doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Possibility of Limited Lead Authorization

Sure, I suppose we could run tests, but truthfully, would it matter? I'll jump quickly to the second point I highlighted. Is climate change the best thing to compare to? Up through January 19th., anyone that dared peep that they were a climate change denier was/is vehemently attacked and discredited. You do realize that the last prez said that climate change was the numero uno sec threat to the US? Science never, literally, had a snowballs chance in hell.

Back to duck tests. There's plenty of possibilities, but what would be done with the info. Have the waterways, that once poisoned ducks, been picked clean of lead shot? Is there residual contamination? If not was it ever there in the first place? It doesn't matter, shouldn't the last admin have kept the last lead mine/smelter open purely for military/national security, rather than rely on china for raw materials?

Nope, no tests are needed to go on the offensive against the lead shot ban for waterfowl. If this is an important enough issue, it'll be a microscopic speck attached to some other megabill. There's not a lefty lawmaker worth their private fortune, that would turn down unrelated pork for reelection hopes in their district. All it would take is the right czars and cabinet folks to send congress things to be included if they want the President's signature on legislation. Or, it could be lumped into the supposed 75% reg. rollback. New studies may help, but literature reviews of previous data and conclusions might convince the some folks to ease off of regs, too.

edit to add, my point hasn't been about speculating, only about what I've read in this thread how the lead threat has completely surrounded us, except for the lucky few that hunt upland birds away from waterways.

Lead HAS completely surrounded us, craig, Old colonel agreed that reintroduction of lead for general and unrestricted use on waterfowl isn't going to happen but believed there were holes that could be reasonably exploited. Some suggestions made, some discarded. There seemed a consensus to push back although far behind the eight ball.

My view was to establish credibility first to stop the nibbling in, say a renowned hunting region of quiet assurance far from the two left coasts. Then little adjustments from appreciative and better-informed audiences, starting small. It took 30 years to get pushed to the margins; same time to get back. The money's there with NRA most powerful and financially funded lobby in the country. The issue is ideas, effort, a plan; that's for you to make.

If you're serious about limited use of lead in old guns on waterfowl, you could look to Victoria, in SE Australia, for a model of how it could be done. Lead has long been "banned", but I've never shot at ducks with anything else - totally legally.

But then there's people here who think guns were banned totally in Australia, and think Australian hunting and firearms laws have nothing to offer the US.

Read what it says on your ammo box. The ammo makers have already sold the notion that Damascus is dangerous. Those guns shouldn't be shot. They've also sold the notion that a slightly longer shell in a shorter chamber is also dangerous--which we also know is false. But in both cases, care is needed on the part of the shooter in his choice of loads. That's WAY too complex for most people beyond our merry little band here to grasp. Besides which, for those who do shoot Damascus, it's possible to reload with bismuth, ITX, etc.

The wind industry gets a pass because wind energy is good for the environment. Reduces reliance on fossil fuels. So we sacrifice some eagles for the greater good. Sacrificing them to lead shot is unnecessary. That's the "defensive" we're up against.

Craig, first try selling your change on lead to Ducks Unlimited. It's one of those cases where "We have met the enemy, and they are us!"

This is amusing cadet. I think I stay pretty well on top of gun rights topics here, and I have never once seen anyone make the statement that guns are banned totally in Australia. Can you support that absurd statement?

We do know that entire classes of firearms have been banned and/or severely restricted in Australia. Other than a few anti-2nd Amendment types like King Brown, I don't think many of us feel that those types of Australian style restrictions have anything at all to offer the U.S. I'm happy to hear that you are content having your rights incrementally taken away. Would your last name happen to be Brown???

Glad to hear that you can still use lead ammo for waterfowl there. Of course it is still legal to use lead ammunition for waterfowl in other parts of the world as well, and there aren't massive quantities of ducks and geese dying from lead poisoning as a result of it either. That little fact has been offered up to guys like Larry Clown several times in the past, but he's still tooting his anti-lead horn for any use of lead ammo for waterfowl... and now making a case for restrictions on lead for many dove hunting situations.

