You just proved my point. Everyone includes you, me, shane, jvalhenson and everybody else whether they hunt and fish or not.
No, I didn't. I have no idea how much he catches. I asked how two 10-15 lbers per day would not be enough. Really? Are you seriously making some correlation here? That is nuts. I have no idea how to respond to something so unrelated. Not knowing how many attackers/ammo needed correlates to how many fish you can eat?
You musta missed that "government" part. Saying it's for the public but there must be a government who manages it. Really a matter of semantics, no? If you don't have a government you can't have ownership...The government has all the say-so. They say if, when, how many. If you own a car but you can only drive it when your parent says you can, do you really own it? Like I said earlier, I guess we have different definitions of what ownership is. And btw, "everyone" never means "everyone." Felons, etc.
@lsutiga Jval's gripe was with the Fed's giving a very select few the right to commercially fish year round while severely limiting individual's opportunities to catch the same fish. No, he probably can't eat 2 15 pound fish in a day. That is not the point. His point is that recreational fisherman can only catch snapper 10 days per year while giving the commercial people year round access. You must have been hitting the sauce. You were an ass to jval and now he is gone. I wish people here in general would be a bit more accommodating to others. We really can't afford to run people off.
Wow this is still going. Not gone just been at the camp a couple weeks had to run to town finally and got signal. No keyboard cowboy gonna run me off but I see how that last post sounded like that just meant I'm not getting into pointless discussions with folks who just life to hear themselves talk. I'll still post reports that'll just be where it stops don't care much about arguing pointlessly. Anyways gonna be here another week or so got most of the work done bout to try to find some white perch which I'm not great at so not expecting much. Will check back in in a week or so.
Go back to the camp, catch your limit, my limit and throw a half dozen extra in your igloo and shoot a wooly mammoth if you see one.....got your back.
Yea, you sorta did. And you seemed to know how much he catches. So if I misinterpreted those comments, then my apologies but it certainly looked to me as though you were questioning whether he caught more than he needs. I framed my point around the concept of utility. In that sense, the correlation fits quite well. Asking why he catches more than he and his family can use is the same as asking a gun owner why he should have a high capacity mag if it's not really needed. On the back end it's about limiting rights and that's where I have a problem.
If "sorta" = "does" then ok. I know from his posts that he catches a lot of FISH but I don't know how many RED fish he catches. No need. I already apologized to the forum- at least I thought I did. I disagree. First of all, and again, I did not ask that question. That aside, who's to say he won't need a high capacity mag? On the contrary, I believe people who have them feel exactly the opposite and believe they WILL possibly need it. I just left a meeting with a friend who is an ex-marine and who does tactical training with police. We spoke of shooting scenarios that in fact DO speak to there being such a need so it's not a valid statement you use on the back end. I think I understand what you thought you meant though.
