[Vision2020] Guns and puppies

[Tom Hansen]

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 May 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> No one is talking about panicky professors, Gary – just those with common sense, something that’s clearly lacking in the gun crowd.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gary Crabtree [mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:47 PM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: Nielsen, Ralph; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guns and puppies
>  
> I don't see where I'm being at all illogical or dishonest in any way seeing as I agree 100% with your statement, "A professor refusing to be in a classroom or office with someone (legally) carrying a firearm is absolutely NO different than a pharmacist refusing to sell legal contraceptives or a doctor refusing to provide a legal medical service" They are exactly the same. They can refuse to be in the presence of an armed individual but they can't force the individual to be unarmed. Perhaps the panicky professor would be better off at a school with a strict no weapons policy. I understand that the University of California's regulations are quite stringent.
>  
> g
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Well, I don’t suppose we should expect you to be logically coherent or honest, should we?
>  
> A professor refusing to be in a classroom or office with someone carrying a firearm is absolutely NO different than a pharmacist refusing to sell legal contraceptives or a doctor refusing to provide a legal medical service, and I think you know that.  And, it’s certainly no different than the so-called conscience clause “legal discrimination” laws the GOP & TPers have been working overtime to try to ram down the throats of the sane amongst us.
>  
> But, acknowledging that would show you for the rank hypocrite most of us already know you to be.  So, go ahead, Gary . . . break out of your mold and give honesty a try!
>  
> S
>  
>  
> From: Gary Crabtree [mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: Nielsen, Ralph (nielsen at uidaho.edu); vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Guns and puppies
>  
> Professors do have a "conscience clause." They are not forced to carry and they are free to never go any place that they fear a firearm might be. Conscience protection affects what you do, not what others do. Such a clause protects a pharmacist from being forced to sell abortafactants but does not prevent his customers from acquiring them elsewhere or even possessing/using them in his presence. A doctor can refuse to end a child's life in the womb but he can't force a woman to carry it to term. It would seem that a great many folks most enjoy rules, laws, & clauses when there is an outcome that can be inflicted on others.
>  
> g
>  
> 
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I read something about that, too.  I know there are always two sides to
> every story, but I was disappointed at the roadblocks being thrown up
> for such a worthy project.
> 
> With respect to guns in classrooms, a friend brought up what I thought
> was an interesting point:  why don't professors have conscience clause
> protection?  I mean, the GOP is all for conscience clauses in all kinds
> of insane situations, so why don't they extend that to professors?  That
> would actually make a lot more sense than all the arenas where the GOP
> advocates them.
> 
> But, I guess that answers my own question, doesn't it:  it would make
> sense, and making sense isn't a skill the "modern" GOP and TPers seem to
> exhibit very often.
> 
> 
> Saundra
> 
> On Sun, May 25, 2014, at 04:59 PM, Nielsen, Ralph (nielsen at uidaho.edu)
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe I read a couple of weeks ago that puppies-in-training for guide
> > dogs will not be permitted in University of Idaho classrooms because they
> > might become dangerous to the students.
> >
> > How about a compromise here? Since guns will now be allowed in the same
> > classrooms, couldn’t we depend on those students carrying guns to shoot
> > any puppy that shows signs of becoming dangerous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  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/20140526/70f7e7b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 312799 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140526/70f7e7b2/image-0001.jpeg>