EPA considering ban on lead-based ammunition?

posted at 4:48 pm on August 25, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Mark Hemingway. Hey, if air is an environmental hazard worthy of federal regulation, surely bullets are too, no?

I could sit here for a week and not come up with an issue more likely to make already vulnerable House Dems wet themselves than this one, assuming that the EPA acts on it. Which, I’m guessing, they won’t.

NSSF is springing into action, as the public comment period opens on EPA considering a regulation that will ban all traditional lead ammunition. This would basically end the shooting sports as we know it. Remember this is a no-win situation for us, because bullets made of materials other than lead are often considered armor piercing by law. Copper is your basic material, and copper is expensive, and has much poorer performance properties than lead.

As NSSF has pointed out, there’s no real scientific basis for restricting lead ammunition. Just about all shooting ranges at this point are recycling their lead (it’s too valuable to just leave in the ground). California’s ban has not been shown to reduce lead levels in Condors, and has driven more people away from hunting. Additionally, it’s interfered with lawful self-protection in parts of California that are considered condor habitat.

Here’s the site where you can read the official petition, leave a comment, etc. The date the comment period ends? Two days before the midterms. Worst-case scenario here: The EPA announces the ban, thereby instantly causing a stampede of Blue Dogs from rural districts down Pennsylvania Avenue so that they can pass a bill overriding it. (If the ban comes next year, our new Republican House — and Senate? — will take care of it, natch.) Then it’s on to The One’s desk for signature, and rest assured, with his eye on 2012 and knowing that he’ll need western and midwestern states to win, he will sign it. Maybe even with a smiley face as the “O.” Damn, I love wedge issues.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And then there are the non-hunting aspects of ammunition: self-defense against predation.

Lead is inexpensive and has known characteristics when used against attackers that stalk you. Rounds used for those purposes of defending oneself are not for hunting, they are for self-defense, and the means for inexpensive self-defense so as to offer the widest opportunity for it is also a goal of the 2nd Amendment.

With expanding populations of brown and black bears, mountain lions, and wolves now encroaching in not just rural but suburban and even urban population areas, our ‘conservation’ of wildlife has led it to no longer fearing us. It is one thing to see a black bear in the wilds of Appalachia and quite another to see one along the interstate in Gaithersburg, MD in a heavily populated residential zone. Already we have an increase in bear sightings in NoVA that are following the increasing deer population into residential areas.

Another use is the ‘snake rounds’, small shotshells useful to ward off smaller animals that can be harmful to you even if they cannot eat you. Lead is useful as barrels are designed for its use, and the use of harder material (nickel covered copper or bismuth, say) will have differing effects on rifling seen in typical handgun platforms. While not a concern for something like a derringer with replaceable barrels, it is to be considered for using one of the Ruger Mark series or Browning Buckmark series, along with older arms from Colt and High Standard pressed into local use for such animals. The shot size for these (typically #12 for a 22lr and going up to #9 for a 45 ACP) makes them manageable, but the quantity of shot makes their effect more localized.

From the reports I have read on wildlife (migratory waterfowl and fish populations) there has been no good measurement of overall population size vs morbidity due to lead. There are wind plants that have gone up in migratory zones that have reports of migratory pattern bird impacts and kills at rates that are astonishing and indicate that the presence of same are a higher contributor to local kills than lead. Similarly most research is done in and around populated areas or in typical hunting areas, and not in wilderness areas to find out what the ingestion of lead is for waterfowl over their entire range: a local increase may only be due to local causes. As for human ingestion of lead it depends on the amount you take in versus the amount chelated via excretion over time. We no longer use lead pipes for incoming water, lead paint for our homes or leaded gasoline which means our carrying load for lead has increased as it has gone down in our environment as a whole. Thus guidelines set up for that higher baseline in the 1970′s may need to take into account the lowered baseline of environmental lead when approaching lead in hunting. This goes, on a smaller scale, for fish populations as well. Death due to lead, for fishes, can be beyond toxicity and be a problem with buoyancy as lead can change the overall density characteristics of a fish that has ingested a sinker. That also goes for birds but, to a lesser extent, because of their mass it may play a lower role, although examination of flight characteristics and hunting/browsing capacity with lead weights (vs. normal, low density rocks used for digestion) would help in the examination of the issue.

