Another attack on gun owners

SS109 wrote: The same EPA that is going after carbon dioxide? Seems they pick and choose what is in their control.

Congress in the Toxic Substances Act of 1976 banned the EPA from regulating ammunition. The Supreme Court in 2007 in the Massachusetts v. EPA case held that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that the EPA was required to regulated. Not sure how this is the EPA "pick and choose what is in their control", but more a fact that the EPA is following the law.

PrintSmith wrote: Not to worry too much though, there are other cheap base metals, such as the zinc that is the primary base metal in all of our modern coins or the packed "non-toxic" metals that are used in frangible rounds. We'll probably end up with an alloy of non-toxic metals to replace the lead core. There are already a number of alternatives on the market, most of which yield a higher weight retention and a more predictable mushrooming, making them a more effective killing round for hunting than their lead core predecessors. I don't know what else we are going to use the most abundant metal for in the future though. It has been banned for use in paints, gasoline already with ammunition likely the next to fall prey to the progressive process of increasing the cost of anything their environmental wing can gin up an objection to. I can't believe that the lithium that is so prevalent in the batteries of today will have much of a shelf life once they turn their attention to finding it objectionable.

It is amazing. LJ pointed out on the third page of this thread that the EPA rejected the proposed ban. Why are some people still arguing the about it? Could that be indicitive a bigger problem that people aren't paying attention to anything but their own agendas?

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunt ... id=5516219

EddieWess wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Not to worry too much though, there are other cheap base metals, such as the zinc that is the primary base metal in all of our modern coins or the packed "non-toxic" metals that are used in frangible rounds. We'll probably end up with an alloy of non-toxic metals to replace the lead core. There are already a number of alternatives on the market, most of which yield a higher weight retention and a more predictable mushrooming, making them a more effective killing round for hunting than their lead core predecessors. I don't know what else we are going to use the most abundant metal for in the future though. It has been banned for use in paints, gasoline already with ammunition likely the next to fall prey to the progressive process of increasing the cost of anything their environmental wing can gin up an objection to. I can't believe that the lithium that is so prevalent in the batteries of today will have much of a shelf life once they turn their attention to finding it objectionable.

It is amazing. LJ pointed out on the third page of this thread that the EPA rejected the proposed ban. Why are some people still arguing the about it? Could that be indicitive a bigger problem that people aren't paying attention to anything but their own agendas?

Because they need something in their little lives to be outraged about...whether real or imagined.

Wayne Harrison wrote:

The Viking wrote: Hunters contribute over $25 Billion per year that goes to help the environment. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Are you saying paying $25 Billion each year (your figure) should give people the right to pollute the environment or fill it with lead? What about a large corporation? If they pay $25 Billion, should they be allowed to dump toxic waste into the environment?

I'd say polluting the national forest where gun owners are allowed to shoot without charge is biting the hand that feeds you.

Correct me if I'm wrong here Wayne, but didn't the lead come from the environment in the first place? Isn't the natural abundance of the substance, along with its malleable properties, one of the reasons that it was chosen for use in ammunition, car batteries, toy soldiers, paint, gasoline and a host of other products?

Something the Dog Said wrote: But of course the EPA refused to consider the petition by the five environmental groups. The EPA considered the subject matter to be out of it's jurisdiction and that it is barred by law from considering bans on ammunition. Once again, much ado about nothing.

Don't you find that interesting? The EPA has the authority to ban lead from paint, from gasoline, from toy soldiers but not from ammunition that ends up in the environment? This is the same outfit that has labeled your exhalations a pollutant after all, but lead is outside of their jurisdiction?

Yes, well the Congress decides and the EPA follows the rules. I know it's a foreign concept. Perhaps you should take that up with the Congress? Like repealing Social Security and Medicare? Then your world would be complete?

I also find it odd that neither the EPA nor the FDA have had the authorization to control the biggest known carcinogen in the world--tobacco. Apparently, the rules are changing so that the FDA CAN regulate it. I guess things change.

Guess nobody read the press release.

EddieWess wrote: It is amazing. LJ pointed out on the third page of this thread that the EPA rejected the proposed ban. Why are some people still arguing the about it? Could that be indicitive a bigger problem that people aren't paying attention to anything but their own agendas?

Some of us actually start at the beginning of the thread and respond to the posts as we read them, so we won't get to the results that appear on page 3 until after we have found something worth commenting on before we reach that point in the discussion.

PrintSmith wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong here Wayne, but didn't the lead come from the environment in the first place? Isn't the natural abundance of the substance, along with its malleable properties, one of the reasons that it was chosen for use in ammunition, car batteries, toy soldiers, paint, gasoline and a host of other products?

Metallic lead does occur in nature, but it is rare. Lead is usually found in ore with zinc, silver and (most abundantly) copper, and is extracted together with these metals. The main lead mineral is galena (PbS), which contains 86.6% lead.

Lead is a poisonous substance to animals. It damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders. Excessive lead also causes blood disorders in mammals. Like the element mercury, another heavy metal, lead is a potent neurotoxin that accumulates both in soft tissues and the bones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead