Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GUNS: Don’t ban traditional ammunition

Letter by Larry Killion, Tacoma on Aug. 23, 2011 at 11:13 am with 67 Comments »
August 23, 2011 12:16 pm

About 35 hunters met in Federal Way Monday night at a public meeting with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Some members of the National Rifle Association had received notice that the anti-gun movement is attacking legal hunting and firearms one bullet at a time. The ammo ban was not on the agenda.

When asked about the ban on traditional (lead) ammo, Don Krage of the waterfowl division told sportsmen the ban is a done deal and goes into effect this season at all pheasant release areas.

The NRA believes the push to ban traditional ammunition is part of a new strategy being used by anti-hunting and anti-gun activists all over the country to attack our hunting traditions and firearm freedoms. These bans have a chilling effect on hunting by pricing hunters out of the market due to the expense of the alternative ammo.

The next logical step will be a complete ban throughout Washington. This is the pattern in other states.

Leave a comment Comments → 67
  1. Paranoid much?

    Ever hear of lead poisoning? Lead shot can be ingested by wildlife.

  2. alindasue says:

    beerBoy said, “Ever hear of lead poisoning? Lead shot can be ingested by wildlife.”

    …and the people who eat the wildlife.

  3. Stoopid reigns supreme in that letter. What will we read next?
    NRA = paranoia!

  4. nwcolorist says:

    Oh my, the anti-gun crowd is at it again.They are persistent.

  5. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    Don’t you find it ironic that the same fields that hunters use to hunt pheasants are used by the Army. Hunters can’t use lead ammo but that all the Army uses.

    There is not one bit of sience to prove lead in these fields are hurting anything in the enviorment.

    This is just another unenforceable regulation that no one will be following anyway.

  6. Paranoid – not at all.

    Lead cost less than the alternatives so the cost of ammunition will rise as a result of a ban on lead. The cost to a hunter to engage in this activity will rise as a result of the ammunition cost. Lower income people will not have similar opportunities to hunt. Would you consider a government subsidize program for those of lesser means and wish to hunt especially if it supplements their household food stores?

    Lead poisoning

    taxedenough raises a great point. You can attempt to control the hunter but you can’t control Mother Nature and the natural occuring minerals, etc…. nor the hundreds of thousands of acres that an animal roams…

    Anybody have a local study on the effect of lead vs hunting?

  7. LarryFine says:

    “Paranoid much?” …. here’s the punch line… “Ever hear of lead poisoning?”

    “Stand up Chuck”

  8. It is difficult to believe that there are so many people ignorant of the effect of lead shot on wildlife, which are not actually shot themselves, but ingest the shot from other dead animals. And into the food chain it goes.
    They should put a price of $5000 on each round of ammunition, or better yet, peg it to the price of gold. Guess what would happen to the murder rate in this country?

  9. theglovesRoff says:

    It would stay the same, because scum find a way to get what they want to do the things they want.

    And, are you smoking something Pub, cause your comments lately seem a bit more out of character for you. Other than wanting to control other’s lives…

  10. “They should put a price of $5000 on each round of ammunition, or better yet, peg it to the price of gold. Guess what would happen to the murder rate in this country? “

    absolutely nothing… criminal don’t buy their ammunition

  11. Taxed,
    Fields used by hunters are used by Army – only is one is hunting on an Army Base.

    Hunters can’t use lead ammo but that [is] all the Army uses – un-jacketed bullets were banned for military use in 1899.

  12. madmike272 says:

    publico shows his bias and ignorance

  13. BennieTheBull says:

    There is absolutely no science backing up any detrimental effect on any wildlife as a result of using lead shot. What this amounts to is a bold faced attempt to price younger hunters out of the sport.

  14. BennieTheBull says:

    I can no longer, in good conscience, say to other hunters that the game laws are based on sound game management principals and if you see another person not abiding by them that they should report that person. The game laws are no longer based on sound science and are many times not based on sound game management principals either. So let your conscience be your guide of whether or not you turn in another for violating the laws.