Finally there is the other predator, the two legged variety, that seeks to use force to win its way over personal liberty. That will cause only localized lead as an aerosol when used from a typical handgun platform with most of the lead pieces embedded in the target, unless you have something of high enough hardness and density to over-penetrate the target. Lead is actually preferable in those instances due to the known ability of penetration of various handgun rounds. For home defense from shotgun platforms there are a wide array of rubber and plastic coated ammo, flexible baton rounds, and the ever lovely flechette rounds to offer less penetration than lead and even have a chance of a target surviving without fatality. I wish more ranges had lanes set aside for those things. Even with that said, for shotguns in the 410 bore you are getting the equivalent of a 357 Magnum with a slug round, which is perfectly acceptable for home defense use. For most other shotguns the higher lead shot numbers or low recoil or law enforcement rounds are also satisfactory, although overpenetration is a concern.

There is a fascinating misconception that steel makes a round armor-piercing. And yet tests done during WWII show this not to be the case. From the 1970′s onwards the art of armor piercing became a science that now deals with differences in density, deformation characteristics of the impactor and length to diameter rations of the impactor, itself. Lead, typically, has a relatively high density but deforms upon impact. Soft steel, used in Soviet ammo does not make it armor piercing because of the deformation characteristics of the steel involved. I haven’t been able to figure out the rationale the Soviet Bloc countries used for making steel core ammo, save that over-runs on low grade steel may have made it price competative for putting it into the core of lead rounds.

It would be real nice if we had a steel industry that made such low quality stuff to try it out… but it would still require a jacket of deformable metal compatible for rifling in typical handgun and rifle barrels.

A note on the steel cased Wolf Ammo: I have two weapons (Thompson M1927 SA and Para-Ord 14.45) that have recommendations against steel cased ammo due to extractor wear being higher than for brass. Single use aluminum casings are just fine, however. If you do a lot of practice with steel cased ammo, you may want to look into titanium extractors or some of the hardened ones from Wilson Combat. I’ve seen similar reports for older arms, and unless the weapon was made to use steel cartridges you would have similar worries on extractor/ejector wear and performance issues related to same.

From what literature I can find the actual citation of lead as an environmental problem versus normal casualty rates for wildlife, do not put lead at a higher risk factor than, say, wind turbines or hydroelectric plants. Worse is the lack of population sizing, sampling size, and length of sampling time over a given area and getting all cases of morbidity year round make for less than appetizing data sets. I have seen migratory birds not on their migratory schedules, which points to some changes in habitat that are not being accounted for and that will change mortality distribution, as well. Similarly for fish populations the baseline of ‘just how many fish are there?’ is one that is hard to track down. Year round rates of mortality, especially in frozen over lakes, may be missing part of the overall population profile so that typical spring/summer rates may see one sort of curve and fall/winter see another. The amount of work necessary to do such wide-ranging, multi-year studies over large areas for migratory birds and in large lake/river systems for fish is very expensive. Localized reports may be missing something because you are looking at one time of the year and missing other problems that show up as part of the continual lifecycle of the animals involved. To that there also needs to be a baseline to show that human impact is making a difference, and that requires close scrutiny of prior generations of work to see what was being found and what was being missed. AGW has this problem, also, in that it cannot take past climate regimes with known levels of carbon dioxide and give accurate results based on the theories out there. The datasets used for AGW have become polluted with artifacts of prior organizations processing and winnowing out data based on non-reported reasons, which means you can’t get the original data sets nor reproduce the results of researchers. That is not, in any form that it is understood, ‘science’.

