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

[Grendizer138]

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.

I don’t know, I would try to work with a neighbor that politely expressed a noise complaint; but this isn’t about noise, it’s about a SJW’s anti-gun agenda, noise is just a means to that end.

 

[Spanz]

knowing what i know about fish and game service, all the guy had to do was drop a dime on the "illegal after hours hunting" happening on his road, and an army of officers would be staked out there the next day

 

[Boris]

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.

commies are not human

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Mathew 7:6

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I don’t know, I would try to work with a neighbor that politely expressed a noise complaint; but this isn’t about noise, it’s about a SJW’s anti-gun agenda, noise is just a means to that end.

How do you know that? Could you be letting your own biases cloud your better judgment?

There is one side that was caught in a lie... the "survey" vs. the letters sent to the selectmen.
There is only one side that was victimized by vandalism and property destruction.
There is only one side that states they attempted to use conversation and reasonable negotiation to resolve the issue absent government involvement.

None of the accusations leveled by one side were denied by the other either....

In no matter of law or human decency is property destruction, vandalism, and harassment considered proper, good form, or legal. So considering this I find the farmers to be creditable and reasonable and the range owners/users to be neither.

 

[Wooderson]

So the article contains facts we can draw conclusions from:

1. There's a noise complaint

From a partisan with skin in the game.

2. A "survey" was conducted by a partisan with skin in the game that seemingly concludes only the farmers have a gripe.

As opposed to having a motion for an ordinance submitted by a partisan with skin in the game. By the same argument you've made regarding bias, the proper recourse would have been for this elected busybody to have recused himself, and requested another member of the municipal board to submit the motion on their behalf. Instead, an elected official took action *explicitly* in his own self-interest, rather than the demonstrated interest from anyone else in the affected area.

3. This survey contradicted by letters received directly from the selectmen from residents, the majority of which say "Huston, we have a problem"

And yet, not one of the so bothered could be troubled to attend the listening session.

4. points 2 and 3 establish a clear lack of credibility on one side of the issue.

It does. Just not the one you think.

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.

The neighbors don't deny, in an opinion piece *authored by the same individual who submitted the noise complaint referred to in "1", and whom filed the motion for an ordinance*.

An editorial found on the opinion page is not an investigation by an impartial party, it is an emotional response based upon context and a direct expression of one's biases. It is not held to the journalistic standard of witness or fact, and does not require (and rarely do they include) direct response from parties counter to the appeal being made. That is to say, you are literally making the argument that the neighbors don't deny the accusations made against them because Shank didn't ask them or include their responses in his biased editorial.

Seriously- you demand everyone else come up with evidence absent of bias, and operate accordingly, yet your entire complaint to this thread is constructed based on it.

Like I said- you're really bad at this.

 

[TLB]

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.

Jason Whitlock does a very good job explaining this fact.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

From a partisan with skin in the game.



As opposed to having a motion for an ordinance submitted by a partisan with skin in the game. By the same argument you've made regarding bias, the proper recourse would have been for this elected busybody to have recused himself, and requested another member of the municipal board to submit the motion on their behalf. Instead, an elected official took action *explicitly* in his own self-interest, rather than the demonstrated interest from anyone else in the affected area.



And yet, not one of the so bothered could be troubled to attend the listening session.



It does. Just not the one you think.



The neighbors don't deny, in an opinion piece *authored by the same individual who submitted the noise complaint referred to in "1", and whom filed the motion for an ordinance*.

An editorial found on the opinion page is not an investigation by an impartial party, it is an emotional response based upon context and a direct expression of one's biases. It is not held to the journalistic standard of witness or fact, and does not require (and rarely do they include) direct response from parties counter to the appeal being made. That is to say, you are literally making the argument that the neighbors don't deny the accusations made against them because Shank didn't ask them or include their responses in his biased editorial.

Seriously- you demand everyone else come up with evidence absent of bias, and operate accordingly, yet your entire complaint to this thread is constructed based on it.

Like I said- you're really bad at this.

There have been other sources posted in this thread. You should read them. Others have done their own research, finding blogs, news articles, web pages, ordinances, etc. You should consume all sources of information before you make such conclusions. I did... I didn't just read an opinion piece, form a bias, and dismiss the other side's position. You seem to have though.