    The game laws no longer have any legitimate claim to having any legitimate basis, therefore you don’t have any moral obligation to help the agency to implement any that you object to.

  15. blakeshouse says:

    just another socialistic move to add more control over the lives of the citizenry of this gulag. While more and more states have adopted policy that opens hunting opportunity for everyone, for yrs this state had done the exact opposite. This state is one of the worst for rules regs limiting the ability of hunters to actually take game and manage the populations for sporting.

  16. Noun, verb, “socialist”

  17. “blakeshouse says:
    August 24, 2011 at 6:41 am
    just another socialistic move to add more control over the lives of the citizenry of this gulag.”

    Who was talking about banning abortion?????

  18. “Green” ammo may be more expensive, but in the grand scheme how much does this really impact hunters? Consider the cost of a hunting trip, the few rounds fired off account for only a tiny portion of total hunting costs. Nobody will be “priced out” of hunting due to ammo costs. Even if they were, as conservatives are so fond of reminding liberals, if you don’t have the money you don’t get to play the game – no free lunch.
    Yes, I own guns. Yes, I have hunted. No, I am not a liberal OR a conservative.
    Ammo is only expensive when you are off plowing round after round into targets. That is not hunting. Lead is a poison, accept it and move on.
    Stop being paranoid, not every step the government takes is to pull the guns from your hands.

  19. BlaineCGarver says:

    If you are a hunter/target shooter, by all means be part of the Libs divide and kick azz plan they have. If you don’t support the Second Amendment totally, you are hurting it. BTW, the 2nd is not about bunny stew, it’s about people protecting themselves from the Government. Reading the Federalist Papers will support this 100%. Armed men are citizens….unarmed men are slaves.

  20. BlaineCGarver says:
    August 24, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    “…BTW, the 2nd is not about bunny stew, it’s about people protecting themselves from the Government. Reading the Federalist Papers will support this 100%. Armed men are citizens….unarmed men are slaves.”

    This has nothing to do with the 2nd. Nobody is saying you can’t buy ammo, only that you can’t HUNT with LEAD ammo. There is nothing preventing you from purchasing lead for defense – and if they were to outlaw lead all together a “green” bullet would still suffice in that regard.
    If the gov tried to outlaw all ammo your 2nd argument would hold water – they have not, so there is no conflict.

  21. The NRA believes the push to ban traditional ammunition is part of a new strategy being used by anti-hunting and anti-gun activists all over the country to attack our hunting traditions and firearm freedoms.

    The inability of the NRA to differentiate between paranoid delusions based upon slippery slope issues and real 2nd Amendment challenges makes them seem….well…..delusional.

  22. The gun nuts have suddenly become mute. Rational people win another one.

  23. theglovesRoff says:

    “Who was talking about banning abortion?????”

    Um, that would be you Kardy.

    Nice attempt to hijack the thread, but that is what you are famous for here.

  24. Sb963 – if the issue is cost then it appears any regulation bears a cost to compliance. I acknowledge that when you add the cost of fuel, food, lodging, licensing and other trip related cost, a few boxes of ammo are a proportionally smaller cost of the hunting. The key is that is become yet another additional cost to hunters based on a regulation.

    You, nor I, can make a definitive statement that someone will be “priced out” of a sport one was or another. We all have our price points where it becomes cost prohibitive to engage in the sport. I, nor you, have any way of knowing what that price point is for anyone. It is sad that cost, because of a regulation, becomes the barrier for a hunter to enjoy a sport and for a significant few, a way to supplement their personal food stores.

    True that not every step the government takes is meant to remove guns from our hands, but in some case it does lay some groundwork to make it easier for yet another regulation that is designed to remove guns from our respective hands.

    ”If the gov tried to outlaw all ammo your 2nd argument would hold water – they have not, so there is no conflict.

    They have tried wholesale bans and they have worked in local, regional areas for a time. But they have been resisted and overthrown by the will of the people and the courts help too. That being said, they realize that smaller, incremental steps are more effective to achieve the overall goal of disarming a populace.

