It's not just your guns and your religion you bitterly cling to

[Deaf Smith]

So now Obama want's to go after your fishing rods to.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. "

And I wonder how many jobs that would cost to in the fishing industry.

Isn't 'Hype and Change' wonderful?

Deaf

 

[Cryozombie]

"The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. "

At least our "Leader" doesn't need to listen to his employers anymore...

 

[Bruno@MT]

About the title of this thread: I can't remember Obama going after your guns and your religion. So what does that have to do with this proposal?

 

[Deaf Smith]

Bruno,

When Obama was talking in San Francisco he said, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

See,, Obama feels we hicks 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy' (but considering Obama's track record antipathy is growing by leaps and bounds) like it's come kind of crutch.

And Obama does not like guns (nor does he even go to church.. at least since he has talken office.)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So if he had is way, yep he would be hot on the trail of everyones guns.

And that is how it relates.

Deaf

 

[Sukerkin]

An honest couple of questions from an outsider, if you'll permit me to break my self-imposed silence for a moment or two?

Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?

Given that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, any President trying to take away that Right is doomed to fail isn't he? Otherwise he tears up the social contract with which your nation was founded and that sort of thing never ends well.

As to the direct matter of the OP, regulation of fishing is necessary if people are going to enjoy it as 'sport' for a sustained period. Too many hooks in the water at any one time result in no results for anyone after a while. Or am I just daft (a dangerous question there )?

 

[David43515]

An honest couple of questions from an outsider, if you'll permit me to break my self-imposed silence for a moment or two?

Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?

Given that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, any President trying to take away that Right is doomed to fail isn't he? Otherwise he tears up the social contract with which your nation was founded and that sort of thing never ends well.

As to the direct matter of the OP, regulation of fishing is necessary if people are going to enjoy it as 'sport' for a sustained period. Too many hooks in the water at any one time result in no results for anyone after a while. Or am I just daft (a dangerous question there )?

I for one always enjoy your input here. You always seem to bring up good points or post interesting comments and questions.

While I wouldn`t want someone in charge who was "a pawn of organised religion", at the same time I don`t like having someone in charge who treats religion (mine or anyone else`s) with open disdain. And although the concept of seperation of church and state is generally accepted, the phrase appears no where in the constitution.

Obama basically nationalized the auto industry and the banks, and is trying to radically change the healthcare industry even though the majority of the people seem to be against his plans. Since he`s made his views on private firearm ownership pretty plain in the past, I wouldn`t at all put it past his administration to try to find a way to legislate it out of the reach of the majority.

From what I can see in the article this is just some advisory panel saying that they`re no longer accepting further public input (from anyone) before they write the report with thier reccomendations. It looks like they were until this time. What the author of the peice seems to be afraid of is that they willl reccomend ending ALL recreational fishing in all those waters. Considering how much revenue sport fishing generates in the great lakes alone, it`ll never happen. I don`t know what it`s like on the gulf coast, but we in the great lakes get the vast majority of our tourist dollars from fishermen.

 

[Gordon Nore]

From what I can see in the article this is just some advisory panel saying that they`re no longer accepting further public input (from anyone) before they write the report with thier reccomendations. It looks like they were until this time. What the author of the peice seems to be afraid of is that they willl reccomend ending ALL recreational fishing in all those waters. Considering how much revenue sport fishing generates in the great lakes alone, it`ll never happen. I don`t know what it`s like on the gulf coast, but we in the great lakes get the vast majority of our tourist dollars from fishermen.

The column caught my attention because the author draws a line from the cancellation of the managed bear hunt in Ontario -- from what I understand, a soundly scientific exercise -- to this fishing story in the states. The connection, he feels, is "Big Green," as he terms it, thus, "We are no longer taking comments," is translated into, "Silence, your Fuhrer has spoken." It's a shame, really, because I think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the steps needed to protect the environment.

 

[Gordon Nore]

...(nor does he even go to church.. at least since he has talken office.)

I have no idea how one verifies that Mr Obama has not worshiped in over a year.

Nor do I understand how is church attendance or lack thereof is relevant. Presidents Clinton and Bush are regular church goers, oft photographed with a bible in one hand and the Missus in the other. The former committed adultery and the latter bore false witness against a neighbour.

 

[Carol]

Oh come now. Everyone knows that Obama doesn't go to church, his wife is in to the Occult, especially Astrology, and he refuses to wear his faith on his sleeve.