Where do you think the information on the letters to the selectmen, etc. came from... It wasn't in that opinion piece... Do your research man, and have an open mind. Just because they're liberals, doesn't automatically make them the a**h***s in the story.

 

[Picton]

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.

I see your overall point: it would, indeed, be nice if everyone were a little more decent toward each other.

But.

Moving to rural VT and then complaining about gunfire is like moving to East Boston and complaining about airport noise. If Captain Animal Sanctuary didn't do his due diligence, it's his own damn fault.

I'm also struck by how absurd it is that a guy who claims ALL OVER his CV that he's an expert on resolving conflict all over the planet... can't resolve a conflict in his own backyard. I find that hilarious.

The neighbors were probably mildly jerky for increasing their rate of fire, but honestly I'd have done the same thing. Because I don't care for do-gooders, and by that time Captain Animal Sanctuary had established he was no longer merely trying in good faith to be a good neighbor: he now had established that he had an Agenda, and as his neighbor I'd have ZERO patience for that.

I'm a reasonable guy. If I'm his neighbor, I'd have worked with him if he'd respected me. He plainly does not have any regard for my chosen lifestyle, though, so why should I have any regard for his? I was here first, after all. Nobody forced him to move here, and his lack of homework is his own fault. Sorry, Captain: it's not working out. Take your zebras and llamas to Burlington. Love ya, mean it... now shoo.

 

[PappyM3]

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.

Sweet Jesus man. No, just no. Your claims of being for facts and truth are hollow.

1. True
2. True
3. False, a very small sample size of town-wide opinion of those who took the time to write in, does not necessarily contradict the opinion of residents on one road. If all those who wrote in had lived on that road, you might have something, since the sample size would be a much larger percent of the population when dealing with just the road. But that’s not the case. Your conclusion cannot be made.
4. Again, no. Nothing about the claims of #2 show a lack of credibility until they’re proven false by residents of that street. #3 does not do that
5. False, their claims are of retaliatory spiteful gunfire on the private range, and death threats. No such claims of vandalism.
6. False. No evidence was provided for the death threats. The photo of the graffiti is in no way linked to the resident with the firing range. It’s “just” white supremesist graffiti on a neighbor’s property. No claims of vandalism were made.
7. False. How do you know this? There is no presented opposing side to Shank’s accusations in his op-Ed.
8. False, as your 5-8 are bunk.
9. True
10. False. This is unknown

Let’s do a real facts and truth list:
1. Fact: It is lawful to shoot on your own property in VT
2. Fact: VT has laws about when noises are permitted
3. Fact: VT has a law about how noise complains of shooting ranges are to be addressed
4. Presumption: The shooting residents are shooting in accordance with the VT noise law, during daylight hours. Shank even said “all hours of the day”
5. Claim: Shank and Breyer tried to talk with their neighbors reasonably
6. Fact: Shank and Breyer have publicly written anti-gun articles for online publications
7. Fact: Shank used his local government position and power to push through a noise ordnance in an attempt to win a private dispute with his neighbor
8. Accusation: There was retaliatory spite gunfire after Shank tried to institute a town noise ordnance
9. Claim: Pete Werner conducted a 35 person survey of High Pond Road residents (where the noise complaints originated) and only one respondent wanted the noise ordnance
10. Fact: 21 letters were sent to the select board about the ordnance
11. Fact: 12 in favor, 9 opposed
12. Fact: Brandon VT has a population of ~4,000.
13. Fact: Only 0.5% of the population sent letters in
14. Fact: Select Boards in VT can vote on town ordnances
15. Fact: The Select Board voted by super majority that state wide noise laws were enough and no further ordnance was necessary
16. Accusation: Shank claims his shooting neighbors are white supremacists extremists in a published op-Ed (edited for correctness)
17. Fact: Shank provided no such evidence to his shooting neighbor being a white supremacist
18. Presumption: Shank committed libel

 

[PappyM3]

…

I'm also struck by how absurd it is that a guy who claims ALL OVER his CV that he's an expert on resolving conflict all over the planet... can't resolve a conflict in his own backyard. I find that hilarious.