Science is painstaking, meticulous, repeatable, and explains more with new findings and yet works fully with all known data. How long have we been hunting with lead shot and bullets in North America? Or fishing with lead sinkers? And what makes the artifacts seen now any different than what has been going on for the last couple of centuries? Our hunting has, if anything, gotten better, not worse over time, and while fishing is not catching we tend to catch more, now, than we have in the past with the same amount of time and similar equipment dedicated to the sport.

And in no event is hunting to be confused with self-defense.

One is for sustenance to survive.

The other is for survival first and above all.

If environmentalists can’t differentiate between the two, then they do not understand the differences of the two regimes and their functions, and are scaremongering based on the fear words of ‘lead poisoning’ instead of examining lead ingestion, chelation, population densities, overall fatalities and seeking to see just how large a ‘threat’ lead is versus other environmental actors (like increases in raptor populations that must also be taken into account). Show me the wide-ranging, in-depth, multi-year, multi-nation evidence all collected under the same conditions and accounting for all mortality, then we can find out what the percentages are for mortality. My guess is raptors take top spot and that lead is in the weeds.

ajacksonian on August 26, 2010 at 7:30 AM

BTW Tailboss, I don’t know any serious gun owner that would call a magazine a clip.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Do liberals literally stay up at night thinking about ways to destroy this country?

angryed on August 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM

we have formed our current economies totally on carbon, it will take a long time to make change-overs.

Do you really think that mis-use of natural energy resources is what God expects of us?

trailboss on August 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Uh … life is based on carbon. Can you please explain how one misuses “natural” energy resources? Aren’t all energy sources natural?

If God had not expected us to use the earth’s natural resources then He would have provided oh I don’t know … nuclear power plants for Adam and Eve.

darwin on August 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Do liberals literally stay up at night thinking about ways to destroy this country?

angryed on August 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Pretty much. They’re never happy until everything good is destroyed … then they’ll say “oh we just didn’t implement it right, we’re getting better though! We only killed 17.5 million people this time!”

The goals of the two competeing ideologies are quite clear:

The left strives to oppress.

The right strives to liberate.

darwin on August 26, 2010 at 8:03 AM

assuming that the EPA acts on it. Which, I’m guessing, they won’t.

Quite an assumption, AP. If we had ordinary Democrats, I wouldn’t think it would happen. But we do have radical Fascist-Democrats in power (“a charter of negative liberties”) so I cannot put it past them to enact such a scheme.

rbj on August 26, 2010 at 8:37 AM

Do you really think that mis-use of natural energy resources is what God expects of us?
 
trailboss on August 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM

 
Can you please explain how one misuses “natural” energy resources? Aren’t all energy sources natural?
 

darwin on August 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM

 
I’m quite interested in this as well. We are part of nature, after all.

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Actually the Law of conservation of mass states that in any kind of ordinary chemical or physical process, matter is neither created or destroyed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Molon labe.

Akzed on August 26, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Do liberals literally stay up at night thinking about ways to destroy this country?
angryed on August 26, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Pretty much. They’re never happy until everything good is destroyed … then they’ll say “oh we just didn’t implement it right, we’re getting better though! We only killed 17.5 million people this time!”
The goals of the two competeing ideologies are quite clear:
The left strives to oppress.
The right strives to liberate.
darwin on August 26, 2010 at 8:03 AM

This is why we call them Oppressives – Democratic Oppressives advocate Oppressive Taxation, Oppressive control over the economy, Oppressive control of your basic human right of self defense.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 9:37 AM

How did this get taken out of Top Picks?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM

How did this get taken out of Top Picks?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM

That’s Weird

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 10:02 AM

BTW Tailboss, I don’t know any serious gun owner that would call a magazine a clip.

hawkdriver on August 26, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Yah, hawk, bullshit. Just like Madision’s grasping at straws. Whether I call the 10 round ‘spring loaded auto dispensing ammunition carrier’ I use in my Buckmark a ‘clip’ or a ‘magazine’ makes no difference except to nitpickers.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Whether I call the 10 round ’spring loaded auto dispensing ammunition carrier’ I use in my Buckmark a ‘clip’ or a ‘magazine’ makes no difference except to nitpickers.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Well, yeah. Oh, and also people who like to tick off liberal idiots and liars.