    It’s just lead ammo, you have other types…. Hmm, after further review, steel is not so good either…

  25. Publico – when you proclaim that “they” (whoever they are) should peg the price at $5000.00 per round, I don’t think it unreasonable to ask your views of gun rights.

    Though I acknowledge this is typical blustery rhetoric for a discussion board, at $5000.00 a round, a gun will be priced out of the range of 99% of Americans.

    Is that your intent, I have no clue. But I would ask why does ammo have to be price as high as you proclaim? What purpose would in serve in your world?

  26. BB – what slippery slope issues. Banning lead ammo increases the cost of compliance that will be passed on to average citizens like you and I if you enjoy hunting.

    Hunting is a component of that right to bear arms.

  27. ….unarmed men are slaves.

    True that…

    Why would any of you voluntarily give up a right, not just the 2nd Amendment, but any right. What do you hope to gain with an erosion of your rights, any right?

    In this case, if we can’t afford the ammo for our guns, then we are unarmed. What are you going to do when someone finally goes too far and asks too much of you, how will you enforce your position when you have nothing to enforce your position with?

  28. if we can’t afford the ammo for our guns, then we are unarmed.

    Gosh! How about those citizens who can’t afford guns!……I mean….if they can’t afford some ammo they certain can’t be paying for a gun now can they?

    Speaking about the cost of bullets…. The cost of clean-up of bullets (you know, what us taxpayers have to cover) is much higher for lead bullets as opposed to tungsten. But….if you think that taxpayers should pay the cost of keeping ammo cheap….

    btw – The current market cost of a leaded 5.56 mm round is 21 cents compared to 32 cents for a lead-free tungsten
    composite round.

    11 cents…..yep….that is sure going to make it impossible for the average sportsman to go hunting!

    Being paranoid and believing in conspiracy theories usually makes you…..delusional.

  29. Bb – if you can’t afford any means of security or comfort, it is a risk. It may be a low risk and your mitigation strategy is to rely on others, then so be it.

    In the case of hunting, it adds to the cost of hunting and at some point the cost will reach a price point where the hunter will no longer be able to engage in the sport of hunting.

    It does suck to be poor.

    Clean up cost are the responsibility of the range, they bear the cost. As usual the cost is passed on to the members/users of the range. I don’t see this as an issue do you?

    If it makes you feel any better, multiple ranges in the NW banded together to hire a contractor to come in to each range for clean up. They do this on a recurring basis. Sounds like good stewards of the land and responsible business owners.

    .21 vs .32 is a 33% increase in cost… per round!!! I am not sure how you can see that as insignificant. The cost .11, becomes very significant over time and volume depending on the training regimen and/or sport shooting activity.

    No paranoia, you just provided some information and based on that information cost becomes a very significant factor… even for a sport shooter on a budget without the benefit of a taxpayer to help them.

  30. theglovesRoff says:

    11 cents… But pub wanted a difference of $4999.89 per bullet.

  31. bobcat1a says:

    This letter takes conspiracy crazy to a whole new toxicity level.

  32. Sb963,
    Good points!

    I just checked; 12-gauge green ammo is about $20 for a box of 5, while lead ammo is about $16 for a box of 5.

    A few years ago I knew several farmers in the Columbia Basin who opened their lands to hunting by creating private hunting clubs – to the tune of $1000 to $1500 per gun per year.

    Biggest customer base: ‘Yuppie doctors and lawyers from Seattle.”

    Xx98 – hunting is not a part of the Second Amendment.

  33. LarryFine says:

    Someone is picking nits again… bB.

  34. xx98411
    While appreciate your well argued position, nowhere does the 2nd guarantee the right to reasonably priced arms. The right to bear does not equate to the ability. Arms were by no means cheap at the founding of this country. I would wager that the average American today has an order of magnitude greater the chance of affording arms than our forefathers. Regulation may add cost, but does not preclude anybody from exorcising their rights. Just as citizens 200+ years ago we are able to exorcize that right only if we have the monetary means to do so. Free guns are not part of the Constitution.

