My Facebook pages

Robert Montgomery

Why We Fish

Fish, Frogs, and Fireflies

Pippa's Canine Corner 



(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.





Entries in gun control (4)


What the Second Amendent Really Is All About

As an argument for gun control, the Left likes to tell us that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the Second Amendment applying to weapons that we have today.

Horse hockey.

Actually, our Founding Fathers never envisioned full-time politicians and  a permanent political class.

They created the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to protect inalienable rights for citizens, reserve most governing decisions to the states, and restrict federal government to specific enumerated powers.  

How do you think the Founding Fathers would feel about a federal income tax? About the IRS, which targets the political opposition of those in power? About a Supreme Court that no longer just interprets law, but redefines words, including "marriage"?

How do you think the Founding Fathers would feel about a bloated federal government with nearly 3 million employees, including thousands of unelected, career bureaucrats in control of so much of our lives, including education and health care? Since the founding of this country, the federal government has grown inexorably, like a cancer, moving ever closer to the tyrannical authority that our Founding Fathers hoped to prevent, but realized was almost an inevitability. That's why they included the Second Amendment. It had nothing to do with the specifics of the firearms themselves.

If Thomas Jefferson could see what's happening today, I think that he would say, "An AR-15? You're worried about an AR-15? Hell, I think that every citizen should have a tank in his garage."


Green Decoys Argues TRCP Is Not Credible Voice for Anglers, Hunters

Activist Angler stopped promoting the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership awhile back, as I became more and more troubled by its political and financial ties to left-leaning groups, foundations and politicians. You can read one of my posts related to that here.

Here’s the essence of the issue for me: While TRCP has “conservation” in its name and many conservation groups for its members, it seems more closely allied, especially financially, to preservationists, many of whom want to restrict where we can fish and impose tighter gun controls. Some of those backers also believe that manmade climate change is “settled science,” and, as a consequence, advocate for ever tighter and more burdensome environmental regulations that are not supported by science.

I’m not suggesting that TRCP doesn’t do some good on behalf of fish and wildlife habitat. I believe that it does, and many of its coalition members are champions for fishing and hunting. But I also suspect that TRCP is a compromised organization and, over time, morphing into a preservationist Trojan horse amidst the conservation community.

With that in mind, today I received a press release from Green Decoys, which says, “A review of TRCP’s most recent tax records finds that it receives 77 percent of its contributions from just 8 donors, many of which are San Francisco-based environmentalist foundations.”

Will Coggin, senior research analyst, adds, “TRCP provides Big Green and Big Labor with a convenient mask for their agendas: Sportsmen. TRCP is nothing more than a puppet with a camo hat, in the pay and in the pocket of radical and left-wing interests . . .

“Sportsmen and other grassroots members of these organizations should be worried that they are being used as pawns by environmentalists,” continues Coggin. “You can’t receive the majority of your contributions from a handful of elitist urbanites and claim to be a credible voice for backwoods hunters and anglers.”

Go here to read what Green Decoys has to say about TRCP:

Here’s an excerpt:

On the Sideline for the Second Amendment

TRCP claims to support the right to hunt and fish, and so it should be a vocal proponent of gun rights. But when pressed, TRCP couldn’t offer a stance. “[O]thers know far more than we do about the Second Amendment,” TRCP stated. Bizarrely, WyoFile reports that Whit Fosburgh, head of TRCP, “doesn’t view President Obama as a threat to gun rights.” TRCP’s non-stance is even stranger given that a portion of every sale of firearms and ammunition is earmarked for conservation programs.


Anti-Fishing Advocates Take Advantage of Shark Attack

Ken Jones photo of Manhattan Beach pier

Those who want to keep us from fishing are just as relentless as those who want to take away our guns.

That’s why I knew exactly what would happen after a swimmer was bitten by a hooked shark as he swam near a pier where people were fishing.

And it did. Manhattan Beach government officials in the People’s Socialist Republic of California immediately banned fishing on the pier.

Now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is pushing for a permanent ban. In a letter to the city’s major, it said the following:

“When you consider that in 2012, anglers at the Manhattan Beach Pier reeled in at least four great white sharks on three separate occasions, it seems clear that the best way to protect public safety and reduce the risk that another swimmer will be injured or killed by a panicked or confused shark is to ban fishing at the pier permanently.

“Banning fishing will spare some of the millions of sharks, birds, turtles and other animals who sustain debilitating injuries after swallowing fish hooks or becoming entangled in fishing line every year."

Never mind that the swimmer was largely responsible for the attack. The zealots don’t care about addressing the cause of the incident, any more than they care about preventing future mass murders. They see these tragedies simply as opportunities.

What they care about is imposing their Big Government world view on the rest of us. Admittedly, a ban on fishing probably isn’t in the top five of their wish list. But it’s still there, along with gun control, open borders, public-funded birth control and abortion, and a power grid powered by unicorn farts and other sources of green energy.

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said this:

“This weekend's incident was painful for both victims — the young shark who struggled for more than 30 minutes while impaled on an angler's hook and the swimmer who had the bad luck to stumble into the shark's path. PETA is calling on the mayor to look out for everyone who wants to enjoy Manhattan Beach, including the sharks who naturally shun human contact and, like humans, rarely attack without provocation.” (Notice use of “who” as a pronoun for sharks to humanize them.)

And in a post about the incident for LA Weekly,  the anti-fishing writer advocates a ban on fishing at all L.A. area piers. He also pointedly described the angler as a “tattooed fisherman.” No attempt to poison the waters for fishermen there, huh?

I don’t know the specifics regarding piers and fishing in California. But clearly swimming and surfing should not be allowed within a couple of hundred yards of piers used for fishing. If that’s not happening now, some sort of system needs to be established to accommodate all users. Possibly that would included designating some piers for fishing and the rest for other uses.

We can all live together peacefully. The problem is that some are willing to do so only by imposing their ideology on the rest of us.


More Antifishing Bias Feared in Imperial Administration


Fearing antifishing bias, even Democrats are voicing displeasure over President’s Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce, the person who would oversee NOAA and its management of fisheries in federal waters.

The Boston Globe reports:

Representatives John F. Tierney of Salem and Barney Frank of Newton have said they are unhappy about nominee John E. Bryson’s long-ago links to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that has earned antipathy from fishermen for its efforts to beef up regulation.

“The one area of difference that I’ve had with some of the environmental organizations is that I think they’ve been reflexively antifishing. We have complained about unfair enforcement for a long time, and they’ve tended to dismiss it,’’ said Frank, who represents Fall River and New Bedford. “We were disappointed that they [nominated] this guy.”

And the Daily Yonder adds, “Other Massachusetts members of Congress are pressing Bryson to say that he "will not work against the interests of fishermen."

The politicians from Massachusetts are mainly concerned with commercial fishing. But I believe that many in the Obama administration are “anti” recreational fishing as well, just as they are opposed to much of what many Americans value.

Not since King George in the 18th century, have we been ruled by a government so disdainful of and disrespectful to its people. Considering the President’s dislike of Great Britain and all things colonial, his imperial attitude makes for stunning irony.

While I’m on a rant, I’ll direct you to these links about gun control and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Get mad, America. And take your country back.