White extremism is winning in my Vermont town. I'm selling my animal sanctuary and moving.

PappyM3 said:
Seriously, you’re going to go that far to simp for this dude?

Considering there are like 15 houses on High Pond Road, I think it’s pretty reasonable that the guy surveyed just about everybody on that road. The fact that the whiners, posting anti-gun op-Ed articles, are the only ones on the road being mentioned as supporting the ordnance, I bet that “biased party” may be more trustworthy than CNN.

The pair of them used their planning commission chair powers to try and push through a noise ordnance in order to flex their will on their neighbors. Maybe their neighbors could be more considerate. But Shank used his government position and power to try and win a personal squabble with a neighbor. That is way worse than being inconsiderate.
Click to expand...

Why would you trust a survey conducted by a partisan? That's like trusting Joe Biden personally did a survey and the country wants more gun control... I'm not knocking the guy. But I am saying if the government is accepting his "survey" results as some kind of official or scientifically valid study of the population then they're fools.

His "survey" is worth less than the Charmin I wipe my ass with. I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being done by anyone with skin in the game, it's not trustworthy.
 
I’m sure he tried to work it out. If I had to guess, he went over there threatened the dude with the police straight away. No trying to work it out nothing. I’m willing to bet, had he gone there and politely asked the neighbor if he could tone down the shooting, maybe keep it during a certain time, the neighbor would of worked with him.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
...
You're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Common courtesy is dead.... and if it doesn't make a come back it will be one of the reasons we continue to lose these discussions.
Click to expand...

There are maybe two or three other members of NES that would be proud to be grouped with you, but how about you do us a courtesy and not refer to yourself and the general population here as "we".

We find most of your views and comments repulsive, but as a common courtesy we don't interfere with you expressing them.
 
aeromarine said:
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine have the lowest rates of homicide by firearm per 100,000 citzens of all the other states in the country AND all three recognize the Right of Constitutional Carry. This places them well ahead of all the states that have abusive laws and high murder rates. Pretty obvious to me that public safety is rooted dominantly in the character of a state's residents and has little to do with any misguided laws and regulations that may be implemented.
Click to expand...

True, can't really compare states that are almost all white, almost completely rural, to liberal shitholes with big populations of Dindu Nuffins without acknowledging that key difference.

If you remove LA/Chiraq/NYC, America has one of the world's lowest violent crime rates, including specifically "gun crime". Who commits all the "gun crime" in those cities?
 
namedpipes said:
There are maybe two or three other members of NES that would be proud to be grouped with you, but how about you do us a courtesy and not refer to yourself and the general population here as "we".

We find most of your views and comments repulsive, but as a common courtesy we don't interfere with you expressing them.
Click to expand...


WE are 2nd amendment advocates and gun owners. But hey, if you think it's beneficial to throw people out of that group because they don't align 100% with your own personal beliefs, then hey, it's a free country. But - you're only proving me right... Keep alienating people who don't align 100% with your view and you'll find yourself in an awful small tent.... and getting run over by the will of everyone YOU force outside of it.. I stand by my prior statement that this is how WE lose the fight... But feel free to keep making my point stronger with your comments.

You call my views repulsive, yet I'm not the one here who has turned to name-calling and personal insults.... a tactic that only validates my position by the way since the opposition lacks intelligent rebuttals.

...and you're not doing me a courtesy... If you don't like what I have to say on a forum open to the public, feel free to add me to your ignore list.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Why would you trust a survey conducted by a partisan? That's like trusting Joe Biden personally did a survey and the country wants more gun control... I'm not knocking the guy. But I am saying if the government is accepting his "survey" results as some kind of official or scientifically valid study of the population then they're fools.

His "survey" is worth less than the Charmin I wipe my ass with. I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being done by anyone with skin in the game, it's not trustworthy.
Click to expand...
There was a public listening session, where the guy shared his survey. Someone in favor of the ordnance could have presented their own survey. Nobody did. There was no survey that refuted his. Just two anti-gun people living in the same house. Notice how she said “there’s more than one person” who wants the ordnance, to paraphrase. If she had spoken with other residences who agreed with her, she would have said so. But she kept it vague enough to be factually correct since her live-in male Karen is the one other person on the street who supports the ordnance.

And partisan/biased surveys are taken all the time and used for governance all the time when getting signatures for ballot initiatives. That’s normal citizens with motives conducting surveys. Just like the dude with the survey on this street.
 
PappyM3 said:
There was a public listening session, where the guy shared his survey. Someone in favor of the ordnance could have presented their own survey. Nobody did. There was no survey that refuted his. Just two anti-gun people living in the same house. Notice how she said “there’s more than one person” who wants the ordnance, to paraphrase. If she had spoken with other residences who agreed with her, she would have said so. But she kept it vague enough to be factually correct since her live-in male Karen is the one other person on the street who supports the ordnance.
Click to expand...