  35. The Second Amendment guarantees the right but not the cost associated with that right. Ok, I sadly agree…

    The free market does determine the price of guns, ammo, megaphones, bibles, newspapers, and the paper petitions are printed on, well anything…

    The argument here is the government intrusion and the cost of compliance for that intrusion, no matter how well intended the logic for that intrusion. Unintended consequences of course… ;)

    States have and continue to argue the effect of unfunded mandates from the Federal government and now we, as individuals, are seeing the effects of unfunded mandates in the form of mandatory purchases of a service. Again no matter how well intended the reason behind that mandate, any mandate, there is an associated cost to compliance.

    I would also ask you take a look at the intent behind that mandate (no lead and the increase cost associated with it). By no means scientific, take a look at the local response to that cost. Dismissive – it’s only .11 cents. Another, it’s only a nickel. Ironically that same person then tells us how a few farmers charged a rather large sum and pointed out that the hunters were “yuppie doctors and lawyers from Seattle”. What about average folk that just wanna enjoy a sport or even supplement their personal food stores?

    Does that not give you pause that maybe there is a motive other than the protection of animals and the environment. Or it could be me being “delusional”, conspiratorial… silly me.

    ”Regulation may add cost, but does not preclude anybody from exorcising their rights.”

    Yes, my friend, immediately or over time, it does…

    Ridiculous speculation time… :). Can you imagine a government mandate that lead to an increase cost in every word spoken, every word printed… my response would have to be shorter. Unless you are one of those “yuppies” you might have to temper your words too.

  36. “Since its tax day and you’ve (probably) already paid your taxes for last year, it might be worth noting one huge tax hike coming down the pike: the Internet tax. Yesterday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about his recently proposed National Broadband Plan, which amongst other things would expand the Universal Service Fund (USF) tax on landline and cell phones to broadband Internet. You wouldn’t notice from his statement to the committee, however. Here’s how Genachowski so eloquently described what his plan does:

    “It proposes a once-in-a-generation transformation of the Universal Service Fund from
    yesterday’s technology to tomorrow’s.”

    Well that sounds nice right? Here’s the real translation: It takes that old telephone tax and slaps it on broadband Internet to ensure tax revenue continues to go up. The Internet tax will hit at least 15.3% (the current USF tax rate). While the plan sets a goal of capping the tax at this year’s level, this is merely an illusion of fiscal responsibility. Since Genachowski and Obama took office, they’ve pushed the USF tax rate up by 61%.

    Yep, great point SB, that olde First Amendment guarentees freedom of speech but of course, not cost associated with it…

    It is only a small cost to your current communications bill.

    Coming to an internet near you… “delusional” you say…

  37. I just checked; 12-gauge green ammo is about $20 for a box of 5, while lead ammo is about $16 for a box of 5.

    I actually misread this part of your post. Your prices are thankfully way off… heck, way way off. As I was focused on the cost difference which I believe is probably consistent, percentage wise… 20%

    The point is still the same, “green” ammo will be significantly higher and add to the cost of any activity.

  38. Clean up cost are the responsibility of the range, they bear the cost. As usual the cost is passed on to the members/users of the range.

    And, as the first military study I cited demonstrates, when you factor in the cost of clean-up, the use of “green’ bullets actually is lower than lead bullets so, if the ranges extend their savings onto their customers, the cost of hunting should actually be lower….

    Larry….seeing the whole picture (e.g., the TOTAL COST per bullet rather than just the purchase price of each bullet) is the opposite of focusing upon nits. (Yo, Moe! Time to slap Larry again!……hmmm……I wonder if you think the homo-sado-masochistic overtones of the Three Stooges makes them ‘perverts”)

  39. xx98411
    The right to assemble does not include a buspass to the capital – if the state adds a smog fee to all bus services you can not claim they are violating your constitutional rights.
    The 4th gives us protection from unreasonable searches in our homes, yet I don’t see you clamoring for the poor to have their property taxes abolished becuause those taxes are an incremental barrier to free exorcise of their 4th rights.
    All rights have reasonable limits, and sometimes costs.
    Fact – lead is toxic. The Gov has banned its use in some hunting situations in an attept to protect or environment. Granted, it will most likely make little to no difference, but the reasoning behind the move is sound. You may not like the regulation, you may think it a waste of time, I can respect that. Great! Then attack the regs on their merits or lack thereof, don’t try to hammer it into a 2nd violation.
    Cost has always been a factor in gun ownership and always will be. Should guns and ammo be free of sales taxes because they may impede the poor’s ability to exorcise their rights? Do you find the state sales tax to be in violation of the 2nd too?