LOL

The neighbors were probably mildly jerky for increasing their rate of fire, but honestly I'd have done the same thing. Because I don't care for do-gooders, and by that time Captain Animal Sanctuary had established he was no longer merely trying in good faith to be a good neighbor: he now had established that he had an Agenda, and as his neighbor I'd have ZERO patience for that.

I'm a reasonable guy. If I'm his neighbor, I'd have worked with him if he'd respected me. He plainly does not have any regard for my chosen lifestyle, though, so why should I have any regard for his? I was here first, after all. Nobody forced him to move here, and his lack of homework is his own fault. Sorry, Captain: it's not working out. Take your zebras and llamas to Burlington. Love ya, mean it... now shoo.

Yeah, if Shank and Breyer had genuinely approached the neighbor in a neighborly way and the neighbor told them to buzz off, he’s a jerk. But I have a feeling it didn’t quite go down like that given Shank and Breyer’s public anti-gun writings.

And yeah, I would increase my range time too if my neighbor tried to push through a noise ordnance like that.

 

[Dennis in MA]

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.

You do know that's false, right??? It was a claim by the Left. They throw 18 allegations, prove one and never mention the others are false.

Opinion | The false narrative that lawsuits will bring down the NRA

A recent bankruptcy case demonstrated that the NRA is going strong and making improvements, undermining the New York attorney general's case against it.

www.nbcnews.com

James’ case is based on the premise that the NRA does not operate in compliance with New York laws for operating nonprofits and is not committed to good governance. But the testimony at the bankruptcy trial and Hale’s opinion makes it clear that the opposite is true.

 

[Wooderson]

I'm also struck by how absurd it is that a guy who claims ALL OVER his CV that he's an expert on resolving conflict all over the planet... can't resolve a conflict in his own backyard. I find that hilarious.

Especially the part about disarmament.

You'd think someone so experienced in getting people to put down their weapons would be a little less agitated in proximity to them. Rather comes with the territory.

 

[Picton]

Especially the part about disarmament.

You'd think someone so experienced in getting people to put down their weapons would be a little less agitated in proximity to them. Rather comes with the territory.

A friend of mine is a legume researcher who does work in Rwanda and other places like that (long story; she's an odd duck, but she sure knows beans!). She says EVERYONE where she goes has guns, including her. If this guy has done as much fieldwork as he's claiming, he's been around plenty of guns and heard plenty of shooting. And he's presumably been able to function anyway.

He's just another NIMBYist. NIMBYism bugs me.

 

[PappyM3]

Hahaha:

Bought rural home in 2017.

Decides he doesn’t like gunfire in rural town

“I’ve had it with these racist assault weapons in my town. I’m moving!”

….

House sits for months and doesn’t sell

….

“We’re going to give it another few years to try and work things out”

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Sweet Jesus man. No, just no. Your claims of being for facts and truth are hollow.

1. True
2. True
3. False, a very small sample size of town-wide opinion of those who took the time to write in, does not necessarily contradict the opinion of residents on one road. If all those who wrote in had lived on that road, you might have something, since the sample size would be a much larger percent of the population when dealing with just the road. But that’s not the case. Your conclusion cannot be made.
4. Again, no. Nothing about the claims of #2 show a lack of credibility until they’re proven false by residents of that street. #3 does not do that
5. False, their claims are of retaliatory spiteful gunfire on the private range, and death threats. No such claims of vandalism.
6. False. No evidence was provided for the death threats. The photo of the graffiti is in no way linked to the resident with the firing range. It’s “just” white supremesist graffiti on a neighbor’s property. No claims of vandalism were made.
7. False. How do you know this? There is no presented opposing side to Shank’s accusations in his op-Ed.
8. False, as your 5-8 are bunk.
9. True
10. False. This is unknown

