Local news reports
A clash between gun fans and outdoors lovers is shaping up as a regional park board considers whether to close a 52-year-old shooting range in Anthony Chabot Regional Park.
Critics say that lead shot pollution leached into soil and runoff at the range has become an expensive mess that will only become costlier to manage and clean. And, they say, guns and parks just don't mix.
"People hiking or walking dogs in a wide open regional park expect a natural experience, not to hear the blast of guns and ruining the peace and quiet," said Frank Burton, a Hayward resident.
He collected nearly 4,000 signatures an online petition urging closure of the range, which is used by police and the public. A rival petition to keep the range open garnered a similar number of signatures.
"Chabot Gun Club leaders say the closure would deprive gun owners of a safe, large and popular place to shoot for recreation and learn safe use of firearms. The club gets 35,000 visits a year from the general public, and about 6,000 visits from police and law enforcement officers."
ReplyDeleteSo equal numbers are for and against the range and it's used by a large number of citizens and police officers. I'll also wager that the range is a small percentage of the total acreage of the entire park.
He collected nearly 4,000 signatures an online petition urging closure of the range, which is used by police and the public.
ReplyDeleteWhich is called "common sense and honesty" by some doofus who claims to want gun owners and cops to be better trained with firearms.
Yep. Mandating training while taking away places to train is "common sense and honesty" to the anti-freedom contingent. Straight out of Chicago's playbook. It's hard to claim that training is the actual goal.
Delete"Some doofus?" Really, Kurt?
DeleteWhen gun ranges invade people's privacy because of the noise or when the soil is being contaminated, these complaints need to be looked into. Of course, knowing nothing about the case, you blindly support the gun range and call people names who put forth the questions.
"Doofus" was my attempt to be polite.
DeleteFreeways make noise and contaminate soil too, yet somehow we manage to keep them. This is purely Bay Area liberals trying to drive the guns out. Training be damned. Calling for training has always been a means to an end.
DeleteYep. Mandating training while taking away places to train is "common sense and honesty" to the anti-freedom contingent. Straight out of Chicago's playbook
DeleteIndeed. Hey, TS, remember when Mikeb claimed that Chicago's gun range ban wasn't a ban, because it didn't apply outside of Chicago? Oh, how we laughed.
Keep laughing. It'll keep up your spirits as your position on guns becomes more and more untenable. The scales are tippingc against you - I think you can feel it.
DeleteYeah, I'm still laughing about that one. Right along with "by voluntary I mean constrained by law"- probably my favorite MikeB quote.
DeleteKeep laughing.
DeleteYou can count on it.
Right along with "by voluntary I mean constrained by law"- probably my favorite MikeB quote.
DeleteYeah--can't argue with that. He'll probably take this as a challenge, but I seriously doubt that he can top himself for the ludicrousness in that one.
Is that really an exact quote? Could you point us to the original?
DeleteIs that really an exact quote?
DeleteIndeed it is.
Holy shit--are even you (finally) seeing the ludicrousness of it now?
Exact quote:
DeleteMikeB (September 10, 2013 at 9:46 am): "By "voluntary" I mean, constrained by law which law-abiding people freely comply with."
And the link:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/09/maryland-weapons-purchases-soar-in.html?m=1
Indeed, when taken out of context, it is ludicrous. In the argument of that day, it made a kind-of sense though.
DeleteHow exactly did it make sense on that day?
DeleteEven when you look up the definition of voluntary it says "without constraint". So paraphrased, your quote is: "by voluntary I mean the exact opposite of what the rest of the world means."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voluntary
In the argument of that day, it made a kind-of sense though.
DeleteUm . . . what "kind of sense"? Ooh, I think I've got it: the non kind of sense, right?
Really, Mikeb, if you're going to claim that there is any context in which "voluntary" can accurately be described as "constrained by law," you're going to have to explain it. When you're done with that (and good luck!), you can start on explaining how war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.
Are you guys bored? Do you have nothing better to do than dredge up these old stalemates and start them all over again?
DeleteThose are rhetorical questions. Please don't bother with your tedious never-ending arguments.
Even when you look up the definition of voluntary it says "without constraint".
DeleteI love it--substituting the definition for the word, what Mikeb said is "'Without constraint' means 'constrained by law . . . '"
I also see that Mikeb apparently has no plans to explain how the "context" makes his statement any less hilariously idiotic than it sounds. No surprise there.
I will say one thing about this particular case; at least the park predates the gun range....unlike the score of reports on subdivisions trying to ban gun ranges...that were there prior to the building and buying of homes.
ReplyDeleteGun ranges should be kept out of populated areas, if for no other reason than promoting a quiet neighborhood. Being there first doesn't give superior claim. It's normal for citizens to change local laws and regulations as population grows.
ReplyDeleteBy mandating they must be away from populations, you are thereby putting a serious constraint on the ability to train. Are you opposed to training? Also it would have the biggest effect on poor, urban, and minority communities. And please explain the actually harm from hearing distant gunfire.
DeleteShould the BART commuter train also be kept away from populated areas for no other reason than promoting a quiet neighborhood?
Delete"By mandating they must be away from populations, you are thereby putting a serious constraint on the ability to train."
DeleteI don't believe that for a second. A train isn't made to kill. Your examples are extremist BS. Nice of you to infer I'm against training, but that's a lie. I am not against training, but leave it to you to make such a false claim. There are noise ordinances, they have been on the law books for a very long time and not found to be unconstitutional.
Ah, you're not against training- you're just against places to train. Got it.
Delete"Gun ranges should be kept out of populated areas, if for no other reason than promoting a quiet neighborhood."
Delete"A train isn't made to kill."
But we were talking about noise. So noise from something that is "made to kill" is not worth hearing but noise from something that is made to transport (but also kills) is worth hearing?