Larry Clown has been shown numerous inconsistencies in the junk science used to support lead ammunition bans including wide disparities in the amount of lead exposure required to poison or kill different species of birds, yet he still clings to the junks science and repeats his tired old refrain... "That battle is lost... no sense fighting old battles." Instead he wants us to meekly submit, except when it come to the few shots he may fire per year at upland game... something I doubt more and more considering the tens of thousands of posts he makes here and on several other forums. You can't have time to do much actual hunting and shooting when you spend as much time as Larry, shooting your mouth off about things you clearly do not comprehend,

OMIGOSH! Where are the Thread Diversion Police when you really need them???

"ignorance of forest dynamics frequently here, of clearcutting particularly." Really King? Not according to this link that tells us the real story:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2009/11/future-forestry-nova-scotia

But most interesting is the part of the story from the rival Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators Association which does not see widespread clearcutting and taking saplings as small as 1 1/2" in diameter to feed the ravenous appetite of a 60 megawatt biomass power plant at the New Page Pulp Mill at the NewPage pulp mill at Port Hawkesbury as environmentally responsible, "FSC certification or not." Read about what amounts to a unionized effort to do short rotation clear-cutting with a huge carbon footprint. There's worse slash and burn type forestry practices going on, but this doesn't sound very sustainable and sure isn't returning the Nova Scotia forests to Acadian pre-European old growth timberlands. But hey, even an old communist needs to make a living!

King also observes that "bashing gets nowhere", yet the anti-gunners and anti-lead forces have bashed us for decades. And doesn't Mr. Perfect himself routinely bash such things as Donald Trump, Conservatism, the NRA, George Bush, Republicans, the 2nd Amendment, etc., etc....???... Well, you get the picture.

Ever wonder where I get the opinion that this old fraud is the biggest fraud and hypocrite to ever post here? Want to get a big fat zero response? Just ask King what he ever did personally to help reverse the Canadian Long Gun Registry. And what a joke to see him now pretending to support the use of lead ammunition after spending so much time bashing that in the past too. Brown and Brown---, this pair is so full of shit their eyes are brown.

You know Keith, as you say, most of us here are reasonably familiar with the level of restrictions gun owners in Australia operate under. However, I doubt we know much at all about the regs regarding the use of lead for waterfowl hunting.

Given the total ban that currently exists in the US and Canada, why shut down someone who may have something to offer. That is just short sighted.

James, you might want to re-read my reply to cadet. I clearly acknowledged that he said he was still able to use lead shot in Australia, and told him I was glad of it, and also noted that legal use of lead shot in other parts of the world for waterfowl isn't causing the kind of problems that purportedly led to the 1991 U.S. ban.

cadet made a totally inaccurate statement by claiming that there are some here who seem to think there is a total ban on firearms in Australia. That simply isn't true, and I have probably been the most active here in reporting exactly what restrictions Australian gun owners have suffered. You've probably seen the photos I've posted of huge piles of confiscated and banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and government notices warning owners of banned guns to turn them in. But I know there is not a total ban on all guns... Yet.... Even if the path seems to be a death by a thousand cuts.

As such, I remarked that Australian style restrictions on firearms have absolutely nothing to offer to us here. Well, I should clarify and say that they have nothing to offer except an example we should avoid and fight at all costs. King Brown and Ed Good probably think they are reasonable, but certainly not you or the majority of us. I know little about Australian hunting laws, and did not comment on them except to say I was glad he still got to use lead shot. He could have reported how Australian gunners managed to keep that right, but instead went to to disseminate a false statement and to suggest that Australian Firearm laws might offer a model for us in the U.S.

Now, if you want to comment on short-sightedness, you might want to reply to Larry Clown who thinks that there is no way to reverse past wrongs such as the 1991 lead ban, even in a limited sense for vintage guns, and instead goes on to concede that lead shot is even a problem with many dove hunting situations.

Too bad Larry didn't threaten to move to Canada if Trump won. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want him either.