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 10:26 AM

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Do you have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Yah, hawk, bullshit. Just like Madision’s grasping at straws. Whether I call the 10 round ’spring loaded auto dispensing ammunition carrier’ I use in my Buckmark a ‘clip’ or a ‘magazine’ makes no difference except to nitpickers.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM

People who wallow in willful ignorance and scorn those who make an effort to be accurate never cease to astonish.

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Uh … life is based on carbon. Can you please explain how one misuses “natural” energy resources? Aren’t all energy sources natural?

If God had not expected us to use the earth’s natural resources then He would have provided oh I don’t know … nuclear power plants for Adam and Eve.

darwin on August 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Oh, God did provide a non-carbon source of limitless energy – wind – and the steady stream of flatuence issuing forth from your posts would power Kansas on a still day.

WELL, let’s see, just how well have we been using Earth’s natural resources that God blessed us with?

Coca is a natural resource that we’ve been using I’m sure to God’s expectation.

Tobacco is a natural resource that we’ve been using I’m sure to God’s expectation.

The Uranium Iran is enriching is certainly a natural resource that is being used, I’m sure, to God’s expectation.

The oil that the Saudi’s export to us is certainly natural resource that we’ve been using I’m sure to God’s expectation. Especially when the proceeds are used to further the ‘world domination agenda’ of Islam. Surely I should be in praise of that wonderful gift!

I’m pretty sure that God intended us to use coal power generation to spew nitrogen oxides into the air so that acid rain could kill whole lakes and decimate forests in the Northeast and Canada.

I’ve got to admit that God certainly intended the premature deaths of 2 million people each year from respiratory infections, heart disease, and lung cancer due mainly to our burning of those wonderfully plentiful fossil fuels.

You’ve got to assume that God likes the smog in L.A.! (and Salt Lake City, and Phoenix, and Denver, and Mexico City, and Beijing) He must view that as still another gift stemming from the abundance of oil and coal he gave us.

I’m pretty darned sure that the difficulty I have breathing when winter inversions hit our valley and trap all the tailpipe emissions is God’s little gift to me, and of course to those who are hospitalized because of it. I should indeed be on my knees thanking Him on those days!

Oh, and if we go back in time a little, I’m sure God enjoyed watching 12,000 Londoners die prematurely from the coal smog of 1952.

And on, and on, and on. It is truly the gift that keeps on giving!

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:48 AM

People who wallow in willful ignorance and scorn those who make an effort to be accurate never cease to astonish.

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Madison, I once believed most of your posts were pretty thought provoking and worthwhile, but this nitpicking tirade about ‘clips’ vs ‘magazines’ is just you grasping at straws trying to discredit me cause I made you mad. IT DOESN’T MATTER.

Let’s see, next up, do I use ‘gas’ or ‘gasoline’ in by car?
Surely that matters since ‘gas’ is actually one of the four states of matter, and ‘gasoline’ is what my dinky four banger (whoops, Four Cylinder) motor (whoops again, Internal Combustion Engine) burns (damn, missed it again – combusts or rapidly oxidizes).

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Do you have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 10:36 AM

You mean personally, as in are you wanting to come visit? Or do you mean generally, as in if confronted by a real threat do I have the right to defend myself, my family, and innocent bystanders?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Why do you guys always try to keep up the pretense? You can’t, you know.

Eventually you all get overly flustered and revert to your natural form. You’re already showing signs of anger. The leftist hatred will be erupting soon.

