rushmc 18 #26 December 2, 2015 wolfriverjoe***QuoteAs there is no real down side to use lead bullets Not sure I agree with that. Would be a negative impact on the environment. Lead is pretty poisonous. It depends on the form. Solid lead is pretty much inert. Lead bullets that go into the ground just stay there. I'm part of a shooting range that's been in place for 70 years or so. We had "someone" call the DNR and complain that all the lead in the ground was leaching into the river (the Fox River is a few hundred yards away). So the DNR came out & tested the runoff and found... Nothing. Lots of shooting ranges have had this sort of testing done. It's been negative. The lead doesn't move once it's in the ground. VA Tech did a STUDY at a range and found that the lead stays put. Lead shot in water is a problem because the waterfowl need gravel in their digestive system to grind up their food. They get that gravel from the bottom of the body of water. When lead shot is present, they ingest that and get poisoned. Lead paint is dangerous because of the dust it creates. Lead-laden dust. It's kind of funny. There was a story on NPR a couple years ago. An environmentalist was railing against hunters. She claimed that bald eagles were eating the gut piles that deer hunters left behind, and in doing so were ingesting the shot from the pile. And getting lead poisoning. They "conveniently" left out the fact that shotguns using shot are NOT legal for deer hunting in Wisconsin. Slugs are required. And I have my doubts that an eagle would consume a slug that weighs about an ounce and is the size of a quarter (more or less). All of which shows that the EPA attempting to ban lead ammo is political"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #27 December 2, 2015 Still untrue Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 December 2, 2015 normiss Still untrue Not talking about any smelting plant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #29 December 2, 2015 Well, since the 2015 bill is about over, what ARE you talking about? Here comes the dancing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #30 December 2, 2015 turtlespeed************OK, you don't want to answer the question. Anyone else? I don't feel like wading through 1,000 right wing conspiracy web pages to figure out what this legislation actually does. It's not that hard. It's about lead bullets and lead shot being used by hunters contaminating the environment. Several states have restrictions on where lead can and can not be used. I don't know if there were rumblings about EPA restrictions, or if this is just the ammo lobby getting out in front. But the core issue is the possibility of lead poisoning. Responsible hunters have mostly already switched to alternatives. Lead is not used for water fowl hunting and is not to be used around waterways But States like CA tried to used rigged science to say lead bullets were poisoning the condor (which was a lie). Groups then sued the EPA to try and ban lead bullets that way. Also, state DNR's have tried to issue lead bullets bans but for the most part have been stopped This just takes away the EPA as a tool for the wackos that are out there (and limits the wackos that are part of the EPA too) What is the downside to not allowing lead in bullets? Much higher wear and tear on your weapon. Higher expense. Higher maintenance cost. Higher priced ammo. Are you seeing a pattern here? DDT was cheap, too. So were CFCs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #31 December 2, 2015 kallend***************OK, you don't want to answer the question. Anyone else? I don't feel like wading through 1,000 right wing conspiracy web pages to figure out what this legislation actually does. It's not that hard. It's about lead bullets and lead shot being used by hunters contaminating the environment. Several states have restrictions on where lead can and can not be used. I don't know if there were rumblings about EPA restrictions, or if this is just the ammo lobby getting out in front. But the core issue is the possibility of lead poisoning. Responsible hunters have mostly already switched to alternatives. Lead is not used for water fowl hunting and is not to be used around waterways But States like CA tried to used rigged science to say lead bullets were poisoning the condor (which was a lie). Groups then sued the EPA to try and ban lead bullets that way. Also, state DNR's have tried to issue lead bullets bans but for the most part have been stopped This just takes away the EPA as a tool for the wackos that are out there (and limits the wackos that are part of the EPA too) What is the downside to not allowing lead in bullets? Much higher wear and tear on your weapon. Higher expense. Higher maintenance cost. Higher priced ammo. Are you seeing a pattern here? DDT was cheap, too. So were CFCs. What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Oh, yeah, you liberals always think everything causes global warming.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #32 December 2, 2015 >What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #33 December 2, 2015 This entire thread is an immense waste of bandwidth. I THINK we're arguing, sorry, discussing, WHAT? No law. Act. More like an appropriations approval of funds. WHAT YEAR???? :D :D Why would "Obama" sign LAST years budget THIS year? If it's actually NEXT year, there's nothing in IT regarding...wait, what are we arguing...discussing???? I better go check breitbart, maybe they know what's up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #34 December 2, 2015 billvon>What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Well, 1). I don't think I have ever heard of anyone being that dump before. What are the exact qualifications it takes to be dump, or even "that dump" 2) no intentional misunderstanding 3) guns fire bullets made of lead. If you can't see that correlation, you have much bigger issues.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #35 December 2, 2015 Bullets are not the same as "forest". I think your rose color is fading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #36 December 2, 2015 normissBullets are not the same as "forest". I think your rose color is fading. DDT was weed control. And CFCs went into the atmosphere. A forest is a middle ground between the two.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #37 December 2, 2015 >2) no intentional misunderstanding Ah. So you see no similarities in these: -Lead is cheap, and has benefits when it comes to gun operation, but can have some adverse environmental consequences -CFC's are cheap, and have benefits as a refrigerant, but can have some adverse environmental consequences -DDT is cheap, and has some benefits as an insecticide, but can have some adverse environmental consequences You honestly see no common concept there? Then you're about six posts behind everyone else/ Years ago Amy and I were having a conversation with a friend of ours and his new girlfriend. (I'll call them B and C.) The conversation went like this: B: The whole TSO system makes so little sense. BVN: Well, TSO's as standards go back a lot farther than parachute testing, and they come from the military, so . . . B: Yeah, the military has been using them forever. Gun rifling was one of the earliest applications of military standards, back when they started to standardize weapons. BVN: Well a lot of standards are like that. Wire gauges, and rail gauges too. And they come from odd places. I mean, wire goes backwards, and the thickest wires are called 0000 gauge. 