craigdailypress.com

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

The actual proposed ordinance as presented to council read:  

“Proposed ordinance to require all homeowners in the City of Craig to own a Modern Sporting Rifle (usually but not limited to an AK or AR platform) capable of accepting a high capacity magazine (as defined by that state as a magazine that holds over 15 rounds).

Exemptions: anyone legally prohibited from owning firearms, those mentally or physically unable, those financially unable or those who oppose for person or religious reasons. 

There will be no penalties for non-compliance. ”

Councilman Jones just stated one of the guns listed as a Modern Sporting Rifle of the AK kind as listed by Doctor Rummel and that he didn't want anything that was considered a Modern Sporting Rifle because he already owned a number of rifles. Nothing political was said until Doctor Rummel launched into a political statement about liberals and the president Obama.   

It was Councilman Bohrer who also manages Elkhorn Outfitters who while supporting the ordinance, did not seem to support the actual definition of type of gun/rifle and Would be happy with a person owning something. 

Unfortunately what Doctor Rummel was trying to do has been lost in the debate about gun ownership; not the economic hardships he was
Trying to speak to in his overall argument.  Whilst I don't support the proposed ordinance as I am not for more laws on the books to make a statement, I do understand his wanting to make a difference economically in Craig America. 

The neat thing  is that you are exercising your right as an American citizen to vote or not vote for someone; one person one vote!

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

All was good in the presentation; entertaining and interesting until it got political! Dr. Rummel, you lost me when you started the political rant on liberals, etc. I own guns, have been around them all my life and I am happy if people want to own guns and with those that don't. Why would you want to put a mandate in place that has no teeth; enforces the idea of 'big brother' and finally why would you want someone to have a gun that just has no interest in either owning one, let alone shooting one?

The economic argument really is mute in the case of hunting and the type of gun you are mandating for two reasons. One because a sportsman does not use a semi or automatic weapon to hunt and because if you look at all the tags available for hunting, all are filled within all the GMUs for elk hunting which supports MOCO being the Elk Hunting Capital of the World; one of the many reasons why the MCTA has chosen not to put advertising dollars into hunting.

Finally not 100% of citizens that you have spoken with support your efforts; they just don't argue back because why put the effort forward to state differently when you are so against having a true open discussion that does not support your point of view. My argument in this matter is supported by your unwillingness to have a resolution instead of an ordinance as suggested by six or the seven council members.

As Mayor Carwile suggested at the end of your presentation, you have a lot of homework to do!

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

Of course this is not a scientific poll, because if it were the question would never be asked this way. When on earth is the Craig Daily Press going to become a news reporting agency instead of one that asks questions that play on the fears of people with no responsibility in completing in-depth research or reporting on the issues from all sides? Once again, a big failure for the CDP and zero journalistic excellence, might as well be reading the National Enquirer!

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

Another situation where the ED gets the axe because of a very dysfunctional board. Lots of finger pointing all around, but in the end it is the taxpayers that suffer once again because of all the fiefdoms/boards and organizations in Craig and Moffat as a whole. Sure there were challenges on all sides, but this board left this ED out to the wolves, with little or no support, and in some cases, those wolves where in sheep's clothing. Even when the Incubator opened, only twenty percent of the seated board members showed up to celebrate the Grand Opening. Few board members helped get it up and running; today most board members cannot tell you what the Incubator does, who it serves, its benefits to the whole community. Sad that so few want to see real and positive change come to this community, because they might not get the light shined on them personally and when you do step up to help, but you don’t go along with the crowd and have a few different ideas, you get beat down over and over and finally just give up wanting to help.

Remember folks, the only way we are going to succeed is to get rid of the ‘us versus them mentality’ and 'let’s only work with the people who look and act exactly like us’ thinking. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not going to move you forward no matter how many ways you dress it up. Same board members, same good ole boy mentality, same, same, same!

The C/MEDP organization does not need to be managed, organized or more paper to be pushed, but led by a board that wants to be cutting edge, wants to mingle everyday in the community and out of the community; does not want to just come to board meetings once a month, but wants to roll up its sleeves and get out there. Hunting and gathering is fine, but economic hunting you have to compete with the big boys to bring business to a community. This community (City Council and the BOCC) does not support that because a community needs to be prepared to offer incentives (tax relief, land incentives, cash, etc). Economic gardening is a great alternative, but that seems to be boring to so many, so the C/MEDP does not want to do that either. Good luck in not wasting another $125,000 of taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years because that is where it is headed if the board does not start to act boldly and be bold in their vision, mission and implementation!

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

@ Buff_bronc_fan - Whilst I agree with all of your points, it still saddens me that we allow the witch hunts to continue through the use of the 'Letters to the Editor' section with the sole purpose it seems is to destroy career(s) or person(s) and the endless silly columns about nothing of relevance have become tiring.

My comment regarding the budget of the paper would be along the idea of 'you get what you pay for' as few advertisers want to invest in a medium that gives back so little return and is so toxic.

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

At this point, I am wondering what degree and/or type of research Ms. Nicks has completed for her statement about the types of cheating men do versus women or to be an expert in this area whatsoever? This is just another poor example of a column in the CDP that has no relevance to the positive growth of Craig and certainly shows the author's choice of this subject in light of recent events to be a poor decision. Does the paper have so little ability to get decent commentary as to seriously give this much column space to this type of blathering? I feel as though I am in a hair salon or listening to a bunch of high school girls giving their opinion on a subject in which they have no background to give relevant commentary on a subject. Again, no Pulitzer Prize writing here.

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

As the stomach turns. Typical Craig mentality, can't resolve our personal demons by talking with each other and counseling, so we go looking for a fight because pride, ego and anger take over. Good kid, working to take his life in a great direction; he has classes with my daughter and she speaks highly of him, but poor decisions by ALL the adults involved, ALL by the way are suppose to be setting an example for our young people…who loses once again, the children.

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

@Taxpayer. I agree. I takes a lot to stand up and admit that you were entirely wrong, still does not quiet my thoughts of why he would do it to begin with. Hopefully he learned that no means no; not no means no only when you get caught.

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

Apparently Mr. Gray needs a lesson on fire behavior. Doesn't matter what you clear around your incinerator, it is that errant ember that gets away and lands on your neighbors property. Geez! Finally, I don't understand why he was not cited. Was he burning, yes. Did he have a permit, no. Open and shut case.

justiceortruth (Anonymous) says…

JD…my point was not questioning the public funds being used, but hey let's do that as well. I was just questioning the limiting of signs the campaign didn't want to be seen. The point is that the event was held in a public park and a dubbed a public gathering, no one, even if you don't like what their signs may say shoud be held back because the campaign staff was uncomfortable with the First Amendment.

I have never been comfortable with the party the Parks & Rec puts on AKA 'Whittle The Woods' especially because it does so little to pay for itself.