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Yes He is, Sister, but He told us to be stewards of the Earth, not wanton plunderers. Free Will is the most powerful force we have, and we ought to learn how to use it correctly.

trailboss on August 25, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

YOU. FAIL.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Do you have the right of self defense?
Chip on August 26, 2010 at 10:36 AM

You mean personally, as in are you wanting to come visit? Or do you mean generally, as in if confronted by a real threat do I have the right to defend myself, my family, and innocent bystanders?
trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM

No need to overly complicate the question – and dodge it by the way, but Do you have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM

No need to overly complicate the question – and dodge it by the way, but Do you have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Just gotta clarify, Chip. Yes I have the right to self defense.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

YOU. FAIL.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM

So by your interpretation, we should be laying waste to the Earth, correct? I mean, let’s not let God down by not using up everything here regardless of the secondary effects on ourselves.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

You mean personally, as in are you wanting to come visit?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Goddamn. And you’re calling us paranoid.

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 11:36 AM

IT DOESN’T MATTER.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Right. And the composition of bullets doesn’t matter.

But paying for a hybrid engine to save the planet from global warming/cooling/change is, right?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM

No need to overly complicate the question – and dodge it by the way, but Do you have the right of self defense?
Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Just gotta clarify, Chip. Yes I have the right to self defense.
trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Then it would follow that in this day and age, that you should have the right to a firearm – a standoff weapon that does not require one to close with the your assailant or assailants and does not require extraordinary skills as would the use of a bladed weapon?
Not to mention the fact that an assailant may be armed with a gun and that your right of self-defense means that you have at least some parity, right?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I talked to my dad and husband about this last night, basically cause my biggest fear, is, when the guns are banned, we are gone as a country. Right now, with all the $hit this administration is doing doesn’t scare me too much, I know we will bounce back, we did after Carter and we will after Oboobma. But if they take our weapons, that, that dear ppl will be the end. But both of my men made it clear you can either make your own, or buy steel or bronze bullets. So I guess we will just have to ride it out, accept the fact that someone soon will be coming to inspect our morning poo and wipe our a$$ for us…I can’t wait to vote these fools out of office and out of my life.

nwpammy on August 26, 2010 at 11:51 AM

So by your interpretation, we should be laying waste to the Earth, correct? I mean, let’s not let God down by not using up everything here regardless of the secondary effects on ourselves.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Where did I use the words ‘laying waste?’

You fiberals do love those straw men, don’t you. It’s cute how you immediately leap to conclusions and mischaracterize a position that I haven’t even taken yet. Not to mention your sarcasm, which is immature and misplaced.

But since you didn’t ask beforehand, I’ll give you my viewpoint ex post facto.

God gave us this planet and said, “Do what you want. It’s a gift.” I’ve already demonstrated this by quoting the Bible. You apparently were ignorant of what the Bible said – hence your knee-jerk, desperate straw man response rather than acknowledging the vast chasm in your knowledge.

Subdue – Synonyms:

restrain, suppress, hold back, control, check, discipline, tame, pacify, calm, calm down, soothe, mollify, placate, reduce, soften, moderate, subjugate, conquer, vanquish, defeat, overpower, overcome, crush, quell, overwhelm

It is the height of arrogance to force people by the point of a gun to adapt to ever-increasing difficulties presented by government taxation and regulation, especially when this viewpoint is based on a fallacy – that man is not permitted to use what God gave him.

It is the height of dishonesty to label those who wish to have a good standard of living as ‘laying waste’ to the environment.

It is the height of ignorance to presume that we can hurt this planet beyond repair, given that God has put mechanisms in place with which the earth actually repairs itself.

I will leave you with one example – the microbes that are eating the oil.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

And?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM

It is the height of ignorance to presume that we can hurt this planet beyond repair, given that God has put mechanisms in place with which the earth actually repairs itself.

I will leave you with one example – the microbes that are eating the oil.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Circular as a saw. God wants us to conquer, vanquish, defeat, overpower, overcome, crush, quell, overwhelm, so He put in place oil eating microbes to repair the damage we do by following His commandment to subdue the Earth.

Epic. Fail.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 11:45 AM

And?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM

And then Why are you advocating the banning of an essential element in the means of that defense?
Shouldn’t everyone have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Right. And the composition of bullets doesn’t matter.

But paying for a hybrid engine to save the planet from global warming/cooling/change is, right?

MadisonConservative on August 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM

You’re still reaching and grasping Madison. Settle down.