3. I'm sorry, please explain the physics of how noise remains isolated to a single street, invalidating everyone else's opinion on the subject. Please provide math and diagrams and proof your work... This should be most interesting to the physics community.
4. I'll await your results from #3 as this point is based on the invalidation of the opinion of those who live on a different street. The physics of that claim has yet to be proven - making the point unsubstantiated by reality. You're cherry-picking the data points you want to believe and disregarding the others that do not suit your position.
5. I guess the pictures were just for fun and not documenting actual vandalism.
6. Riiiight.... I guess that graffiti just magically and coincidentally appeared in rural VT as a completely random act at a random time..
7. The op-ed wasn't my only data point. You should expand your horizon and ingest more data as well.
8. I can see why, if you cherry-pick the data, you can draw that conclusion.
10. It's not unknown. Accusations were made. If there was a denial, please point me to it and I'll gladly ingest it as a data point and consider it.

Let’s do a real facts and truth list:
1. Fact: It is lawful to shoot on your own property in VT
2. Fact: VT has laws about when noises are permitted
3. Fact: VT has a law about how noise complains of shooting ranges are to be addressed
4. Presumption: The shooting residents are shooting in accordance with the VT noise law, during daylight hours. Shank even said “all hours of the day”
5. Claim: Shank and Breyer tried to talk with their neighbors reasonably
6. Fact: Shank and Breyer have publicly written anti-gun articles for online publications
7. Fact: Shank used his local government position and power to push through a noise ordnance in an attempt to win a private dispute with his neighbor
8. Accusation: There was retaliatory spite gunfire after Shank tried to institute a town noise ordnance
9. Claim: Pete Werner conducted a 35 person survey of High Pond Road residents (where the noise complaints originated) and only one respondent wanted the noise ordnance
10. Fact: 21 letters were sent to the select board about the ordnance
11. Fact: 12 in favor, 9 opposed
12. Fact: Brandon VT has a population of ~4,000.
13. Fact: Only 0.5% of the population sent letters in
14. Fact: Select Boards in VT can vote on town ordnances
15. Fact: The Select Board voted by super majority that state wide noise laws were enough and no further ordnance was necessary
16. Accusation: Shank claims his shooting neighbors are white supremacists in a published op-Ed
17. Fact: Shank provided no such evidence to his shooting neighbor being a white supremacist
18. Presumption: Shank committed libel

#1. Really... So it's cool to set up a range on a 9000 sq/ft property in Burlington? Yea, didn't think so. Don't use blanket statements. Because you're wrong.
#2. Sure, I would be surprised if every state didn't.
#3. Yep, and if the farmers were there before the range, or if activity increased, as vindictive shooting would do, then they have a LEGIT complaint under the law. You seem to ignore that part of the law... Why? Is it because it doesn't suit your argument?
#4. An incorrect assumption on your part... Increased activity is not in accordance with the law.
#5. we agree
#6. So voicing an opinion you disagree with automatically makes them liars or guilty of something? That kind of logic is one small step away from assuming someone is guilty just because they're black. That's pretty shameful profiling bro.
#7. She used the position to advocate for an ordinance that was supported by the majority of validated feedback they received from residents. Given, she had skin in the game. But she was executing on the will of the majority. That's not out of line for the role.
#8. I don't think this is an accusation.
#9. I don't think this is a claim. A survey is done. The results are not trustworthy because of the biases of the person taking it and the lack of validation.
# 10 and 11. A majority is a majority. The percentage of the population is irrelevant. What matters is the vote count.
# 12. okay. not sure why that's relevant as this point wasn;t even in the discussion.
# 13. Not surprising considering the issue is isolated to a small corner of the town.
#14. Obviously, that's what they did. But an issue like this should have been on a ballot, and it may yet come to that.
#15. I'm not sure a 2 vote margin counts as a super majority, but okay. Whatever you want to call it bro.
#16. Where did he do that? Please quote the exact sentence where he said "Person A is a white supremacist". I see he levels accusations at the state police and local governments. But never at an individual. You're just factually wrong. Did you even read the article?
#17. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.
#18. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Hahaha:

Bought rural home in 2017.

Decides he doesn’t like gunfire in rural town

“I’ve had it with this racist assault weapons on my town. I’m moving!”

….

House sits for months and doesn’t sell

….

“We’re going to give it another few years to try and work things out”

View attachment 509973

Do you have the listing link for the property? I would like to check it out.