All well and good. But they're both partisans on opposing sides of an issue. So it's not proper to trust either of them. Taking the word of someone as trustworthy when they are incentivized to lie is foolish...
 
PappyM3 said:
There was a public listening session, where the guy shared his survey. Someone in favor of the ordnance could have presented their own survey. Nobody did. There was no survey that refuted his. Just two anti-gun people living in the same house. Notice how she said “there’s more than one person” who wants the ordnance, to paraphrase. If she had spoken with other residences who agreed with her, she would have said so. But she kept it vague enough to be factually correct since her live-in male Karen is the one other person on the street who supports the ordnance.
Click to expand...

This. The actual story is one of them got onto the Town Planning Committee or whatever, tried to ram through a noise ordinance as a back door way of stopping the locals from shooting on their own property and was roundly rebuffed.

This weenie then spun this up into a story about armed white extremists. What a crock of crap. You can bet there was no excessive amounts of shooting near him. Real Vermonters can't afford much 5.56 these days. :(
 
Last edited:
ThePreBanMan said:
I don't pay for status symbols or for cliche memberships. More power to you though...
Click to expand...
Hey man I'm not gonna wade into the noise argument but the membership supports this site which is definitely an important resource to gun owners in New England. I've been helped out more than a few times here. This reminds me I need to re-up on my membership. But I'd want to support it even if/when I move out of New England. Independent forums are a surviving bastion of the old internet, before it was ruined by nameless faceless corporations and other entities and they are one of the places to talk free of most interference and run by real people and not the evil lizards that want to rip your guns away from you.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
All well and good. But they're both partisans on opposing sides of an issue. So it's not proper to trust either of them. Taking the word of someone as trustworthy when they are incentivized to lie is foolish...
Click to expand...
I added a section to my post immediately, but after you already quoted it. Look at the end. “Surveys” by ordinary citizens with motives are conducted for government business all the time in the form of petition signatures. And I don’t know what sort of evidence this guy submitted for his survey.

But yes, you can justifiably accept a biased person’s survey, particularly when the other side provides nothing to refute such survey.
 
BaldAssCat said:
That was all feels and no facts. Other than the fact that he called the police on his neighbors for using their own property as they want there isn't one mention of a specific action, just general accusations.
Click to expand...
A lie repeated 1000 times becomes a fact.
It is just what they do.
 
PappyM3 said:
I added a section to my post immediately, but after you already quoted it. Look at the end. “Surveys” by ordinary citizens with motives are conducted for government business all the time in the form of petition signatures. And I don’t know what sort of evidence this guy submitted for his survey.

But yes, you can justifiably accept a biased person’s survey, particularly when the other side provides nothing to refute such survey.
Click to expand...

They are considered as cause for conversation within the workings of government, sure. But they shouldn't be considered "the will of the people", or "evidence"... We have actual processes and elections for that. If they really want an answer to the question, put it on the ballot. Anything else is garbage time... Put it on the ballot and let the people, and not the partisans, have their say...
 
ThePreBanMan said:
They are considered as cause for conversation within the workings of government. But they shouldn't be considered "the will of the people", or "evidence"... We have actual processes and elections for that. If they really want an answer to the question, put it on the ballot. Anything else is garbage time... Put it on the ballot and let the people, and not the partisans, have their say...
Click to expand...
LOL, that’s what the f***ing “listening sessions” were. What in the world do you think was going on at those sessions, besides a conversation within the workings of the government. Sweet Jesus, man.

By the way, you’re so certain the survey was meaningless, so you actually know what was presented for the survey? Do you know if he presented which residents he surveyed and provided contact information? I don’t, but I’m not going to make assumptions because I don’t know.
 
Over educated under intelligent progressives relocate to an area with an ideological base they’re incompatible with. Instead of assimilating they demand base change their behaviors, when demands fail to produce results they attempt to legislate their desired changes. They are the problem, there’s no gray area here. They easily could’ve relocated to a rural area in a state with restrictive gun laws, yet they chose Vermont.
 
PappyM3 said:
LOL, that’s what the f***ing “listening sessions” were. What in the world do you think was going on at those sessions, besides a conversation within the workings of the government. Sweet Jesus, man.

By the way, you’re so certain the survey was meaningless, so you actually know what was presented for the survey? Do you know if he presented which residents he surveyed and provided contact information? I don’t, but I’m not going to make assumptions because I don’t know.
Click to expand...