40 gauge is a thin wire. Where did that come from? B: Yeah, and rail gauges are odd too. The US standard is - what? - 4 feet 9 inches? BVN: Well, that came from Great Britain; they built a lot of railroads, and the US got most of its rolling stock from England early on. And that standard was based on . . . C: Wait. What does this have to do with guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 December 2, 2015 riveting dinner conversation did you get to the wheel spacing of chariots and wagons then? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #39 December 2, 2015 >riveting dinner conversation Ever since then, "what does this have to do with guns?" has been our code for "they are just not getting it, give up" >did you get to the wheel spacing of chariots and wagons then? Yep. Quicker summary: ". . width of a horse's ass" "Urban legend" "No it isn't" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #40 December 2, 2015 billvon>What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Dump?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #41 December 2, 2015 rushmc***>What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Dump? Some people are so dumb they can't recognize an obvious typo. Your comment is particularly ironic coming from someone who has the worst spelling record of anyone who posts here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #42 December 2, 2015 kallend ******>What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Dump? Some people are so dumb they can't recognize an obvious typo. Your comment is particularly ironic coming from someone who has the worst spelling record of anyone who posts here. Off the charts sir!!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #43 December 2, 2015 rushmc *********>What exactly does the lead content of the forest have to do with the ozone? Not one of your better intentional misunderstandings. Few people are really that dump. "What does this have to do with guns?" Dump? Some people are so dumb they can't recognize an obvious typo. Your comment is particularly ironic coming from someone who has the worst spelling record of anyone who posts here. Off the charts sir!!!Since you insist, the irony score for your post was "off the charts". Cool of you to admit it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #44 December 3, 2015 But that's not what you said. You get some new weed brah? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #45 December 3, 2015 rushmc. As there is no real down side to use lead bullets There is if you're on the receiving end.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,068 #46 December 3, 2015 Hi rush, QuoteOff the charts sir!!! Actually, it is spot on. The sad part is that you are incapable of actually realizing it. Very sad, really, Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #47 December 3, 2015 JerryBaumchen Hi rush, Quote Off the charts sir!!! Actually, it is spot on. The sad part is that you are incapable of actually realizing it. Very sad, really, Jerry Baumchen Of course No one can figure it out like an all knowing liberal Just ask yourself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #48 December 3, 2015 rushmc ***Hi rush, Quote Off the charts sir!!! Actually, it is spot on. The sad part is that you are incapable of actually realizing it. Very sad, really, Jerry Baumchen Of course No one can figure it out like an all knowing liberal Just ask yourselfSeems that the Dunning-Kruger effect is being demonstrated perfectly by Marc today.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,068 #49 December 3, 2015 Hi rush, QuoteNo one can figure it out like an all knowing liberal Once again your inability to understand is showing. Show me just one instance of where I have ever used the term 'all knowing' as regards myself. It is your improper branding and nothing else. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 December 3, 2015 normiss I'm trying to understand how he signed last year's funding bill this late in the year. There is no mention of this in the 2016 Funding Bill FYI-use f to search. 2015 Quote NEWTOWN, Conn.—The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) today hailed Congressional passage of legislation that precludes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from asserting Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) authority over ammunition and its component parts. A top legislative priority for the NSSF, this important provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 that President Obama signed into law as the nation began the long Thanksgiving holiday. In recent years, radical anti-hunting organizations have been trying to force the EPA to issue a regulation under TSCA to ban traditional ammunition made with lead components. Had they prevailed it would have resulted in detrimental impacts on countless manufacturing facilities and increased costs to the Department of Defense. In addition, the assertion of TSCA jurisdiction over traditional ammunition would have resulted in considerable reductions to the excise taxes ammunition manufacturers pay on the sale of their products that is a critical source of wildlife and habitat conservation funding throughout the country. “This important amendment to the Toxic Substance Control Act demonstrates the continued ability of Congress to unite, on a bipartisan basis, behind a shared commitment to enhancing our hunting and recreational shooting heritage while also protecting jobs in an important sector of our nation’s economy.” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “Our industry owes a debt of gratitude to a number of longtime champions of this effort, which include Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain and Sens. John Thune, Jim Inhofe and Amy Klobuchar as well as House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry along with Reps. Jeff Miller, Rob Wittman, Tim Walz and Rob Bishop.” “I applaud the efforts of Chairmen Thornberry and McCain to include this common-sense language in the defense bill that will clarify, once and for all, that the EP A does not, and should not, have the jurisdiction to regulate traditional ammunition or its components, said Rep. Jeff Miller, who has long been a champion of this important issue. “Enactment of this legislation closes one more window of opportunity for the EPA to overreach its authority while also averting unnecessary and significant cost increases for our military.” “As Co-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and sponsor of the Sportsmen’s Heritage Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015 which includes this measure,” Rep. Rob Wittman said, “I am committed to preserving and enhancing sportsman-led conservation. I believe this legislation is instrumental in accomplishing that, and I am deeply grateful to all of my colleagues who played a role in securing its passage. I am pleased with what I consider an important win, and I will continue to work toward enactment of the remaining SHARE Act provisions during this session of Congress.” "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
