Maybe YOU need to think before you just blurt something out. Just because you don’t like the guy, doesn’t make him stupid. Matter of fact, it might be the other way around. Most of the intelligent people I know think highly of Commissioner Barton. And despite what the O’Dellians might tell you otherwise, you don’t always have to agree with a politician to like them.

That statement is so absurd it’s beyond insane.

Does Barton EVER think before he says something that ridiculous???

BINGO!

The government pays for bike trails, municipal golf courses, campgrounds in public parks, and a multitude other “special interest” passtimes….not to mention the parks themselves.

Those complaining about opening a rifle range on the government dime should logically also be asking the government to stop funding all manner of recreation activities….but I don’t see any such commentary.

Its rich that gun aficionados want a handout from the government. Perhaps they should petition the NRA to buy them a shooting range.

My inner Milton Friedman says that if the demand is there, then someone will open a private shooting range. My inner Keynes happens to agree as well. My inner Keynes is usually right.

From your last post, it would seem that there is indeed some truth to it, minus the spin.

And you are correct, the source was either “confused” (which I seriously doubt), or saw it in a completely different light. Is that possible?

“Ask in earnest, for that which you do not want, and then feign disappointment when it is refused.”

However, the supporting information to substantiate this was delivered through a reliable and credible source.

The very thought of this discussion taking place is certainly disturbing enough, to warrant making the post.

I sincerely hope for ANY inaccuracies that may help to alleviate the alarm bells contained in the posting above.

I certainly hope there is more to this story and/or B. Franklin has misunderstood something, because as it stands, it sounds like a very significant attempt to move even further away from open dialog and transparency. If there were libelous statements being made, one could easily subpoena any records required to address any legal issues.

This sounds more like wanting to compile a list of people who have spoken against someone, which sounds like there may be some retribution down the road, perhaps in the form of support for certain people’s issues drying up.

If that is the case, it pretty much answers the question of why anyone would post anonymously, doesn’t it?

Narvaiz’ actions portray a politician who knows that her shelf life is about to expire in her current office. Her actions since re-election have already cost her much of the support that helped her win the election. One has to wonder what will be next….

This measure was actually voted on by City Council, and was fortunately defeated by a vote of 5 to 2 (Narvaiz, Bose).

This speaks volumes for both the effect (for better or for worse) that these postings are having on our elected officials, as well as serving as an indicator of their level (or lack) of respect and desire to protect the right of our citizens to engage in constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

If there is an issue that our Mayor of any Council member disagrees with, then I would say that they are certainly at liberty to appear on this forum (like the rest of us) and comment on, or counter any and all statements, assumptions or inconsistencies that may appear.

But DO NOT engage in an underhanded attempt to squelch free speech and commentary, even though it may not flatter your manipulative dealings and the dealings of those professional politicians who come up in this public forum, for discussion.

That is a fight that you are guaranteed to lose, and you will suffer considerable and perhaps irreparable collateral damage, to boot.

That is a promise.

While we’re at it, how do I know that you’re really Charles Soechting? Just because it says so on your posts? It would take me about five seconds to post something under that name. The fact that some post their “real names” means nothing on the web because this site doesn’t require a login. Unless they change that, you’re going to have to get past the hangup over the name issue and focus on the content of the posts.

Now to the topic:

Do you think a government-run shooting range will be operating on a Sunday morning? If so, it would be about the only government-run operation doing so. In fact, I would bet that 90% of the activity (and thus the noise) at this range would be during business hours when the majority of residents are off at work.

Besides, you’re ignoring my point that most ranges in settled areas use various noise-dampening measures to minimize the racket. I’ve been 500 feet from ranges (in use) before and I could barely tell they were even there.

Whatever the reason for the handle, Dano’s comments (IMO) are no less valid because of his anonymity. I just disagree that NIMBY is necessarily irrational or unreasonable.

Living in a neighborhood where the city rezoned adjoining property, creating problems that have severely impacted the quality of life here for YEARS (soon to be decades) and regularly entertains requests to do more of the same, I think a certain level of skepticism and pushback is very reasonable.