my favorite bumper sticker. "millions of leagal gun owners shoot no one today."
Iam for everyone owning what ever they want and carraying it where every they want. but when some one commites a crime with a gun, hang him.

cute gun story. last year my wife and I when to the queen ann hill yard sale. the whole place is one big yard sale for blocks. at one yard in the back of the garage I stop a 303 enfield. the guy only wanted 40 bucks and the barral was in good shape so i got it. well after walking for blocks with the wife she says her legs and knees hurt and will i go get the car.
so i walk on up to the main street of quen ann hill to look for the car becouse i cant remember where it is after walking around all those streets for 3 hours. as iam walking past the coffe shopps and book stores( non of which carry "guns and ammo") I notice some people in the shoppes and stores are looking at my funny and speed dialing their cell phones. then i hit me Iam still carrying a large rifle in my hand. i made it to my truck before the cops showed up but i did see 6 cop cars cruzing the area on my way out.

I can't even read this stuff..been fishing at LaPush in calm seas with sun....lots of fish and fun...slept in the boat for a few days...liked my own bed last night so well I stayed in it and stayed home another day. NO news no tv and no papers for 5 days....real nice.

Owning a shotgun does not make him a friend of gun owners. I find it hard to believe that you really look at politics so simply.
There is a strong anti-gun lobby with the ultimate goal of eliminating guns in the hands of private citizens. They're trying to do it step by step, model by model, and state by state. One of their efforts in the last few years was to hold gun manufacturers liable for the actions of individuals who commit crimes with guns, essentially trying to bankrupt the gun industry. Kerry supported this effort in 2000 and 2004. Individually, Kerry's votes don't stop me from owning firearms. It's the potential sum of those votes that worry me.
England and Australia have already lost most of their firearms, including many hunting rifles and shotguns. The most popular shotguns for bird hunting in the U.S. are illegal under their laws.
The issue of children and guns is grossly exagerated by the anti-gun lobby. How many of the gun deaths they cite are from suicide, defensive situations, police shootings, or drug/gang related activity? For ideas on that thought, read THIS ARTICLE . While you're there, check out the link to the CDC statistics on causes of death and fiddle with the numbers and causes there.

...just like catch and releasers are really just fly fishermen in disguise, waiting for their chance to use their enormous influence with wdfw to change all the rivers to fly-fishing only.....section by section, river by river, watershed by watershed.

Neither argument holds water.

There is also this group called 'reasonable people with no particular affiliation whatsoever'...some of whom happen to believe that we both have a right to bear arms and an obligation to do so responsibly. If we are failing as a society to fulfill that obligation then we think reasonable legislation is warranted.....

I'm still not seeing which bill Kerry voted for that would affect my right to bear arms responsibly or have a successful hunt this year.

GW,Cheney,Haliburton,Enron, Bad economy,Iraq........HMMMMMM all Bad
Why would anyone in there right mind support this regime......Republicans are killing this country!!!

If you even think of voting for anyone but Kerry you are sealing the fate and the continued downward spiral of this great Nation.

Peace
Superfly

Just a thought, did we keep any of Ronnie's DNA?

What, I can't fish with a gun anymore?

does kerry even fish?

I posted this somewhere else, too, but I think it's pertinent here because the wetlands are significantly important to young salmon and steelhead. It's a cut and paste job, but it's factual anecdotal evidence.

Quote/Claim:
"According to figures announced today by the Department of Agriculture, we have greatly reduced the annual loss of wetlands. And that's a positive development. We're nearing a long standing goal of actually restoring as many acres of wetlands that are lost." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
There is no "comprehensive wetland survey that can accurately evaluate the status of our nation’s wetlands. While a few states have undertaken fairly comprehensive wetland mapping projects, the two national wetland trend surveys conducted by the federal government use only sampling data to assess changes in the health of America’s wetlands. Although both surveys provide important information about national trends, they do not paint an accurate picture of the current status of the country’s wetlands or reveal regional trends in wetlands losses and gains." - National Wildlife Federation, 4/22/04

In 2001, a study by the National Academy of Sciences revealed that the nation's wetlands policy has substantially failed, as wetlands continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate. - NAS Report, 6/16/01


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote/Claim:
"The work you're doing here to preserve wetlands is an important part of a national commitment. For many years, our nation has been working to prevent the net loss of wetlands." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
On Jan. 14, 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers weakened environmental standards to make it easier for developers, mining companies and others to dredge and fill wetlands. This action, among other things, revoked a requirement for acre-for-acre replacement of destroyed wetlands, lifted protection from seasonal streams, and allowed permits to be issued for commercial development projects that destroy up to three acres of wetlands – reversing a Clinton-era standard from March 2000 that reduced the maximum allowable damage to half an acre. EPA objected that these changes lacked a scientific basis, and the Fish and Wildlife Service drafted comments predicting “tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat,” which Interior Secretary Gale Norton blocked from being delivered. - 67 Federal Register 2019, 1/15/02; WP, 1/15/02

Fellow Americans,

I have read through the different topics here, and have put some thought into this subject. I am in agreement with several of the posts, but have a little disturbing news to share. 1st, neither presidential candidate is going to do more or less for restoration of the Salmon runs, cleansing of the environment, reversing of our evaporating rights to bear arms, nor are we going to see a huge swing in environmental policy towards our forests, streams, farmland, logging policy, fishing rights or anything else. The reason: Neither candidate cares. They don’t. If you think one party is better than the other at the federal level, you have been downtown Seattle, smoking crack for the last year.

