-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
White extremism is winning in my Vermont town. I'm selling my animal sanctuary and moving.
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
- Messages
- 1,320
- Likes
- 2,820
Not guilty!
namedpipes
NES Member
The stockings are disturbingly well thought out... Like that's a product and not a joke...
Not true at all bro. Speaking truth and facts doesn't make anyone anything, other than someone who speaks the truth... no matter how inconvenient it may be. Plenty of people throughout history have been persecuted for speaking the truth before. It's a very human behavior when confronted with uncomfortable realities. So I understand your behavior.
But the FACTS and TRUTH of the matter are that laws governing human behavior exist because of ass hats. DUI laws exist because some ass hats got drunk, got behind the wheel, and killed a family. Gun control laws exist because some ass hats bought firearms and abused them to rob, steal, and murder others. Noise ordinances exist because ass hats like to drive through town with their riced-out Civic with no mufflers at 1:00 AM w/ the 5000-watt amp booming NWA, or a construction company owner decided to catch up on some work and fire up the jackhammer. Speed limits exist because some ass hat drove 100+ MPH on the highway and killed a family.
Each of the above rough examples, of which we could discuss literally tens of thousands, demonstrate that ass-hat actions have consequences in the form of Government action... Government is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. When government action happens it's overly broad and restricts those who were not the problem. But it happens because ass-hats gonna ass-hat.
I'm advocating the neighbor with the home range not be a dick and have some consideration for others in his community. That is because his ass-hat actions will eventually lead to more government action which will impact everyone when only he was the problem. It may not be today, but it will happen. But ass-hats gonna ass-hat.
I'm advocating how a little common courtesy and decency can stave off action from the state that assuredly will come as a result of a lack thereof. But I guess that makes me a statist in your short-sighted eyes. I'm sorry you find that inconvenient truth to be, well, inconvenient. But that makes it no less true.
This is the world we live in... and frankly whether you like it or not is irrelevant... Reality doesn't give a shit what you think. It is what it is and we all have to live with it.... Practically every law that governs our behavior today exists because some ass hats who lacked human decency abused a privilege to the point of harming others, causing Government action as a consequence....
You want to call me names for stating the factually obvious, go ahead. It doesn't bother me in the slightest and it doesn't change reality.. But by refusing to acknowledge reality and that actions have consequences, you harm others... That makes you part of the problem... not part of the solution...
Last edited:
That is not what was said. Reading comprehension... learn what it is...
Exactly, because it isn't a farm, it's an animal shelter. That's great if it's your thing, but livestock is expensive to maintain.
That's exactly what was said. You, as part of your royal "WE", called yourself a 2A advocate, to which he denigrated the NRA as being "advocates".
You're as bad at this as you are as local Vermont statute processes. Perhaps you should sit this one out.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
The NRA doesn't want to solve a problem any more than left wing special interest groups want to solve their problems. Why? Because then no one will need them. This is how special interest groups operate now. There is a claim of an existential threat and only they can solve it, if only they could have some money. So some dumb sheep send money and what happens? Nothing. Because it's about the grift, the houses, the cars, the junkets, the fancy meals and living large on someone else's money. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point the NRA was packed with Bloomberg gun grabbers. I couldn't even bring myself to vote this year. I tossed my ballot into the shredder and watched it turn into confetti. I could be voting to bring the organization forward or voting to complete it's demise. It's impossible to know and the NRA themselves are zero help.
That's not what he said, but I get it... it's what you want to read to save face at this point... So go with god bro...
You didn't vote for Jim Wallace? That's too bad...
It still is chock full. They vote Democrat consistently.YEah. Because before Trump, Vermont was a bastion of diversity of color.
It's like when Boston tries to talk about how progressive they were with blacks all the way back since before the Civil War. Not lynching them isn't the same as accepting them, morons. Funniest thing to happen to Boston - busing in the 70's. Turns out, Boston was full of racists. Like CHOCK-FULL!
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
namedpipes
NES Member
Just a thought to consider.
That sheep effer Linsky. Isn't he a gun owner, supposedly?
By your reasoning, we should welcome him with open arms.
I don't think so
Last edited:
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I didn't even think that voting for one person would even matter. What difference would it make, Wayne still rules the roost and the organization is his personal bank account. Maybe just maybe there is enough dirt in the bankruptcy that Wayne will get dragged out, kicking and screaming for his date with an orange jumpsuit. I can only hope.
I hear you knocking....
My local club requires NRA membership as a condition of membership. I hope to bring out some change and have them accept a GOAL membership in lieu of... or a Comm2A sponsorship.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I've said it before and it bears to keep a light shone on it. The most horrible and racist words I have ever heard in my life have always, *always*, come from the mouths of white liberals. They are amazing chameleons in how they can make a long sad face and yet inside, well I wouldn't want to go there.
-Mr. "I don't accept biased information, meaning I can't even accept what my own lying eyes are telling me"
Absolutely laughable. Been wrong about every single facet of this conversation, and still- he keeps coming.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
That's where I am as well. My local club, Agawam Revolver Club mandates an NRA membership and I have asked them several times about using a different membership like GOAL, GOA, SAF, anything but the NRA. Sending any money to the NRA ticks me off because I know the money I just sent will pay for Wayne's grande caramel macchiato today and maybe $.02 of my money will go towards the next mailer I will receive telling me the sky is falling.