  40. BennieTheBull says:

    The simple fact of the matter is there is no valid science linking lead shot to lead poisoning. The “science” behind this ban is simply non existent. Yes lead poisoning can and does occur, however there is not a single documented case linking ingestion of lead shot used for upland hunting to the poisoning of a single gamebird, raptor or mammal in the wild. Not a single one! The science is based up caged birds that were fed lead shot and then there was a leap to “is it possible for wild birds to pick up and ingest sufficient lead shot to……”

    What I said stands, which is: No one any longer has any moral obligation, nor are they in any way being remiss, if chose to decide themselves which of the game laws are based on sound science or sound game management principals and which are purely political, therefore it naturally follows that no one has no obligation to report game law violators.

    This is a 180 degree change in my position from what it has been all my life and was until just a few short years ago. Just let your conscience be your guide regarding whether, or not, a game law violation has occurred. Once the WDFW decided to divorce it’s standard from valid science and/or game management principals and open it up to politics the agency forfeited any legitimate claim to having it’s regulations seen as having legitimacy or worthy of universal respect.

  41. bb – the initial cost of the bullets are higher per your example. Therefore the cost of the bullet needs to balanced by the maintenance and operation cost which will include “clean up” The lead is also recycled, that can be considered for cost comparisons.

    A spreadsheet with estimates based on local conditions will determine the best course of action. To say that cleanup cost is X in the SW does not mean the cleanup cost are also X in the NW.

    On a side note, hunting and ranges are two separate environments.

    Hunting provides an environment where the relatively small number of bullets/shot are fired in a relatively huge area minimizing the impact on that environment.

    A range will have a high volume of bullets in a small controlled area. Again minimizing the general impact of the area while providing a relatively smaller controlled area where risk mitigation strategies can be more effectively focused.

    Cost of hunting will not be lower per your example… sorry

    As far as TOTAL COST… if I fire a 500 rounds per session my initial cost is the cost of 500 rounds plus the range fee. If you fire 500 “green” rounds per session your initial cost are, per your example, 33% higher for the 500 “green” rounds plus the same range fee.

    Each of our cost are PER SESSION.

  42. This whole “anti-hunting” meme might have a little more weight if a hunting organization like Ducks Unlimited (which is known for its efforts at conservation of pristine hunting areas) jumped on the bandwagon with the National Rifle Association’s shrill cry to try to drum up more membership and therefore more membership fees by putting out paranoid cries.

  43. Hi, being a jerk here…

    So, Duck Unlimited = good

    NRA = shrill, paranoid, bad

    OK, got it!

  44. SB – I thought I acknowledge that cost associated with a right are not guaranteed by my first sentence. I also said the free market determines price of a product/service.

    I agree with your example of the smog fee. If you tell me it is to discourage, ohh, diesel bus use, I agree. I think we are on the edge of straw man here. No disrespect.

    How about the price of permits related to assembly (my straw man argument). If the price of assembly permits went up 33% ohh, lets say after a contentious meeting about health care or something like that. I would hope that the reason would be the increase cost of a venue (size), police, crowd control, clean up etc… But if you hear a council member say something to the effect that that will keep the demonstrators home, if not they can go to hell (sorry, I digress). Would that not give you pause to think it was meant as a means of control and suppression of assembly instead of legitimate cost cited above. I’d have an eyebrow raised and would monitor the situation but not necessarily scream it is a violation of my rights.

    My argument about rights appears not to be with you. You wanna focus on toxicity, cool.

    ”Fact – lead is toxic. The Gov has banned its use in some hunting situations in an attept to protect our environment. Granted, it will most likely make little to no difference, but the reasoning behind the move is sound.”

