sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
No mention of the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, the real casualties of this bill. While it does have Second Amendment ramifications, it goes far beyond that with its overreach. This bill presumes guilt in contradiction to the Fifth, and legalizes the unlawful search for and seizure of private property without any conviction of guilt in violation of the Fourth. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not enumerate rights "granted" to the citizenry by government, but is the restraint of government. THESE RIGHTS ARE UNASSAILABLE, and for this article to mention neither the Fourth or Fifth Amendment violations inherent in this horrible piece of legislation is nothing short of shameful.
There are a great deal of folks with an irrational fear of firearms. By focusing on guns, we ignore the greater concern, the removal of our rights to trial and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. What will this apply to next?
Generally, the responsible thing to do with a mess is clean it up, not try to pass it off as somehow beneficial. This bill is a clear attempt to cater to the gun-control crowd as they grasp at straws for ANYTHING that can be spun to pass off as a "win".
In closing, it is my understanding that after noting what a mess this bill is, one committee member suggested that rather than continue discussion in committee, they should "just vote on it". This bill is garbage, and even those supporting it are clearly aware of the fact.
It seems the people are speaking quite clearly. Are you hearing them Mr. Baruth?
Former Senator John Campbell knew better than to run again after his gun control nonsense last session. Next election, Chittenden county residents need to send Baruth the message. He has outlived his usefulness, and needs to be retired. Perhaps gardening would better suit him.
Vermonters have been quite clear on this every session. NO. It's really that simple.
Gobeille shouldn't even be in charge of a paper clip at this point, but keeping Mr. Porter on as F&W Commissioner was a solid, bipartisan appointment. The man understands the social, political, and biological aspects of the department's work; and is dedicated to the welfare of the resource.
When did 7Days start running humor as news? Blaming gender? Seriously? Minter lost because she never had any intent to represent Vermonters. She was the first candidate to ever run for statewide office on a platform of gun control. That is a political death sentence here in Vermont. We have a proud tradition of firing candidates who attack Article 16 of the Vermont state Constitution, so why would we possibly consider electing someone who commits to doing so? Why even Senator Campbell, for all his tenure and power, knew enough to retire gracefully after the gun control debacle he tried to force through last year, yet not once does this article mention the gravity of taking such positions. If you are going to report on something like this, at least be honest rather than trying to deflect to so obvious a red herring. To be blunt, Sue Minter shot herself in the foot.
I would like to thank all of the trapping opponents here for clarifying one point, the reason that we need outdoor folk on the board is that they understand the issues. If you read the above comments which are opposed to the make up of the board, you will note that nowhere in any of them did they discuss actual wildlife management issues. They engage in a great deal of hyperbole and conjecture, but never do they mention the issues generated by excessive populations of any animal. Habitat degradation, increased disease transmission, negative population impacts on other species (including endangered species), and starvation due to excessive competition are all real issues which have been observed by scientists to occur in the absence of active management such as hunting and trapping. One opponent states that they will no longer support the non-game wildlife fund. So you will penalize non-game species because you are mad that their predators are managed? Statements like those clarify that these folks care more about their agenda than they do about the welfare and health of our wild populations.
Sid, why don't you forward that to me, as I've never been informed of the incident myself other than in your rants. I find that to be quite curious. That was my first year trapping, and the only animal I caught on land was a single bobcat, which I've mentioned previously is delicious. Also, I've never been cited for a F&W violation of any sort because I toe the line. I succeed through hard work, not cheating and thievery. Again, personal attacks like this bear out the reality, those who oppose conservation have an immense anger toward those who can state the case for the outdoor sports. When folks claim to want a conversation, but get angry at anyone who provides a counterpoint, it's generally because their position won't stand the scrutiny of an open dialogue. They therefore lash out at anyone who disrupts the narrative.
All Comments »