I have yet to see a substantiated fact-based rebuttal to my statements. All I see flying around are a lot of emotional insults and rhetoric. The above is another example of such.
Grendizer138
NES Member
I can appreciate the effort, but this seems to largely apply to commercial ranges and gun clubs. Additionally, the ordinance states the range operator must be in "substantial compliance" with any and all state and municipal noise ordinances. It neither states nor establishes that shooting noises are either common or to be expected, which is what I challenged you to produce. However, point C does absolve the owner of liability if they're compliant with all laws. So that protects lawful use... okay - that's good.
The subsection actually seems like grounds for the farm owners to win. Comes down to the question of... did the range exist before they bought their farm... If it did not, then they have a valid nuisance complaint under the law. If it did exist, but the activity increased, they also have a valid nuisance complaint. If there is shooting after dark, they have a valid complaint. If none of those things hold true, then they bought the wrong property for themselves. Live, learn and move on...
Now we're having a fact-based discussion! The law does not establish that shooting noises are "common and to be expected" as was the original statement made which I challenged anyone to substantiate via producing an ordinance stating such.. This fails to meet that standard. But at least now we're exchanging facts, which is a step in the right direction.
(Cite as: 10 V.S.A. § 5227)
- § 5227. Sport shooting ranges; municipal and State authority
(a) "Sport shooting range" or "range" means an area designed and operated for the use of archery, rifles, shotguns, pistols, skeet, trap, black powder, or any other similar sport shooting.
(b) The owner or operator of a sport shooting range, and a person lawfully using the range, who is in substantial compliance with any noise use condition of any issued municipal or State land use permit otherwise required by law shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief resulting from noise or noise pollution, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.
(c) If no municipal or State land use permit is otherwise required by law, then the owner or operator of the range and any person lawfully using the range shall not be subject to any civil liability for damages or any injunctive relief relating to noise or noise pollution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or limit the authority of a municipality or the State to enforce any condition of a lawfully issued and otherwise required permit.
(e)(1) In the event that the owner, operator, or user of a range is not afforded the protection set forth in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, this subsection shall apply. A nuisance claim against a range may only be brought by an owner of property abutting the range. The range shall have a rebuttable presumption that the range does not constitute any form of nuisance if the range meets the following conditions:
(A) the range was established prior to the acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim; and
(B) the frequency of the shooting or other alleged nuisance activity at the range has not significantly increased since acquisition of the property owned by the person bringing the nuisance claim.
(2) The presumption that the range does not constitute a nuisance may be rebutted only by an abutting property owner showing that the activity has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the abutting property.
(f) Prior to use of a sport shooting range after dark for purposes of training conducted by a federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, the sport shooting range shall notify those homeowners and businesses with property abutting the range that have requested such notice from the range.
(g) If any subsection of this section is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect the other subsections of this section that can be given effect without the invalid subsection, and for this purpose, the subsections of this section are severable. (Added 1991, No. 20; amended 2001, No. 61, § 71, eff. June 16, 2001; 2005, No. 173 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. May 22, 2006.)
You use these words, facts and truth. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
What facts and truth do you have to declare the guy with the home range is a dick, ass-hat, and without consideration? Or do you only have accusations and one side of a story?
Or, were your facts that VT select boards can’t pass ordnances?
xtry51
NES Member
If the guy doesn't like shooting or guns, he can move. End of story. This idea you get to stop people from exercising their rights is complete bullshit. Noise is not a viable complaint. If you don't like gun noise, buy 100+ acres somewhere or move to China.
False, any amount of noise you make on your own property should be deemed being an inconsiderate a-hole neighbor, as soon as a neighbor dislikes it. It doesn’t matter if the homes are a few hundred yards away or if you’re only making noise during daylight hours as allowed by law. insta-a-hole based on accusations. /s
You use these words, facts and truth. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
What facts and truth do you have to declare the guy with the home range is a dick, ass-hat, and without consideration? Or do you only have accusations and one side of a story?
Or, were your facts that VT select boards can’t pass ordnances?
So the article contains facts we can draw conclusions from:
1. There's a noise complaint
2. A "survey" was conducted by a partisan with skin in the game that seemingly concludes only the farmers have a gripe.
3. This survey contradicted by letters received directly from the selectmen from residents, the majority of which say "Huston, we have a problem"
4. points 2 and 3 establish a clear lack of credibility on one side of the issue.
5. the farmers level some pretty serious accusations about harassment and vandalism
6. the farmers substantiate their claims with photographic evidence
7. the other side does not deny
8. facts 5 - 8 establish a clear picture of who the antagonist is
9. the farmers make the claim they have approached and tried conversation to work out an arrangement. The other side is not reasonable.
10. the other side does not deny this claim.
Considering all of the above-established facts and preponderance of the evidence, it becomes clear where the problem is... I don't care for anti-gunners anymore than anyone here. But I'm also not cool with seeing someone's property rights and their pursuit of happiness on their own property get crapped on just because I differ with them politically.
xtry51
NES Member
It sounds an awful lot like the author wants there to be no guns. So I'm 100% sure whatever they tried to "negotiate" with the shooting neighbors was one sided BS.
Seriously f*** them. No one is making them live near gun owners. They are free to move. The problem here is they think firearms are bad and anyone who owns them is a lunatic. If you can't see that you're insane too.