    Ok, then why are we establishing yet another bureaucratic layer, imposing more regulation, adding more cost to government and increasing the cost to the consumer if…? I think we need to be very clear about what we are trying to do as a society and yep, cost is a factor. We are slowly pricing ourselves out of… well damn near everything (bloviating.. sorry)

    As a toxicity issue, I have to let others lead the battle. I do find it suspect and am monitoring my rights as a citizen as I believe we all should monitor our rights as citizens… ALL of them, not just one over the other.

    ”All rights have reasonable limits, and sometimes costs.

    Forgive me sir… Rights are absolutes with no limits. We, the People and as a society have decided that we should impose upon ourselves limits to these rights – slander, machine guns, etc…

    My concern is that we, as a society are really, really, stupid at times and impose limits that, at the time we thought was a good idea but then a bureaucrat thinks that changes need to be made to provide for a “better society”. A lot of times the rule is worse than the perceived problem in the first place.

  45. penumbrage says:

    xx – Birdshot sheds velocity very quickly so missed shots (and many of the pellets of a direct hit) don’t bury themselves in hills or trees like bullets do, but end up just lying on the ground and lake bottoms, the right size and shape to be eaten with the rest of the gizzard gravel.
    Decades of steel shot have improved things now, but studies back in the 70’s showed 25% of the game birds harvested at Cook Inlet had lead shot in their gizzards and elevated liver lead levels.
    Washington did much better at about 5%.
    I don’t care if waterfowl are utterly immune to high lead levels (and they’re not), unless you leave your birds to rot where they fall, intentionally poisoning your natural, healthy game food supply is just plain stupid.
    Steel shot is10-20% more expensive than lead with less effective range and a tighter pattern (which translates into more missed and wounded birds). Responsible hunters prefer hevi-shot type loads, bird safe tungsten or bismuth that works as well as (or better than) lead but can more than triple the cost of hunting or practice (and it takes a lot of practice to make that little group of pellets arrive at just where that duck is going to be, exactly when that duck gets there).

  46. Hi, being a jerk here…



    Yes, my characterization of NRA is a little, shall we say, unflattering. But, when an organization puts out alarmist warnings I wonder about their motivations – especially when that tactic has been proven to be very effective in garnering donations (I am thinking specifically of Wildmon’s sending xeroxed copies of Maplethorpe’s homoerotic photos into unsuspecting homes along with a donation form to help fight to prevent people from seeing these images).

    But, the fact remains that NRA is not a hunting organization that is interested in all aspects of hunting (including game and resource management) like Ducks Unlimited is. So, even without considering my considerable negative feelings about the NRA, when it comes to protecting the interests of hunters I feel that DU – by the nature of its mission – has a lot more credibility than the NRA.

  47. xx98411
    Over-regulation, or Government puting forth mandates that have little impact compared to costs to implement said mandates is an argument I can get behind.
    One does not need to pull the 2nd into the mix to make valid arguments concerning the above.
    Gov is not saying we can not hunt.
    Gov is not saying we can not own guns.
    Gov is not saying we can not buy ammo – only ammo that contains a known toxin, and only in specific hunting situations.
    Gov does not set the price of ammo – lead or “green” – the free market does.

    Costs of “green” ammo are high now, but it is also somewhat of a niche market at the moment. Once regulation kicks in banning lead shot production of “green” shot will increase and cost should correspondingly come down.

    If the costs of “green” ammo were 10 times the current costs this regulation would still not violate the 2nd. Gun ownership always has, and always will carry a financial burden.

    I bow out of his debate with these closing statements (though I will eagerly read and consider all future posts); in my opinion upland bird hunting is not protected by the 2nd. The 2nd exists to protect us from the tyranny of Government. Unless the Government is sending carrier pigeons loaded with explosives at us bird shot is next to useless as a defensive round. Just ask the Harry Whittington(glib remark I expect to be flamed for, had to lighten the mood some). Again, this is my OPINION only, a factual arguement could sway me (not conserv or lib – I try to base my beliefs on the merits of each case instead of ANY party hard-line).