 

[PappyM3]

Do you have the listing link for the property? I would like to check it out.

As much as I dislike Shank, I’m not going to dox him.

It’s a nice property though and he’s done some good off-grid updates. But he will only sell to individuals/organizations with his same viewpoints, which is why he’s not going through a realtor.

 

[PappyM3]

3. I'm sorry, please explain the physics of how noise remains isolated to a single street, invalidating everyone else's opinion on the subject. Please provide math and diagrams and proof your work... This should be most interesting to the physics community.
4. I'll await your results from #3 as this point is based on the invalidation of the opinion of those who live on a different street. The physics of that claim has yet to be proven - making the point unsubstantiated by reality. You're cherry-picking the data points you want to believe and disregarding the others that do not suit your position.
5. I guess the pictures were just for fun and not documenting actual vandalism.
6. Riiiight.... I guess that graffiti just magically and coincidentally appeared in rural VT as a completely random act at a random time..
7. The op-ed wasn't my only data point. You should expand your horizon and ingest more data as well.
8. I can see why, if you cherry-pick the data, you can draw that conclusion.
10. It's not unknown. Accusations were made. If there was a denial, please point me to it and I'll gladly ingest it as a data point and consider it.



#1. Really... So it's cool to set up a range on a 9000 sq/ft property in Burlington? Yea, didn't think so. Don't use blanket statements. Because you're wrong.
#2. Sure, I would be surprised if every state didn't.
#3. Yep, and if the farmers were there before the range, or if activity increased, as vindictive shooting would do, then they have a LEGIT complaint under the law. You seem to ignore that part of the law... Why? Is it because it doesn't suit your argument?
#4. An incorrect assumption on your part... Increased activity is not in accordance with the law.
#5. we agree
#6. So voicing an opinion you disagree with automatically makes them liars or guilty of something? That kind of logic is one small step away from assuming someone is guilty just because they're black. That's pretty shameful profiling bro.
#7. She used the position to advocate for an ordinance that was supported by the majority of validated feedback they received from residents. Given, she had skin in the game. But she was executing on the will of the majority. That's not out of line for the role.
#8. I don't think this is an accusation.
#9. I don't think this is a claim. A survey is done. The results are not trustworthy because of the biases of the person taking it and the lack of validation.
# 10 and 11. A majority is a majority. The percentage of the population is irrelevant. What matters is the vote count.
# 12. okay. not sure why that's relevant as this point wasn;t even in the discussion.
# 13. Not surprising considering the issue is isolated to a small corner of the town.
#14. Obviously, that's what they did. But an issue like this should have been on a ballot, and it may yet come to that.
#15. I'm not sure a 2 vote margin counts as a super majority, but okay. Whatever you want to call it bro.
#16. Where did he do that? Please quote the exact sentence where he said "Person A is a white supremacist". I see he levels accusations at the state police and local governments. But never at an individual. You're just factually wrong. Did you even read the article?
#17. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.
#18. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.

You seriously don’t understand logic. Town-wide opinion being different than the opinions on the street in question, does not invalidate the opinions on that street. Town-wide letters do not mean the street-specific survey was not legitimately conducted.

Nor do you understand sound wave attenuation over distance through air and over vegetation.

I shared a clear breakdown of facts, claims, accusations, and presumptions. Feel free to add additional bullets to it, but my list is completely correct. I’m done trying to have a discussion with you about facts.

 

[Picton]

As much as I dislike Shank, I’m not going to dox him.

It’s a nice property though and he’s done some good off-grid updates. But he will only sell to individuals/organizations with his same viewpoints, which is why he’s not going through a realtor.

Probably also why it's not moving...

 

[PappyM3]

Probably also why it's not moving...

If I had “f*** you money”, I’d set up a 501c3 for sustainable animal rehabilitation or some such, buy the property, then change the organization mission to marksmanship instruction after the sale went through.

 

[Kevin_NH]

If I had “f*** you money”, I’d set up a 501c3 for sustainable animal rehabilitation or some such, buy the property, then change the organization mission to marksmanship instruction after the sale went through.

I wouldn't put it past this guy to tie a bunch of crazy restrictions to the deed.

