Will Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson make a back door move to ban lead bullets the day before the November 2 elections? Several environmentalist groups ... are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) ...They can't help it. They really can't. Modern Democrats are the Ouroboros Party, the snake that consumes itself, and this is just another tail-chomping example. But Weekly Standard misses the issue - or at least how the issue will be presented. This is not going to be fought as some kind of a back door tax on gun owners, "effectively" or otherwise.
You might say that even considering enacting what is effectively a new tax on hunters and gun owners--seemingly the only non-liberal group the Obama administration hasn't yet intentionally provoked--is less-than-perfect timing for the already beleaguered Democrats as the midterm elections approach.
Fairly or not, this issue will be the Obama Administration banning ammunition. It's going to be presented as the Democrats taking away Americans' ability to hunt and fish. And it's going to be effective. For people who claim to be modern, liberals consistently misunderestimate the power of the internet. And for people who claim to understand coded talk and "sending the wrong message," they have sure sent the wrong message here. The Obama administration, even if it backs off now* has sent the message that if it can't take Americans' guns, it will take their ammunition.
That may not be the message that they tried to send, which was surely more nuanced**. But that is the message they sent. Considering that Kansas already has a pro-gun constitutional amendment on the ballot November 2nd, if the EPA does ban lead bullets the day before, I wonder if there will be a single Democrat outside KCK elected to anything in this state.
UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long. The comment period opened Friday, and that same day, "EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition..."
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
* It will, and will therefore outrage *both* sides, not just one.
** Ask President Kerry how well voters do nuance.
View Bill Hoyt's profile
Posts
12 comments:
It's like they were endorsing the construction of a mosque..... only made out of lead!
Sorry, a feeble attempt at best.
Some advocated surrendering their lead bullets, one at a time.
With pin-point accuracy.
...I wonder if there will be a single Democrat outside KCK elected to anything in this state.
I doubt there will be a shortage of sense of entitlement in the electorate anytime soon...
We aim to please.
kawaika
Lead bullets, steel shot--if your aim is good, what's the difference?
Gun owners have been expecting this for more than 2 years now. There's probably enough lead in many of their basements to ward off nuclear radiation.
"what's the difference?"
Double the price, but that's not the Democrats' problem. Midterm elections are decided by who is motivated to vote. The last the Dems need is Obama motivating the GOP's base to turn out in huge numbers. But that's exactly what he's doing.
At this rate, I expect that his Secretary of education will propose banning private and home schooling about October 15th. They don't want anyone staying home this November, it seems.
At this rate, I expect that his Secretary of education will propose banning private and home schooling about October 15th. They don't want anyone staying home this November, it seems.
ROFL. Thanks El B. I needed that.
Lead bullets, steel shot--if your aim is good, what's the difference?
There's a big difference. Steel shot (actually iron) is used for shotguns. It is very inferior to lead ballistically, because it is less dense. Imagine throwing a rock as hard as you can versus a ping pong ball. There are substitutes based on tungsten, but they cost up to $3 or more per shot. There are some who say that steel shot cripples (and therefore kills) more birds than lead shot poisons. I never got to hunt waterfowl with lead, but I can tell a difference with pheasants.
It is the same deal with rifle ammo. The non-lead bullets will work well at short ranges, but they are not as good at long ranges. Lead will readily expand at short or long range. And they cost more, and there isn't really a good reason to ban lead in the first place.
Or as Useless News and World Distort said today:
"It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election."
http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/epa-surrenders-to-nra-on-gun-control-issue-epa-rejects-attempt-to-regulate-lead-in-bullets-after-nra-protests.html
For what it's worth: My "what's the difference" remark was in place of "but with good aim, you are nonetheless dead" or in the case of being out of range of an inferior steel rifle bullet, at least in need of a change of clothes.
I seriously doubt a true liberal much cares whether the bullet is lead, steel, tungsten, armor-piercing, copper-tipped, expanding, full-metal jacketed, or hollow point. They want them all banned and banned 40 years ago.
Nice discussion though.
Fair enough. I am a gun nut, and therefore a little touchy on this subject. Sorry.
Post a Comment