  48. gonefishin69690 says:

    And lead fishing weights don’t have the same impact????

  49. Sb – first thanks for your input into the debate. Refreshing… Ironically I believe we are at the same table just kinda looking at different parts of the menu.

    I agree with literally all your “Gov is…” statements. The differences I speak of appear to be maybe the way you and I see the role of government. When you say “Once regulation…” I see that as government artificially driving the price of a product as oppose to the “free” market. Will “green” ammo become cost effective… probably over time.

    ” Gun ownership always has, and always will carry a financial burden.”

    Living life carries a financial burden, my hopes are that government does not unnecessarily add to that financial burden whether it be guns, cars, food, medicine, etc…

    My preference is the market decides not a government regulation mandating that we, the people buy a product that is more expensive and has some performance issues. Hunters as a group as fairly conscientious of their effect on the environment and the food chain. Yeah, there are jerks but I guess I haven’t meet them, yet.

    Penumbrage I think, has provided a good summary view of those performance issues of the “green” ammo in the field, but also, and what I think gets lost, is the unintended cost of compliance… adjustment to those performance issues (smaller groups, less range, etc… – practice cost, etc…) to the individual not just the industry. Thank you for your view also, refreshing…

    ” …in my opinion upland bird hunting is not protected by the 2nd. The 2nd exists to protect us from the tyranny of Government.”

    I need to think about this one as I need to digest it from your perspective to fully understand your view. The second part is not the issue, I am trying to see your point on the first part. There is a connection…

    I do get it, that though a Berretta 687 Diamond Pigeon was not specifically made as a counterbalance to the tyranny of government, it would do in a pinch… with “green” ammo of course.


  50. Back to being a jerk…. kinda…

    “But, when an organization puts out alarmist warnings I wonder about their motivations – especially when that tactic has been proven to be very effective in garnering donations.”

    dude, do you not see that this pretty much describes every charitable organization known to mankind and his dollar???

    NRA – Obama & Holder are coming for your guns… donate here…
    Unions – GOP wants to kill granny, and ship your job overseas… donate here…
    Ducks U – Hunters want to poison cute little daffy… donate here….
    ME – I need money for gas for my truck or I can’t drive to get groceries for my kids…. donate here….

    Ok, I get your point about Ducks U… focusing on the little duckies and their interest.

    Yeah, the NRA is focused on the Second Amendment and when there is a conflict between the rights of little Daffy and Me… well I pay dues, Daffy does not.

    In a perfect world a bunch of toothless, bible thumpers with rope for a sling on their shotguns would be sitting at a conference table with a bunch of men in oversized duck suits (kinda like that creepy congressman from Oregon) discussing this issue….

    Oh well, just a thought, until then… thank God for Guns, ammo, bibles and good olde Wayne…

    where’s my checkbook?

  51. BlaineCGarver says:

    bB (mostly) I don’t think you have followed the plight of the 2nd since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which was, btw, pulled from Hitlers gun control plan nearly concept for concept) The Left can be quoted as willing to ban guns complelely if they could. Since they can’t, they will throw anything up on the wall to see if it sticks.

  52. m9078jk3 says:

    Need Lead? Easy it’s in a sealed Lead-Acid battery.When your car battery dies just saw it open (don’t spill the sulfuric acid on yourself (oh that sulfuric acid can be useful too)) and melt down the Lead into whatever form you want.

  53. BCG – did you want to confirm my point about paranoid delusional NRA members?

  54. “about paranoid delusional NRA members? “

    bb – are you now acting like a 12 year olde little boy looking for attention?

    How about this, can you please articulate for mw, another 12 year olde boy, why you think NRA members (out on a limb here, but assuming ALL NRA members) are “delusional”?

    It kinda hurts my feeling. I have a tissue here wiping away my manly tears, cradling my .45 caliber for comfort, please help my feeble, delusional mind to understand.

  55. Page 22 lists the areas where lead shot is banned for all upland game birds. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01220/wdfw01220.pdf I don’t really have a problem with this especially since lead shot has been banned for waterfowl more many, many years now.

