[Vision2020] Idaho Senate Bill 1254 and Idaho's city police chiefs
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 20 12:11:20 PST 2014
Do we visit the same Internet? People say stupid things on the one I go to all the time.
Paul
________________________________
From: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Senate Bill 1254 and Idaho's city police chiefs
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 is says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A might warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.
And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.
Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution . Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'
I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR!... And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.
Retired Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin (from Gawker)
Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:03 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
How soon we forget . . .
>
>
>
>
>http://www.moscowcares.com/tribblesboe
>
>
>The Idaho courts shot it down in 2011.
>
>
>But, back then the guns-on-campus movement didn't have the push-and-pull support of the NRA and its gun-manufacturer base. Now it does.
>
>
>This will open a whole new sales market for the gun manufacturers of Idaho, as well as those gun manufacturers who will find it extremely profitable to expand to Idaho, . . . college students.
>
>
>Imagine the marketing slogans . . .
>
>
>"For a Bigger . . . Badder . . . Better BANG!"
>
>
>"Wrap your fingers around our triggers."
>
>
>Might I suggest an old slogan to the parents of these college students, offered by Country Joe and the Fish back in the 60s.
>
>
>"Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box."
>
>
>'Nuff said.
>
>
>Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>
>"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>"There's room at the top they are telling you still.
>But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
>If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
>
>- John Lennon
>
>
>On Feb 20, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Scott
Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>College presidents and police chiefs are against this bill Paul. IMO, there was a ban in place and if it's unconstitutional then it should be challenged in court and struck down as such. If the ban can withstand a constitutional challenge, then that should satisfy everyone including you if you're really the champion of the constitution as you claim to be.
>>
>>What's puzzling to me, and admittedly I haven't looked deeply into this issue, is why the Idaho legislature is pursing this angle at all? It doesn't seem as they're being lobbied by college students for this bill. It seems to me that they're just poking their fingers in the eyes of the liberal elites in higher education for no good reason.
>>
>>The Idaho Senate approve the bill and now it moves on to the House:
>>
>>http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/feb/19/idaho-senate-oks-bill-to-allow-guns-on-cus/
>>
>>Once it passes it'll be interesting to see what the next move is for the universities. I'd guess that they could still have a policy against guns on campus and that anyone carrying could face expulsion. I'd also guess that policy in itself would not be determined to be constitutional (or not) unless it was enforced upon someone and that someone filed a lawsuit against the university.
>>
>>-Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:27:46 -0800
>>From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Senate Bill 1254 and Idaho's city police chiefs
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not saying that it should be unconditional, just that there
should be a really good reason to go against the wording of the
amendment in this way. It's the same argument about the first
amendment and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
>>
>>I guess I'm arguing that we need to heed the Constitution more.
Amendments 1, 2, 4, and 5 seem to be under heavy fire, so to
speak, and we (in my opinion) need to start looking to the spirit
of the text and not just the letter of it.
>>
>>We have "free speech zones", attempted gun bans, the
balls-to-the-wall hoovering of all of our online data, and
assassination-by-drone programs. It's got to stop somewhere, and
holding to the Constitution seems to me to be vital if we're going
to turn this around. Without the Constitution, there is no nation
anymore. Just a bunch of thugs wielding power. It may already be
too late.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>On 02/18/2014 08:17 PM, Sunil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>If the Constitutional amendment specifically forbids such a
thing, that prohibition must be absolute.
>>>
>>>You have made statements along this line before. I continue to
wonder why.
>>>
>>>Why is the right to bear arms unconditional? Are you really
saying the state shall not restrict that right in any way? Is
this your opinion or is it factually correct?
>>>
>>>Sunil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:04:33 -0800
>>>From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>To: dickow at turbonet.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Senate Bill 1254 and Idaho's
city police chiefs
>>>
>>>
>>>I would like to make a couple of points about this bill.
>>>First, I have no doubt that police chiefs all across the country would love it if everyone were unarmed and they had an effective monopoly on the use of force. That doesn't mean that it's best for you and I.
>>>Second, the question shouldn't be "should we allow guns on campus", it should be "is the situation on campus dire enough that we should infringe upon the right to bear arms despite their being a Constitutional amendment specifically forbidding such a thing"?
>>>I haven't seen any arguments yet convincing me of that. Just a bunch of frat boy jokes.
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Robert Dickow <dickow at turbonet.com>;
>>>To: 'Moscow Vision 2020' <vision2020 at moscow.com>;
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Senate Bill 1254 and Idaho's city police chiefs
>>>Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2014 7:40:23 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>Concerning SB 1254, I think we should try the economic argument against adoption. Just tell your congresspersons that the State of Idaho cannot afford the huge costs associated with the passage of this bill. It could cost millions to supply all the teachers, professors, staffers and campus visitors with the Kevlar vests that we will demand having in order to protect ourselves.
>>>
>>>Bob Dickow, troublemaker
>>>
>>>------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Masterson: ‘Why a police leader feels compelled to take his message directly to the people’
>>>Boise Police Chief Mike Masterson has sent out a guest opinion, entitled, “Why a police leader feels compelled to take his message directly to the people,” urging Idaho citizens to contact their legislators about SB 1254, the bill to allow guns on Idaho's public college campuses, where they're now banned. Masterson says he and three other police chiefs were blocked from <snip>…
>>>======================================================= List
services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>>
>>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>=======================================================
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140220/5d5169ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 32050 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140220/5d5169ff/image-0001.gif>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list