Yes the composition of bullets matters, since if the only thing I have access to is aluminum or beeswax, said bullets don’t work at all. The original argument was over whether losing access to lead bullets meant the imminent end of our freedoms, vs having ‘perfectly usable but perhaps not as nice as lead’ substitutes that still kill and maim pretty well. I think its been shown that lead substitutes are already at hand and reasonably effective, and because lead is toxic and does secondary damage, why not use something less harmful?

Using a hybrid engine to reduce our use of polluting fossil fuels is a minor way to lessen our negative impact on the environment we all live in. Is it the only way, hell no. Is it my preferred way – maybe, if and when the battery technology becomes reliable and long lasting enough.

Will it clean the air and make the oceans crystal clear and will the birds sing and the sun shine and everyone want to buy me Coke? Puhleese. No, but it would be a good thing.

Are you being forced at the point of a gun to buy a hybrid? No? Have I advocated that? NO.

Or to use renewables? No? Have I advocated that? NO.

Will my grandchildren be because the choices are so limited by our willy nilly abuse of God’s Gifts, cause ‘gee doing something NOW is somehow limiting my basic freedom to lay waste to the Earth’?

Personally, I’d rather not leave them that particular ‘gift.’

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM

And then Why are you advocating the banning of an essential element in the means of that defense?
Shouldn’t everyone have the right of self defense?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Please see my reply to MadisonConservative above. I’m tired of poking at the keyboard.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I will put it to you another way – how do you address your support of the banning of an essential element of self defense?

Given that potential assailants may have firearms, or may have greater strength or skill than you in the use of weapons anything except a gun may be useless.

You cannot claim to support someone’s right of self-defense and then restrict that right to non-firearm or non-lead ammunition.

Firearms are a common form of weapon these days that don’t rely on a person’s strength or skill in order to properly defend themselves.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 12:55 PM

You cannot claim to support someone’s right of self-defense and then restrict that right to non-firearm or non-lead ammunition.

Firearms are a common form of weapon these days that don’t rely on a person’s strength or skill in order to properly defend themselves.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Again Chippy, see above.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Trailboss, do you support the EPA banning lead for use in firearms?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Which response?

It’s a dichotomy since a right to self defense would entail the right to a sufficient means to such a defense.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Trailboss, do you support the EPA banning lead for use in firearms?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM

I don’t particularly care whether they do or not.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Which response?

It’s a dichotomy since a right to self defense would entail the right to a sufficient means to such a defense.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Yes the composition of bullets matters, since if the only thing I have access to is aluminum or beeswax, said bullets don’t work at all. The original argument was over whether losing access to lead bullets meant the imminent end of our freedoms, vs having ‘perfectly usable but perhaps not as nice as lead’ substitutes that still kill and maim pretty well. I think its been shown that lead substitutes are already at hand and reasonably effective, and because lead is toxic and does secondary damage, why not use something less harmful?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Trailboss, do you support the EPA banning lead for use in firearms?
 

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM

 
 

I don’t particularly care whether they do or not.
 

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM

 
Is that a yes or a no?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Is that a yes or a no?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

It’s a ‘I really, really, really, don’t care.’

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

You’ve been a major poster through four pages of posts on a blog on a topic on which you really, really don’t care?
 
There’s no shame one way or the other. Would you support the ban?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Circular as a saw. God wants us to conquer, vanquish, defeat, overpower, overcome, crush, quell, overwhelm, so He put in place oil eating microbes to repair the damage we do by following His commandment to subdue the Earth.

Epic. Fail.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Er…no. You just fail to accept that God gave us permission to use the Earth as we see fit, as well as failing to see that you are ignorant of the Bible. Come down off your high horse.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM

It’s a ‘I really, really, really, don’t care am tired of getting PWNED so I’m too lazy to continue.’

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

FIFY

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM

There’s no shame one way or the other. Would you support the ban?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I’ve been posting about the absurdity of fearing that if the EPA does ban lead in bullets, we will have no effective recourse for hunting, plinking, or defending ourselves.

