MOBass

Don't be afraid to change things up. If the drop shot isn't doing it, drop a spoon down, change the way you are working the drop shot, change bait color, slap on a crawler. It's free to experiment.

I did not. I might try to look them up and suggest that along with using high visibility colors on the yaks. The majority of the yaks I saw yesterday were a molted black and red color. The life west were not bright colors either. Hunter orange everything would have helped. A sign at the ramp to inform boaters to be on the lookout wouldn't hurt my feelings. Everyone can play nice and enjoy the water if a little common sense and courtesy is used.

While not directed towards me I will say that Regan was absolutely correct. Jefferson explained this very eloquently- "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 and State." The concern was that the government would establish a state religion much like England. Jefferson did not want to come out of a war of independence from a country with a state established religion just to see it happen again in the new country. So how can the 10 Commandments be displayed in a court house and not conflict? The state has not established any particular religion directly. If someone sees the 10 Commandments as being an endorsement of a particular religion they are getting butthurt over nothing and need to go back and learn some history. The problem is some will attempt to bastardize the language and use it to attack religion. They, along with zealots on the other side both should seek to educate themselves.

Put in at the campground in Branson around 2:30 and motored up a bit above Cooper Creek. As noted in another post there are now large numbers of kayaks on Taney. Most were staying off the channel, but a few groups were scattered across the lake. There were also a few pontoons drifting the channel. Not bad, but certainly a day to be aware, slow down, and keep looking around. Branson Kayak rental guy mentioned it was their busiest day this year. The only slightly negative interaction I had with the kayakers was a gentlemen standing in the middle of the ramp after they had taken out the yaks. He was standing there oblivious to the world and the fact he was in the middle of the ramp I was backing down. It took honking the horn to get his attention and he made no hurry of moving. Water seemed to have a tinge of color and temp was 53F. Which made for some good entertainment of seeing some young guys jump in the water from a pontoon. Not sure how many they were running, but there was some movement to the water especially above Cooper Creek. Fishing was steady. Any place with a little break from the current held fish. Creek mouths, behind islands, downstream for docks, especially larger ones all produced. It was a C/R day so lures only. An assortment of spinners and crappie jigs produced fish. A slight nod to brighter colors, but action was OK on most everything we tried. I am sure crawlers would have got plenty of action along with the good ole standby of Power Eggs. Take aways, be careful on the water. Lots of folks out there to share it with. When in doubt go slow, idle if you have to, the fish will be there when you arrive. Keep the attitude and temper in check because after all it's just fishing.

I don't like the term liberal when referring to those that want a large central government and prefer the correct language of communist, socialist, and secular progressive, all of which are more accurate descriptors. Communist and socialist long ago co opted the word liberal because it was palatable to the masses. You might be more of a classical liberal. A classical liberal would believe in greater freedoms, less central government regulation, and more issues handled at a lower governmental level. I view myself as a classical liberal and would prefer many issues not to be handled at a national level, but rather at a state, and in many cases local level. It would probably shock some to learn that I don't care what you smoke, who you fornicate with, if you want an abortion or not, less laws would be better all the way around. What I do care about is being told I must compromise my principals to accommodate someone's 'feels'. As to the use of ridicule and insults. A cursory read of Alinsky will show you the play book very clearly. If you disagree with a secular progressive issue I can assure you that in short order you will be called racist, bigot, sexist, homophobic, and a slew of other unpleasant terms. Those spouting the insults either A) believe them or B - are just following Alinsky in using ridicule to isolate and discredit. That is why you are seeing the death of reasonable social discourse. Thank you for your time.

No minds will be changed on either side of this issue so I am off to ogle the new ICAST toys.

Mary Ann everyday and twice on Saturday. This is 'merica though so why not get both!

I would recommend you surrender your car keys. Starting a vehicle is a much bigger liability and you are much more likely to cause injury or death by your use of it. See how that works? Ah....The only LEOs are professional enough statement! It took a lot to get that out of you. Are you aware of how many rounds are required for a LEO to qualify with? How many the average LEO shoots in a year? The training required? This is where you will insert some ridicule, not respond because you have no clue, and ramble on with the talking points. Were you aware that last night the LAPD had an officer involved shooting where a bystander was shot in addition to an unarmed man? Are you familiar with the number of bystanders shot by the NYPD in an officer involved shooting? It was more than one. Do a little homework and you may want to go the route of England and disarm the beat officer. Pro tip....The large number of LEO trade in Glocks and M&Ps are in shockingly good condition for the most part and have exceptionally low round counts. You project a lot. Might want to have that looked into. May I ask....Are you a true believer or are you paid to troll forums?

