections of Idaho Code for your review:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400001.K - Murder defined
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180400009.K - Justifiable homicide by any person
(Notice the distinction between the two.)

http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020001.K - Lawful resistance
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002.K - Resistance by threatened party
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=190020002A.K - Legal jeopardy in cases of self-defense and defense of other threatened parties - which I think is important enough to quote in full:
“No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.”

I also recommend your complete review of Title 18, Chapter 33, found here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/idstat/TOC/18033KTOC.html
Which details firearms laws in full, including the crime of weapon possession with malicious intent:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330001.K (again, distinct from legal carry)
the crime of brandishing:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330004.K
And detailed statutory explanations of both proper firearms handling and the punishments for failure to follow said laws.

For the statutes dealing with lawful concealed carry, see here:
http://www3.idaho.gov/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002.K

These people vote in real elections too, you know. No wonder the Republic is in jeopardy.

EDIT: An update in the next post!

Daniel Pouzzner, editor of the Architecture of Modern Political Power, has reassembled Obama’s Change.gov Agenda (in its entirety) from the Google page cache. 

You can view an identical mirror of the agenda as it was posted on November 7th at Mega.nu. 

Post, re-post, and post it again, friends! (I think if you link directly to http://www.mega.nu/ampp/obama_agenda/agenda.html it will help get it into the Google index faster.) 

To allow the Obama camp to pretend their words never existed is unacceptable.

I just put in calls to the offices of Senator Crapo, Senator Craig and Representative Sali.

To Craig and Crapo, the message was: DON’T SCREW THIS UP.

To Sali, I said: Thanks for voting against the bailout, please continue to do so, yes this will affect how I vote in a month, and oh-by-the-way thanks for sticking up for gun rights and at least engaging in some action (however symbolic) against the BATFE.

Hurry up and call your Senators before they vote. And tell your Representative what you think of their position, while you’re at it.

Remember when I posted this entry the other day?

I wound up doing a little digging into Australian firearms laws. I found the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and learned that, while Aussies by no means have a legally-recognized right to keep and bear arms, gun ownership is possible. It looks like the “application” process is about as fun as trying to get a gun permit in D.C. if your name is Dick Heller, but… it’s possible.

So, I sent a message to the woman who had posted about being unable to own guns in Australia. Her original post seemed receptive to firearms - after all, she’d said she couldn’t have them, not that she wouldn’t. I offered a link to the SSAA and told her that, while I’m American and not well versed in what the legal process there is, I’d be happy to share general firearms knowledge or answer any questions I can.

I didn’t hear anything back for a week.

This morning, I logged into my email and saw a reply from her. It read, in part:

My response is very delayed but I just wanted to say thankyou so much for sending me that link.. so it turns out we can legally own a firearm. We’ve always been told that it’s not legal unless you require a firearm for work (but I now suspect that they do this to keep firearms in the hands of few).

I will probably have a few questions to ask in the coming weeks once we get the application form all sorted out… so thankyou for the offer because I will be taking you up on it!

Consider my day made.

I’ve said this in passing before (and once actually wrote in “No Confidence” on a ballot) but was prompted to really contemplate it a few minutes ago by a LiveJournal comment by Victoria (aka Evilegg):

There should be a “None of the Above” option on the ballot.

As Egg pointed out, if you withhold your vote in protest, you’re just counted among the apathetic masses. There’s no way to distinguish between the ignorant or lazy, and those who are informed about their options and don’t like the look of any of them.

Presently, our options as voters appear to be the following:

A) What usually amounts to a lesser-of-two-evils vote for a major-party candidate,
B) A “protest” vote for a third-party candidate you probably don’t fully agree with, either,
C) A write-in vote that, unless part of a major movement, won’t even be reported by name, OR
D) Abstention from voting and being counted in the unspecific “didn’t turn out” statistics.

I used to regurgitate the “if you don’t vote, don’t bitch” adage. But after becoming increasingly disillusioned with the options before me, and talking to a whole bunch of other folks who are sick of voting for “lesser evil,” I realized a principled, educated non-vote can actually be a vote in and of itself.

Sometimes, your options are so unpalatable that you just can’t lend your name to any of them. Why not have an option that sends a message - x-number of voters turned out to say they disapprove of what this election had to offer them. We don’t have to vote for lesser evil, we don’t have to fragment our vote amongst third-party or write-in protests, and we don’t have to be lumped into the same category as the people who can’t peel themselves away from reality TV long enough to even find out when election day is.

Does the narrow margin of victory (5-4, in case you’ve been hiding under a rock) in the Heller decision change your outlook on this November’s presidential election? 

In other words, are those of you previously uninterested in participating in a hold-your-nose vote for McCain reconsidering, in the interest of hopefully preserving or increasing the “pro-gun” majority on the court? 

Frankly, I have a feeling Kennedy’s vote was such a “barely” that I don’t know how well an incorporation case will go over in front of the current court. And if, God forbid, one of “our” justices were to retire or kick off, we’d definitely need another pro-gun nominee just to avoid getting spanked. If one of “their” justices were to retire or kick off (oh, boo hoo, won’t that be a tragedy), a pro-gun nominee could mean a solid fifth vote if Kennedy swings the other way, or even a sixth vote if he sticks around. (This is, of course, assuming Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all willing to go all the way with this issue.)