I don’t have a position on whether or not it’s a great idea.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Personally, I’d rather not leave them that particular ‘gift.’

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM

It’s a ‘I really, really, really, don’t care.’

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM

You lie.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM

You just fail to accept that God gave us permission to use the Earth as we see fit, as well as failing to see that you are ignorant of the Bible. Come down off your high horse.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Well, I’ll certainly admit that I am ignorant of your particular interpretation of Genesis.

Doesn’t change the bizarre circular thinking your current arguments display.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:27 PM

That doesn’t answer the question – and it contradicts your response to rogerb.

What’s to stop the Oppressives from banning the alternative materials once they’ve succeeded in establishing the precedent of banning lead?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM

You lie.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Yes, I lie, in fact I think I will go Lie down, because trying to make sense out of your illogic is giving me a decent headache.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM

You’ve been a major poster through four pages of posts on a blog on a topic on which you really, really don’t care?

rogerb on August 26, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Sole existence is to twist tails:

The Race Card >>>>>> trailboss

Yoop on August 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Well, I’ll certainly admit that I am ignorant of your particular interpretation of Genesis.

Doesn’t change the bizarre circular thinking your current arguments display.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM

There’s nothing circular about God creating a self-sustaining Earth and giving Man permission to exploit it. You’re grasping at straws while smarting over your straw man exposure. Off to bed with you.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

What’s to stop the Oppressives from banning the alternative materials once they’ve succeeded in establishing the precedent of banning lead?

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Ah, I thought so.

Making some big ol’ leaps from ‘let’s ban lead because it’s toxic and does unintended damage’ to ‘we are going to ban copper, zinc, bismuth, tungsten, steel, and all forms of composite bullets because…?

The basic NRA philosophy – Don’t regulate ANYTHING about our guns cuz that’s the damn camel getting his nose in the tent and once he does that we are all hosed! Once ANY remotely commonsense regulation is allowed, that insidious incrementalism will eat away at our rights, despite the fact that WE OWN CONGRESS! Despite the fact that the SCUSA finally laid down a clear opinion on the right to own and bear arms.

Taking away our lead is FASCIM reborn!

I’ve no effective arguments against such cock-eyed, fear-based, conspiracy-theroist embraced absolutism. Only thing I can say is I think it’s a crock of shit.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Yes, I lie, in fact I think I will go Lie down, because trying to make sense out of your illogic is giving me a decent headache.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Sole existence is to twist tails:

Well, not my SOLE existence, but I do enjoy it.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

fossten, rogerb, Chip, MadisonConservative,

You are arguing with nonsense. You can’t convince someone who argues nonsense. To them, your answers are gibberish, just as their comments are gibberish to you.

You can never win an argument with people like this – their minds are totally closed. Which is why 99% of the time they totally ignore what you say. (I’ve made several comments aimed at him, all of which were blown off). If you want to keep poking them, you can of course. Waste of time, though.

But if you want, it’s perfectly acceptable to just make fun of them. Even though it’s probably not sporting (as in “candy from a baby”).

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

You’re grasping at straws while smarting over your straw man exposure. Off to bed with you.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM

You are indeed consistent in your circular reasoning, and entertaining, fossten. I will give you that.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

The basic NRA philosophy – Don’t regulate ANYTHING about our guns cuz that’s the damn camel getting his nose in the tent and once he does that we are all hosed! Once ANY remotely commonsense regulation is allowed, that insidious incrementalism will eat away at our rights, despite the fact that WE OWN CONGRESS! Despite the fact that the SCUSA finally laid down a clear opinion on the right to own and bear arms.

Taking away our lead is FASCIM reborn!

I’ve no effective arguments against such cock-eyed, fear-based, conspiracy-theroist embraced absolutism. Only thing I can say is I think it’s a crock of shit.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

And there it is – the condescending, bile-infested liberal critter in all its hate-filled, self-aggrandizing glory.