 

[Picton]

I wouldn't put it past this guy to tie a bunch of crazy restrictions to the deed.

Then buy the place next door and some drum mags and let 'er rip.

His choices have consequences. It's time he learned that.

 

[jhblaze1]

.

Moving to rural VT and then complaining about gunfire is like moving to East Boston and complaining about airport noise. If Captain Animal Sanctuary didn't do his due diligence, it's his own damn fault.

this. f*** this guy.

I used to live in southern Maine, not even in the real boonies and you heard gun shots every f***ing day, and constantly during hunting season. No one ever gave a f***.

this guy should just get his nuts clipped and move to P Town were he'd be happy.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

You seriously don’t understand logic. Town-wide opinion being different than the opinions on the street in question, does not invalidate the opinions on that street. Town-wide letters do not mean the street-specific survey was not legitimately conducted.

Nor do you understand sound wave attenuation over distance through air and over vegetation.

I shared a clear breakdown of facts, claims, accusations, and presumptions. Feel free to add additional bullets to it, but my list is completely correct. I’m done trying to have a discussion with you about facts.

If your list was so correct, why did it accuse the farmers of libel when they didn't commit such? Why did you ignore those points from your own post when subsequently defending it? Maybe because it's indefensible? And that's just touching on the last 3 erroneous points you made.

I don't understand sound waves you say... I know enough to know for a fact that sound doesn't isolate itself to a single street. Only you made that argument in another one of your bullet points that were erroneous.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Then buy the place next door and some drum mags and let 'er rip.

His choices have consequences. It's time he learned that.

Farmer wins in that case per the previously posted noise law.

If the range came first, the farmer loses.
If the farmer came first, the range loses.

 

[Medicine Man]

That's concerning...

Once you go baa, you never go back!

 

[Kevin_NH]

#16. Where did he do that? Please quote the exact sentence where he said "Person A is a white supremacist". I see he levels accusations at the state police and local governments. But never at an individual. You're just factually wrong. Did you even read the article?

If your list was so correct, why did it accuse the farmers of libel when they didn't commit such?

The so-called farmer wrote this:

After attempts to institute a simple noise ordinance to contain the hours-long recreational and erratic assault weapons use on my road in Brandon, not only did my town’s leaders refuse to recognize the problem, they also emboldened the armed white extremists on my road by gaslighting my concerns.

It'd be up to a court to decide if that is libel, but it certainly is leveling accusations at an individual.

I don't understand sound waves you say... I know enough to know for a fact that sound doesn't isolate itself to a single street.

10 V.S.A. § 5227: A nuisance claim against a range may only be brought by an owner of property abutting the range.

 

[PappyM3]

If your list was so correct, why did it accuse the farmers of libel when they didn't commit such? Why did you ignore those points from your own post when subsequently defending it? Maybe because it's indefensible? And that's just touching on the last 3 erroneous points you made.

I don't understand sound waves you say... I know enough to know for a fact that sound doesn't isolate itself to a single street. Only you made that argument in another one of your bullet points that were erroneous.

“they also emboldened the armed white extremists on my road”

okay, correction. Not “supremacists”, but “white extremists”. Still potentially libelous. But the libel isn’t fact, so I put it as a presumption since it’s based on evidence but not proven.

The rest of the town hearing gunshots doesn’t make a survey of people on the street incorrectly conducted. That is your logical fallacy.

But still, no, the rest of the town will not hear gunshots. The closest house on another street is 0.65 miles away. At that distance, a 155dB gunshot will be about the volume of a casual conversation. And that’s the CLOSEST house on a different street. So no, the rest of town is not hearing this firing range. And that’s just free air attenuation. This isn’t even taking into account attenuation caused by trees and terrain.

Is that good enough for you? You’re wrong on both a logical and sound propagation standpoint.

 

[Bt74]

I'm sure the Pre Ban Tampon Man is solidly for "common sense gun control".

 

[mibro]

I don't understand sound waves you say... I know enough to know for a fact that sound doesn't isolate itself to a single street. Only you made that argument in another one of your bullet points that were erroneous.

Sound propagation is very much dependent on the terrain.