Because we challenge your belief in a respectful manner you choose to revert to ridicule? Is the ability to debate lost in this country?

Ketchup, I would guess you are pro gun, pro liberty, pro freedom. You probably have no desire to force your will on anyone and if they choose not to own a gun, go to church, drink whiskey, or smile at pretty ladies you won't make them. Just a hunch.

You mean that violence is not tied to an inanimate object? Shocked I tell you!

Why stop with handguns? Was JFK not killed with a scoped rifle? Didn't a guy in a Texas clock tower wreak havoc? A rifle is a much deadlier weapon than a handgun. Look at the survivability rate for handguns vs. rifles.

Never is a long time. Look at the fundamental change in America that has taken place in such short order. So indulge us. What is your ideal and how would you achieve it?

Ketchup, You are being very kind. It would be safe to say there are a number of posters in this thread that would have no qualms about stripping away rights and they would not stop with the 2nd Amendment. A few if given their ruthers would likely have gun owners rounded up and at best imprisoned. Frankly the way they think is frightening. The interesting thing is that I have a number of hobbies and I am seeing a steady leftist push in most every forum. Even the most non political threads become a platform for the anti liberty types. Someone said to me the other day....We ain't seen bad, but it's coming.

If they have a good start what should be done to further it?

Personal responsibility. The same reason I wear a seat belt, lock my doors, maintain my vehicle, provide for my family.... I am responsible for the safety of myself and family. I will find the best tools to do so and work to develop my use of those tools so that I can use them in an effective manner. That could be punching the quick key for 911, crossing the street to avoid an unsavory character, to the use of force in the necessary defense of myself and loved ones. You assume that the only tool is a hammer and therefor everything appears to be a nail. Not the case.

They do still have occasions of violence involving firearms. So do you feel that the Australian laws would be sufficient?

I am waiting on your statistical facts. You seem to rely on personal attacks and ridicule. Do you read Alinsky much? I have clearly expressed I have no desire to take part in a gunfight. The one person that has posted first hand experience of such clearly states they did not take any pleasure in it and do not wish to do so again. You choose not to understand and that I can not help you with. People carry for various reasons. Most will generally carry to protect themselves and their family in the event that they are faced with a violent attack. Some will extend that further, but most in this day and age of being crucified by the media even in the event of a justifiable shooting have a very narrow window in which they would draw and an even smaller one in which they would fire their weapon.

Would there be less violence?

How many of those were concealed carry holders shot with their own weapon? How many were random acts? How many were known gang members or associates thereof? Please provide the number of concealed carry holders shot with their own weapon in St. Louis year to date and how this relates as a percentage to the number of concealed carry holders. Provide facts to persuade me that it is indeed more dangerous to carry than not. You make the assumption that crime has defined boundaries by your statement of carrying where you might actually need it. This is patently not true. Crime takes place from the inner city to the smallest Podunk town. While the likelihood may increase or decrease based upon a number of factors which includes location, crime does not magically stop at a line on a map.

What would you propose as a solution?

Provide your documentation to support your statement. Let's see the numbers and how they are reached. Something about lies, darn lies, and statistics comes to mind. I can tell you are not a student of history. Please take some time and study Germany circa 1938-45 and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In both cases governments were very effective in curtailing personal fire arms ownership. It is indeed possible and those that do not study and understand history do so at their own peril. As to the Middle East.....There will never be a sustainable peace in the region. Too many bad actors. It does not matter who is in the White House, Congress, or anywhere else. There will be some level of conflict for longer than our children's children will be alive.

I have tried to explain things in as clear a language as possible and you choose not to understand what is being said. You have not provided any facts, evidence, or logic throughout this thread and rely emotion, ridicule, and personal attacks.

I find it interesting the number of people that feel the legally armed citizen was in the wrong and feel that they presented a greater threat than three violent felons. I am further intrigued by the number of people that would put their life in the hands of a criminal, trusting that they will simply rob and move on.

If the armed person involved in this situation was a uniformed police officer would you feel differently? What is your threshold for the use of deadly force?