As far as your ‘argument’ – I can cite several examples of regulation leading to confiscation, starting with the Jews in 1930s Germany. Your ignorance of history is a fail of epic proportions.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

You are indeed consistent in your circular reasoning, and entertaining, fossten. I will give you that.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Yet another proof by assertion argument – fatally flawed, and devoid of evidence. Tell you what – since it’s entertaining, and since you’re clearly not equipped to have a real, good faith, civil discussion with the adults, I suggest you sit quietly and learn from the rest of us until you grow up enough. I’ll tell you when you’re ready.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I’ve only been ignoring you because I’ve no respect for any of your arguments, and you are not as entertaining as fossten.

But don’t take it personally.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

But don’t take it personally.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Ignored by idiots. Yes, now it’s personal.

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I’ve only been ignoring you because I’ve no respect for any of your arguments, and you are not as entertaining as fossten.

But don’t take it personally.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

You still here? I’m still waiting for you to answer a number of things:

1. Explain your straw man
2. Explain your circular reasoning accusation
3. Explain the contradiction in your two posts that I quoted
4. Explain how you interpret Genesis, since you claim yours is different than mine

I’m sure I wait in vain.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM

As far as your ‘argument’ – I can cite several examples of regulation leading to confiscation, starting with the Jews in 1930s Germany. Your ignorance of history is a fail of epic proportions.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Uh huh, sure. So you think that any regulation leads to confiscation? You think that the road to confiscation is a simple ‘let’s pass a regulation and we are done!’ and this is done in a political vacuum? Despite the overwhelming political backlash to such confiscatory rules in the USA, both past and present?

The confiscation of property from the Jews in Nazi Germany is really poor example, since the political climate and long held anti-semitism among the German populace both fostered and allowed for such regulation.

Try some more.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Ignored by idiots. Yes, now it’s personal.

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM

;)

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM

You still here? I’m still waiting for you to answer a number of things:

1. Explain your straw man
2. Explain your circular reasoning accusation
3. Explain the contradiction in your two posts that I quoted
4. Explain how you interpret Genesis, since you claim yours is different than mine

I’m sure I wait in vain.

fossten on August 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Oh, well now I have a LIST! Oh goody, I’ll get started right away!

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

What happened to

‘I really, really, really, don’t care.’

About the issue?
And that STILL doesn’t answer the question.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM

A poster on another site brought up something important.

“ammunition is explicitly excluded from the EPA’s ability to regulate via 15 USC Section 2602″

thmsmgnm on August 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Chip, please stop. He is a troll. He won’t answer, he will “hold forth”.

But whatever. He’s yours if you want him. I’m outta here.

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Squiggy on August 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Oh I realize he’s a troll and that at some point between acknowledging a right of self-defense and his support on effectively the baning of ammunition he would run into a logical roadblock.

I just wanted to illustrated the dichotomy of those two contradictory ideas.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I just wanted to illustrated the dichotomy of those two contradictory ideas.

Chip on August 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Here’s your dichotomy, Chippy. You believe for some reason that I support the effective banning of ammunition vs I don’t and I have not indicated that I do.

One final time, from my own feeble words…

Yes the composition of bullets matters, since if the only thing I have access to is aluminum or beeswax, said bullets don’t work at all. The original argument was over whether losing access to lead bullets meant the imminent end of our freedoms, vs having ‘perfectly usable but perhaps not as nice as lead’ substitutes that still kill and maim pretty well. I think its been shown that lead substitutes are already at hand and reasonably effective, and because lead is toxic and does secondary damage, why not use something less harmful?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I don’t think banning lead for bullets either effectively or in reality bans useable, effective ammunition.

If you cannot see that, finally, then the ongoing dichotomy in your brain is not my problem.

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Making some big ol’ leaps from ‘let’s ban lead because it’s toxic and does unintended damage’ to ‘we are going to ban copper, zinc, bismuth, tungsten, steel, and all forms of composite bullets because…?

trailboss on August 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Did we invent lead, or does it come from the ground?

hawkdriver on August 26, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4