Oh....no....wait....that was Reagan. :lol2:

 

[Makalakumu]

Back to the subject of the OP, I'm an avid fisherman and I've been all over the country pursuing my habit. The states do just fine managing the local stocks. There is input from local people and the system monitors and adjusts. When a mistake is made, people learn and make it better. If we give the bureaucrats in Washington the power to regulate all of this, they will absolutely ruin a system that works just fine.

I can see no other reason for this, other then another federal power grab.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY ROD, FEDS!!!! LOL!

 

[chaos1551]

Well, we can see that the author of the article, Bowman, has issued an apology for the irresponsible article he wrote through ESPN, which was spread by Drudge and elevated into a fiasco.

There is no way there will be a blanket ban on any kind of fishing. Adjustments, maybe, as people learn and make the system better. It's all about conservation and making sure fish stocks are available into the forseeable future.

Even though Obama is actively trying to ruin the entire world with his horrible intent, he won't be able to succeed! (What hyperbole?)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not worried about a fishing ban. Most of the fishing near me is crap, and the fish inedible due to excessive toxins.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's all about conservation and making sure fish stocks are available into the forseeable future.

The issue for me is that this is easier to accomplish on a local level in many cases. The Federal Government has no need to get involved. Each state can individualize it's approach to its needs.

 

[Blindside]

The issue for me is that this is easier to accomplish on a local level in many cases. The Federal Government has no need to get involved. Each state can individualize it's approach to its needs.

Assuming that only one state is involved, anadromous fisheries fequently involve multiple states. Also, federal jurisdictions come into play when you look at multiple sovereign governments like tribes or neighboring nations.

 

[Makalakumu]

Assuming that only one state is involved, anadromous fisheries fequently involve multiple states. Also, federal jurisdictions come into play when you look at multiple sovereign governments like tribes or neighboring nations.

Those are good examples of where the FED can make a difference. It's not appropriate or needed in all cases though.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Given the seperation of Church and State, isn't it a good thing not to have a pawn of organised religion as your President?

The doctrine is not in the Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He said,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.

Given that gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, any President trying to take away that Right is doomed to fail isn't he? Otherwise he tears up the social contract with which your nation was founded and that sort of thing never ends well.

Hahahahaha. So you think? Sukenkin, the fly in the ointment on that is in 'interpretation'. Lots of times Congress, the President, and even SCOTUS ignores some of the wording of the Constitution.

Remember Bill Clinton's 'meaning of 'is' is?

Do not put your faith in politicians. The history of the world is repeat with politicians selling out the citizenry.

Deaf

 

[Sukerkin]

Thank you for the clarification of the exact quote from whence the concept of the seperation of church and state comes. I'm not sure that I have ever seen that extract before, tho' I have heard it.

 

[chrispillertkd]

The doctrine is not in the Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He said,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

We do have a 'freedom OF religion'. Notice the word 'OF', not 'FROM' religion. We still are pretty much a Christian nation.

Quite. And I would point out that Jefferson explicitly points out the reason for the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment:

"...the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions..."

This is why there is a separation of Church and State in the U.S. It's also something people who invoke Jefferson's comment about a "wall of separation" routinely ignore. The "wall" is there to protect the people in their freedom to believe, not to outlaw public displays of religiosity.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Carol]

There isn't any place that I know of in U.S. law mandating that the American people must belong to some sort of religion, with the freedom lying in which one they can pick.

It is not mandatory to have any sort of spirituality in the U.S. The religion of our President matters little to me. However, I do not think it is in good form for the president to make the denigrating statement the way he did.

As far as going after fishing, methinks hunters and fishermen are in a similar voting demographic -- more likely to vote R than D. This to me smacks more of politics than anything else.

 

[geezer]

T However, I do not think it is in good form for the president to make the denigrating statement the way he did.

Well, he wasn't president when he said that, it was a very political campaign statement, and he certainly has regretted saying it ever since... a bad move politically. And, like so many things that were said by both cantidates on that campaign, it was taken out of context and blown totally out of proportion. No need to let paranoia destroy ya, Deaf. Obama isn't going to take away our guns. Any president who tries will simply be voted out of office.

Now, the left may (temporarily) be able to re-instate the assault rifle ban. I don't care. I don't need a rifle that looks like a fully auto M-16 or AK 47 but shoots like sheist. My hunting rifles work just fine, thank you. Besides, everytime talk of a ban comes up, all the gun dealers make a small fortune in "panic" sales. LOL