The facts are: almost (and I will repeat) ALMOST all environmental issues are decided at the state level, unless someone petitions the Supreme Court to change an unfair law. So, once again, I will be forced to vote for one of two –less than adequate- candidates; one, to whom I will have eventually entrust the future path of this great nation and the future of my children. I don’t like the odds here. Also, I don’t like the 121 billion dollars of OUR money, (money we don’t have) yes, OUR money –we the taxpayers and voters- our hard earned cash on a sideline show in Iraq, while our fighting men and women are giving their lives (999 to date) to a cause that really has nothing to do with anything remotely related to our national security. Those are people’s sons and daughters, people like you and me that we will never again meet on the river, pass on a hike in the woods, have as a fishing/hunting buddy; people who will never have the kids (or have left some behind) that might have been our kids lifelong best friend. Like many of you on the board, I have spent a substantial amount of time in the military, in the Marines, and I really really really despise the lies that lead us –the American people- into supporting such a venture, and I really despise the lack of interest –in all of the presidential frontrunners- to keep and build prosperity at home in the U.S.

So, if we want to change the face of the environmental policy, start with our home state, skip the Bush/Kerry debate when it comes to the environment and start concentrating on a national health policy for our seniors, or a drug management plan, or even some type of employment program that will actually work. Start with the basic issues that we face as a nation, and start kicking politicians in the nuts, here in the Pacific Northwest to change our ‘regional’ policies to allow growth in future opportunities.

It’s not only our right to question our elected leaders, its also our responsibility.

Harley, you made some comment about "if one child's life is saved" through the banning of high capacity magazines. By that logic, if one terrorist is caught via the Patriot act, all it's flaws are worth it.

No, I didn't think you'd think that made sense. Stupid laws are stupid laws.

You gay nazi commie , the second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about keeping enough guns and ammunition so that when the republicans continue their power play to wrest control of the country from the people, we can fight.

The first clause in the sentence above is a joke, for the humor impaired. The second is deadly serious. The point of the second amendment is that the forefathers thought the people should retain the ability to stand up to their government in armed fashion if the government turned tyannical. While the democrats have historically been the party owning the gun control efforts, the republicans seem to have the bent towards tyranny.

So, all you left leaning fishers, if you're worried about the Patriot act and it's children to be, you might look into the pricing on 30 round magazines, while they can still be had.

No offense intended towards you, H2O. Though I must say, the idea of you walking around dressed as a gay nazi in Forks is pretty funny.

That hooked on phonics lesson seems to be paying out for GoHarley. Stop trying to fool us Harley, a full mouth of words from a 50 cent thesaurus cannot hide an empty suit.

king.
From one ex marine to another, its not a side show. it is the show. We can fight the terriost there or we can fight them here. and as far as Iam concerned freeing a whole country from slavery and giving them the ablity to freely elect their own goverment is the most important job of a U.S. marine. the war to date ,both in afganistan and iraq , is a hugh victory for the united states. It will change the middle east for years to come and provide us with friends in a hostle part of the world were the bad guys thought they could hide, train and recruit in safty. well all that has changed in at least two countries.

yes you are right about local officals haveing more power in what happens to are envioroment. but the money comes down from on high (thats washington d.c. to you jar head)
clinton left a bunch of last minute booby traps for President bush on the enviromental from. items he was not willing to act on while in office and only pasted on his way out . the forest roads closeres and the mercery scam. so i will be voting for the man that can provide the best leadership and towards manageing the enviroment and not just letting "nature " burn , i mean take its course.

spell check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s king. do not tell us what the "facts are" and then give us your opinon. the shy is blue. thats a fact . the sky is baby blue. thats an opinon.
president bush is a good president . opinon.
John kerry is backed by peta. fact.

SH - good point as usual. It seems to all boil down to people taking personal responsibility for the weapons they possess. Hmmmm, taking personal responsibility... another reason for regime change in DC.

Luke - in a former life I used many single syllable words of the expletive variety to get my point across in no uncertain terms. I could explain my position to you in a like manner, but I'm afraid you'd see a lot of **** ******* **** **** and such.

Harley, with regards to the magazine point, my beef is really with silly laws. Restrictions on magazine capacity, pistol grips, and flash restricters (the assault rifle determinants) are silly. Either guns themselves are so inately dangerous that they should be banned by civilised society, or they are a requirement of a balanced society to keep a dangerous tension in place that keeps government at bay. Or both.

So, you been fishing lately? I fixed my slice, but I underachieved on springers. Cutthroats will be in soon.

Oh, Luke, while Harley talks pretty, you may be assured that he's just another fat old guy like the rest of us. And he doesn't catch squat, either.

sh-

See...we totally agree that was the intent of the constitution. If you carry that logic forward though...why shouldn't a private corporation or citizen be able to buy a nuclear bomb if they could afford it, you know, for deterrence?

Who's gonna mess with a guy sitting on an H-bomb in his front yard?

Talk about bearing some serious arms now....

I guess what I'm saying is that, purely in terms of being a sportsman, I don't see how any of the legislations Kerry supported affect my ability to hunt or even to bear arms. Yeah, they may get in the way of my big plans for a gay, commie, nazi government takeover by force....but I think I can live with that for now. Stay tuned though.....

It's interesting how these fishing threads quickly degrade, so I'll do my part to help it degrade farther.

Thankfully, it won't matter what the anti-Bush, anti-Gun, environmentalists folks think when Bush gets reelected in the Fall.

We just have to line up a suitable GOP candidate by 2008 when Hillary runs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stlhdh2o:


" my big plans for a gay, commie, nazi government takeover by force....but I think I can live with that for now. Stay tuned though....." --stlhdH20

------------------------------------------------------------


That sounds like the kind of party Phil Donahue could really "get behind".