Listening sessions are not the same as ballot initiatives in an election. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.

Do I know exactly what was in the survey... No. Do I know it was conducted by a partisan who was advocating a particular point of view... Yes, yes I do. That in itself makes it partial, biased, and consequently untrustworthy. How do we know he even actually did it and just isn't lying about it? Yea, we don't know that either... and your statement ends up making my exact point.... It's untrustworthy and in terms of determining government action, should be irrelevant. \

...and there was supporting evidence that the survey was bunk. The survey claims only 1 person supported the ordinance, but yet the Board of Selectmen received more letters in support than opposed...

The people should have their say. It should be on the ballot, not tossed in the garbage by a select few in the seats of power...
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Listening sessions are not the same as ballot initiatives in an election. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.

Do I know exactly what was in the survey... No. Do I know it was conducted by a partisan who was advocating a particular point of view... Yes, yes I do. That in itself makes it partial, biased, and consequently untrustworthy. How do we know he even actually did it and just isn't lying about it? Yea, we don't know that either... and your statement ends up making my exact point.... It's untrustworthy and in terms of determining government action, should be irrelevant. \

...and there was supporting evidence that the survey was bunk. The survey claims only 1 person supported the ordinance, but yet the Board of Selectmen received more letters in support than opposed...

The people should have their say. It should be on the ballot, not tossed in the garbage by a select few in the seats of power...
Click to expand...

Yes, listening sessions and ballot initiatives are different. You’re not intellectually superior for pointing that out, despite your snarking comments. But that doesn’t make what I said untrue.

And, the letters of support were town-wide. The survey was specifically for the road where the whiney guy lives, which is the road where the complaints that led to the ordnance proposal came from. So yes, there could be more town-wide letters of support, compared to a survey of residents in the problem area.

Also, why should it be a ballot rather than elected officials deciding? Note that the proposal did not come from a ballot initiative. It came from the chair of the planning committee abusing his position for personal reasons.
 
PappyM3 said:
Also, why should it be a ballot rather than elected officials deciding? Note that the proposal did not come from a ballot initiative. It came from the chair of the planning committee abusing his position for personal reasons.
Click to expand...

Because selectmen don't make ordinances and laws... The people do via the ballot box and/or town meeting. The job of the selectmen is the day-to-day operation of the government executing on those ordinances and state mandates. They sign the checks to pay for municipal employees, allocate funding based on previously approved budget proposals at town meetings, hold town contractors accountable for their deliverables, select contractors for certain jobs, etc...

Their role is administrative, not legleslative.
 
I lived a stones throw from my gun club. The driveway was 2 houses down the street. After a while you stop hearing it, but sometimes it was kind of annoying. I worked nights so I had to keep my back windows closed when I slept. Not a big deal though.
 
Vermont has a range protection act, which, while not quite as good as New Hampshire's, does protect shooting ranges from vindictive progressive newcomers.

ThePreBanMan said:
Because selectmen don't make ordinances and laws... The people do via the ballot box and/or town meeting. The job of the selectmen is the day-to-day operation of the government executing on those ordinances and state mandates. They sign the checks to pay for municipal employees, allocate funding based on previously approved budget proposals at town meetings, hold town contractors accountable for their deliverables, select contractors for certain jobs, etc...

Their role is administrative, not legleslative.
Click to expand...
Selectboards in VT do, the process is not like the above in Vermont towns. See section C-2 starting at the bottom of page 8.

The Selectboard introduces, reads, and passes ordinances (effectively town laws). Voters can override the Selectboard through a petition & meeting process.

I don't live in Vermont, but sometimes I'll pop up across the border for some E0 gasoline and a block of cheddar.
 
Last edited:
When I look at that guy’s face, there’s immediately that SPCA commercial music playing in my head.
It’s just a liberal cuck who didnt get his way, and God knows he’s not used to being ignored. Nothing to see here.

Also: I WANT THAT UMBRELLA!
 
Admin said:
This article is an example of what happens when a male's balls do not drop.
Click to expand...

+1.

Just reading the couple of teaser paragraphs in the OP's post, I thought it was written by a woman.

I didn't know it was a dude 'til I clicked the link and read the whole article. Jesus.
 

Similar threads

Georgia on my mind
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Why is .22 CB Short louder than .22 CB Long in my rifles?
Replies
10
Views
268
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
What's acceptable Secure Storage for gun safes, guns and ammo in MA when in moving transition for an extended period of time?
Replies
24
Views
470
houdini
houdini
I can't seem to win with my guns lately
Replies
21
Views
977
kingson
kingson
c&r ffl...refresh my memory
Replies
4
Views
263
tuna
tuna
Back
Top Bottom