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!

Okay, I know I said I was signing off the election stuff, but this doesn’t really count. Check out what showed up in the UK’s Daily Mail:

PETER HITCHENS: The Zombie and the Third-World Marxist … How the American West views the presidential race

They tell me that about one person in 50 on the streets of Moscow, Idaho, is legally carrying a concealed pistol. A lot more have them in their cars. I rather approve of this, though I don’t think I’ll join in.

Many of those packing heat are women combining a hard, practical feminism with a conservative view of the right to bear arms.

The important thing is that you don’t know who is armed and who isn’t, and nor do potential rapists and muggers. I am sure this arrangement improves everyone’s manners no end.

It is certainly a very polite place and shoot-outs here are a good deal rarer than they are in gun-controlled London or Manchester.

…

MORE

It’s really a fantastic article, but I’m probably biased because I feel like I’m in on all the inside jokes.

For the record, picture #1 is inside Tri-State, where we don’t shop because they are anti-open-carry.

But this?

That’s Sure Shot, our go-to gun shop, and we flippin’ LOVE that sign. I just about died when I saw that picture in the article.

Awesome, awesome, awesome. I love our weird little town.

In case you haven’t heard, Ron Paul endorsed… well, anybody but the major party candidates:

Earlier, Paul called the presidential elections a charade and said voters are faced with the “lesser of two evils.”

The majority of Americans, about 60 percent, are unhappy with their choices in the race, Paul said. He urged the three third-party candidates to bring all their supporters together to vote against the “establishment candidates.”

Mike just came in and pointed out something totally obvious that hadn’t yet occurred to me in this context: While Ron Paul may be pretty fringe-y, HE IS A FRIGGIN’ REPUBLICAN!

Obviously RP wouldn’t have been an “establishment candidate” had he won the (R) nomination, but it is a little ridiculous that he’s been playing the GOP game all this time and is now temper-tantruming against the two-party system.

Sorry, Ron. This is one time I can safely say you’re part of the problem.

Here. Page 2, three paragraphs, near the bottom. Here’s the gist, with my full name redacted (I’m trying to keep my Googleability somewhat controlled, so sue me):

Laurel [me], who was president of the Univerity (sic) of Idaho College Republicans in 2005, said the choice could make a difference in her vote.

[me] said she doesn’t support McCain and was considering voting for Libertarian Bob Barr. She said she has followed Palin’s work the last few months since finding out that she is an Idaho alumna and is impressed with her record of reform.

“This is the first time I have seen a running mate change my interest,” [me] said. “I need to determine how much of a role she’ll take in the presidency and whether or not it will make up for the shortcomings of John McCain.”

Incidentally, that is a completely accurate depiction of what I said, for once. I think they even nailed the quote word-for-word.

Doesn’t this throw a monkey wrench in things.

A presidential candidate I can’t stand just picked, as his running mate, MY FAVORITE GOVERNOR.

Sarah Palin. She’s originally from Idaho, and a University of Idaho alumna. Yanking some Wikipedia quotes:

The two eloped shortly after Palin graduated college; when they learned they needed witnesses for the civil ceremony, they recruited two residents from the old-age home down the street.

Hey, that’s like what WE did for OUR civil ceremony! Except our witnesses were the slightly inebriated college-kid downstairs neighbors of our internet-ordained friend.

Details of Palin’s personal life have contributed to her political image. She hunts, eats moose hamburger, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane. Palin holds a lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association. She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.

Of course, that’s all on top of the fact that she’s totally pro-state-independence and has been doing her damnedest to get Alaska off the federal teat. She has a reputation as a reformer and corruption-buster. I am really not afraid of Sarah Palin coming for my guns, though I’d love to go hunting with her.

She’s also smokin’ hot, in case you didn’t notice that yet:

So anyway, Sarah Palin rocks. This is great. Except for the part where I don’t like John McCain and am now supremely torn over what to do.

I was interviewed by the Spokesman-Review about an hour ago (they found me because I’m still listed as College Republicans president at the University of Idaho), and here’s the gist of what I told them: This is the first time I have ever felt like the choice of a running mate may well change my outlook on a campaign. I have a lot of issues with John McCain. I maintained up until oh, yesterday, that nothing he could do would get me to vote for him. But I now feel like I have to really evaluate the role of Vice President, and how much power Sarah Palin could potentially have in the Presidency. Do her strengths make up for John McCain’s shortcomings? I don’t know how I feel about that yet. I may not know until November.

When I told the SR reporter I didn’t like McCain, he said, “Oh, so were you planning on voting for Obama then?” I think I actually said, “Oh, HELL no!” He asked if I was thinking third party then, and I said possibly, maybe Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.

In retrospect, I really, really wish I would have told the whole truth, and said, “I’d planned to write in the ghost of Barry Goldwater.”

Oh, and on a final note: I don’t care how much frenzy there was over Obama’s speech last night, I think the way this running-mate game played out just did a lot to cook his goose. Captain “Change” picks an old-white-establishment-guy as his running mate. John McCain picks a young, spunky, up-and-coming female reformer for his Veep. Ouch, BHO!

Oh, do I have a gem from the Gem State for you guys.

A buddy of mine sent me the following screenshot:

Click here for the full-resolution image.

In case what we’re lulz-ing over isn’t obvious, here’s a close-up crop of the Boise State University ad from that page:

All hail our destinguished rivals to the south!

Hey, Boise State Junior College - y’all stick to playing football. We Vandals will take care of the thinky stuff.

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!

This “Campus Security Alert” just in via email:

University Community,
At approximately 9:30 a.m. today, an anonymous female caller using a courtesy phone in the Commons reported seeing a male person in the Commons, whom she has heard previously making threatening remarks. This male person is described as very heavy-set, with dark hair, wearing a white t-shirt and gray vest. Moscow Police are investigating.

All members of the University of Idaho Moscow campus are urged to remain calm but vigilant, and to report any information by calling 911.

Federal law requires the University to report security incidents to the community in a timely fashion.

So - we have a male, who may or may not have a reason to be on campus (is he a student? member of the community?), who may or may not have made threats (not suggesting we should disregard anonymous tips, but… what if this is a disgruntled ex-girlfriend?), theoretically wandering around campus somewhere. We have no idea what type of threats he supposedly made - stalking? Personal assault? Rape? Suicide bombing? Napalm? We have no idea what type of weapons he may or may not have, where he may or may not be headed, or who he may or may not be targeting.

What we do know: Not a single University of Idaho student, faculty member, or administrator is authorized to protect themselves with legally-carried personal firearms. Instead, we must hope this threat is a misunderstanding, or, if legitimate, we won’t be targeted. We must hope passive measures like locking doors, cowering under tables or throwing staplers (seriously - the risk management official at the University suggested that as a valid defense) will keep us alive. We must place all our faith in local law enforcement, who have no legal obligation to risk their lives to preserve ours, and hope they get there fast enough, assemble in teams large enough, and are selfless enough to actually make a difference.

We are fish in a barrel.