This is not me endorsing McCain. But, it definitely has me thinking more about strategy. How about you?

Longtime PGB readers may remember University of Idaho President Tim White - an individual we do not count among our friends.

I’m sure White has long since forgotten the above-linked email exchange with Mike, though as we’ve watched him perpetuate a policy disarming University of Idaho students, we haven’t forgotten at all. (Over time, we’ve learned that it’s not just students he disregards - apparently a large chunk of the faculty dislikes him as well, as he’ll hold little idea-sharing sessions where he pretends to listen to concerns… but ultimately blows everyone off.)

Mike graduated last Saturday. He followed the procedure - pose for a picture here, shake this dean’s hand, pose for another picture, accept your diploma folio… Right up to the part where he was supposed to shake Tim White’s hand as he recessed back to his seat.

White extended his hand - Mike began to walk past.

White extended his hand further - at which time Mike looked at him, shook his head, and said “I’d rather not.”

Mike said White looked like he might get angry - a little red in the face - but then shook his head and turned away.

Today, I’m pleased to announce Tim White will no longer be a blight upon the University of Idaho. He’s announced his acceptance of a position at University of California, Riverside - a place his close-minded, dogmatic adherence to anti-gun policies will be far better received. I’d like to think Mike’s handshake refusal was perhaps a final straw, driving home the point that Tim White is not welcome here.

Good riddance, Tim - your tinpot dictatorship has come to a close. Don’t get the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

1. I realized (a bit late) that not everybody knows that Patriots’ Day is celebrated on the anniversary of April 19, 1775 - the day the shot heard ’round the world was fired at Concord bridge. If you’re unfamiliar with the significance of Lexington and Concord, educate yourself here. (My dear Inconvenience would argue that the war began long before April 19, perhaps with the Boston massacre or HMS Gaspée affair - but we celebrate Patriots’ Day all the same!)

April 19 also marks the anniversary of the siege at Waco (1993) and the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), neither of which I find occasion to commemorate. I believe both of those events were clashes between two sides generally lacking in sympathetic characters.

Anyway, we observe Patriots’ Day with shooting and festivities to honor the American traditions of independence and marksmanship. Last year, the Inconvenience proposed (on a bridge!) and we followed it up with shooting. This year, we happened to have access to Tannerite, so we had a bit of fun with the effigy of a Redcoat. I of course have no intention of blowing up any actual subjects of the Queen. :)

2. I really hope you’re all watching John Adams, or making arrangements to procure the DVDs. It is simply incredible. I dare you to watch this - just the intro - and try to avoid coming away inspired:

The casting is brilliant, the script is excellent… it’s truly history come alive. It’s also caused me to have a bit of a crush on Thomas Jefferson (as if I didn’t already), played perfectly by Stephen Dillane. The Inconvenience has been pleading Hamilton’s case for months, but it’s falling on deaf ears… And the miniseries isn’t helping. I hate that sleazy little self-serving parasite. I’m totally on Team Burr.3. In addition to spending copious amounts of time fangirling over the founding fathers, I’ve also:

• Continued on in my position at the ice rink, with new and improved summer duties.
• Helped found the Palouse Sons of Liberty.
• Organized a team for and participated in the Relay for Life - for which, by the way, I also owe late donation thank-yous to JJ and Brody. :)
• Kept an eye on Heller, the elections, and other news and current events with the potential to affect our lives profoundly. Idaho Republicans will finally get around to holding the primary on May 27th (when it totally matters, hurrr…) - but there’s still an ongoing pissing match about the closed primary rule, so who knows - maybe I won’t even get to vote.
• Gotten rather involved in a potential lawsuit and am developing a cursory involvement in another… Don’t worry, I’m not in any trouble, nor is the Inconvenience. I’m just a fan of putting my time and money where my mouth is, and as much as I’d like to elaborate at this time, I can’t. Trust me… they’ll be intriguing stories sooner or later.
• Started talking about an entrepreneurial opportunity with a friend. This, too, is in the works, with more details to come once I have a clue what they are!
• Been running here, there and everywhere with this friend’s party and that friend’s shower and on and on… May is only going to be worse. Out of nine weekend days in May, I currently have plans for eight. *thud*

So anyway, those are my lame excuses for severely neglecting the politics, guns, and politics-as-pertaining-to-guns portions of this blog lately. Forgive me?

4. Don’t forget, those of you who have occasion to be on a college campus this week - the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Spring 2008 “Empty Holster Protest” is currently in full swing. You can find details here, along with guidelines for safe, effective participation.

5. On a personal note, I’d like to congratulate Mike - my dear Inconvenience - on his new job, which he started today. He’s also preparing to graduate on May 10th with his B.A. in History, with a Political Science minor… and a 3.5 GPA! ‘Bout damn time one of us graduated. ;)