    I do have a problem with any attempt to ban lead bullets, fishing weights as was tried through the EPA recently. Make no mistake there is a movement to ban all lead ammuntion of any type, this is not some NRA hype it is real…..http://www.cnsnews.com/node/71705

  56. If gun bans and confiscation ever comes to America it will come from the right, disguised as a temporary but necessary anti-crime, national security package.

  57. the use of non-toxic shot results in only a 1-2 percent increase in total costs for hunters, according to a study conducted by the National Wildlife Research Centre,

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1991 banned the use of lead shot in all waterfowl hunting. The NRA screamed its opposition at that time. However, the ban didn’t lead to a reduction of hunting or hunters, nor did it violate any part of the Constitution.

  58. “However, the ban didn’t lead to a reduction of hunting or hunters, nor did it violate any part of the Constitution.”

    the first part can be quantified…

    the second part… sorry just one persons opinion…

    “…shall not be infringed.”

  59. bb – the smirking chimp??? really???

  60. xx – clearly, if it had violated the Constitution the NRA would have successfully pushed a case through the Supreme Court in the 20 years since the ban was put in place……hardly ‘just one persons opinion..”

    And, I am supportive of the NRA’s genuine efforts to pursue such efforts…….but that doesn’t raise donations and membership fees as easily I guess.

  61. bb

    First – I am responding to an off-hand remark from the article. It is not a legal opinion, nor does it refer to a legal opinion. If there is a question on the constitutionality of a law then it is up to the courts to determine that question.

    Second – as a strategy the best course of action related to lead ammo bans is to question the power of and the authority of the EPA in this case. If you win and limit power then it is more difficult to find BS loopholes for the EPA to squirm through. If you make it solely a 2nd Amendment case then the scope is extremely narrow at this point.

    Third – There are laws on the books that can be seen as a violation of the Bill of Rights. And many reasons why they haven’t been challenged yet. To focus on an example, the pat downs at the airport. Come on… that one has got to make a liberal like you at least raise the olde eyebrow. That being said, someone has to put their foot down and a lawyer needs to present the case. There are a couple percolating. We’ll see how it goes.

    Third Alpha – And just because the law is ruled constitutional, do you really want this guy patting down your 9 year old boy. http://elkodaily.com/news/local/article_5d965fce-cff9-11e0-9d15-001cc4c002e0.html Dude, at some point you just gotta say I know you mean well but though it is constitutional the line is back there and we are going to take a few steps back here.

    I have avoided but none the less stuck my foot here and there on this thread, arguing the Second Amendment. Honestly I am not that well versed on the lead shot issue. But conceptually the government is infringing on the type of arms that we can bear. I admit a grey area.

    One argument is like banning lead acid batteries in bullhorns and then saying rechargeable whatever they are, is better though more expensive right now. You are not stopping me from exercising my freedom of speech as I have the rechargeable to power my bullhorn with as well as other forms of communication – paper and pencil. But that part about Congress shall make no law… I tend to think it means something, don’t’ you?

  62. The whole battery thing is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. Lithium (pushed because of its better applications for electrical storage) mining has some rather huge impacts that aren’t so wonderful so going rechargeable, while it has some big environmental benefits, also has some negatives.

    If, and when, someone develops a very efficient battery(though lithium is better it still isn’t that great) that has low negative environmental impact, then alternative energy forms will become much more realistic in widespread application.

  63. conceptually infringing on rights?

    Is that like conceptual art?

  64. well, that didn’t work out…

    I meant for the megaphone and the type of batteries to be a metaphor, my bad, I should have laid out some crumbs before I posted..

    not trying to start the wisdom of one battery over another thingy…

    oh well, unless you wanna touch any of the issues I brought up I’m done here, nothing much more to discuss.

  65. ItalianSpring says:

    Sorry xring- History proves the move to disarm always comes from the left. The latest proof- the National Socialist Party, aka nazis. End of line.

  66. more “proof” for the literalist idiots who think the word socialist in the Nazi party’s name proves that the Rightist Reich is somehow left:

    East Germany (you know, the commies) was the German Democratic Republic.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0