Mr VJP

No you don't. But you do appreciate the government's heavy hand forcing other people to do it.

JRM said: "Cablevision, TWC, Comcast... whomever. They have a government contract to be the exclusive cable provider in a defined area. Some entrepreneur cannot come along and build a competing network. Yes, Verizon had "FIOS" in limited areas, but the truth is that it isn't truly competition." This isn't true. There is no "exclusivity". Any cable company can get a franchise agreement from any municipality to put their cable in a town that already has a cable provider. It's called an over build. It's not often done by competitors because they do not know what percentage of subscribers they will get when finished so the cost of the project vs the return on investment is an unknown. It does exist in many areas though, so competition is allowed. There is also the satellite dish alternative that keeps cable companies on their toes as well.

Either way, they have no problem making you guys pay for it. "The jury is still out on whether the FCC's ruling will do more good than harm, but that's mostly because it doesn't go to the crux of the problem, which is lack of competition. The FCC's action won't create more of it. Indeed, it's not at all clear it will usher in a neutral net. What is clear, however, is that the greatest invention since Gutenberg's printing press will now be regulated by a bureaucracy that still struggles to build a functioning website."

Yeah, ME! Rates up 25%. Deductibles up 100% And less coverage for things I use while giving me coverage for things I don't. I'll decide what is "adequate" coverage for me thank you. The government thinks I may need a mammography and pap smears soon.

"While the Democrats tried to paint the right as a being the rich man’s party and the Koch’s for trying to “buy America,” the truth is America’s wealthiest districts elect Democrats, and more billionaires contributed the Democratic party than the GOP last election cycle." Democrat policies tend to hamper the economy buying votes from constituencies. GOP policies are intended to bolster the overall economy. Loretta Lynch, up for US Attorney General, a Democrat, refused to prosecute anyone involved with the HSBC scandal because many of them are Democrats. What H. Ford did in the early 20th Century would not work in the early 21st Century. Besides government agencies like EPA, OSHA, NLRB and Commerce Dept would have put him out of business withing a year. I don't believe many think Romney would not have been better for America at this point.

No, just a pic I saw and thought it would fit nicely on a hunting site. So many folks on here want hunting only stuff, so this is just my small contribution.

Nothing more needs to be said here:

Known to kill at both ends of the rifle! LOL!

I never said that. It's a collectivist government bent on it's own self preservation IMO. But the side that is agreeing with net neutrality happens to be mostly Democrat.

Controlling government wouldn't be possible if the government wasn't willing to take money to be controlled, now would it? Men will always offer bribes for influence, but the person who accepts the bribe is the one who is the problem.

"Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative."

Like I said, a government campaign to destroy capitalism. Who has more expertise on the issue than Forbes. Maybe you should read it and debate the facts rather than dismiss it outright because the government tells you they're the bad guys.

Corporations have no power to force you to do anything, the government does! Who would you rather deal with?

Junkie, the government fixed that by making everyone else pay a lot more for those that have no insurance and no desire to stay healthy or get a job. It's just collectivist thinking that goes a long way to destroying capitalism, free enterprise, liberty and freedom of choice. It is the main goal of Progressives. Everything this administration and Progressives do has that goal in mind. "Net Neutrality" is double speak, just as "Affordable" Care Act is. In reality it will allow the government to control free speech and hamper speech is does not approve of, especially speech that is critical of the government. If you thought what the IRS was being allowed to do under Lois Lerner was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Not really. Nobody can shoot one more than twice in any given day! LOL!

Heck, then just go all the way and get a .458 Lott!

Having seen attacks on their hunting and firearm rights for decades, some hunters are just very vigilant when it comes to further attacks on any of their rights by bigger intrusive government. I'd say these posts are very much in line with the interests of many freedom loving hunters and firearm enthusiasts. On the other hand, many hunters see the pastime as an escape from the pressures and demands of the real world and choose not to participate in the vigilance. That's how they wind up with infringements on their rights, like the SAFE Act.

"Opponents, including many congressional Republicans, said the FCC plan constitutes dangerous government overreach that would eventually drive up consumer costs and discourage industry investment. Republican FCC Commissioners Mike O'Rielly and Ajit Pai, who voted against the plan, alleged that President Barack Obama unfairly used his influence to push through the regulations, calling the plan a "half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent and indefensible document." Michael Powell, a former Republican FCC chairman who now runs the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, warned that consumers would almost immediately "bear the burden of new taxes and increased costs, and they will likely wait longer for faster and more innovative networks since investment will slow in the face of bureaucratic oversight." Big Government Expands Further Into Your Private Life

Far from amazing IMHO. Some people are simply die hard big government Obama supporters that hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil about this administration. Perhaps it's their blind hatred of the prior Bush administration that was implanted in their minds by the leftist media, that just prevents them from ever seeing any corruption in the Democrats. As far as rights being removed, it's not that they do not care, they refuse to believe it is happening!

If not for the massive amount of attention given to this case, the prosecutor would still be going ahead with it. This is the 3rd case in the last year where a lot of attention is the only thing that made NJ back down from gun persecution of up standing citizens. One man was actually already sentenced to prison when his case got attention and Gov Christie commuted his sentence and freed him. But since he did not get a pardon, he's still a convicted felon and has no 2nd Amendment rights anymore.

All you need to know about net "neutrality". http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/25/soros-ford-foundations-lavish-196-million-push-internet-regulations?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=soros-net-neutrality

Stay totally off of the NYS radar. Old white men with guns are criminals in their eyes.

Ever study your phone bills? See all of those government fees on there? They pay for government regulations.

Grampy, your main concern should be never buying any ammo, or any firearm for that matter, in NY State anymore.