This may almost be a fantasy, but then again.

Is there a possibility of some limited authorization for some vintage guns?

If so what limitations could reasonably be made and gotten implemented which provided some freedom to use vintage guns without creating too great and acceptable use of lead?

I believe we need to go on the offensive and stop spending our energy on defense only and make the anti's start defending instead of simply subverting

You have to frame it as a historical recreation of our heritage, do it for the children, relate it to keeping wildlife as a valuable part of our environment and figure out some way to make it LBGT or hit on some other popular current cause. Maybe we could invite Liberals to hold targets for us.

I wold like to see a one-three day, lead only season for guns made before the end of WWII. Or a special tax stamp that allows you to use lead all season. If they can have carbon offsets and sell them, why not lead use offsets? A stamp for $100.00-250.00 would be doable. Be a heck of a lot easier than bismuth, Ecoshot and all the other alternatives to lead use.

Good question. I know empirically that pragmatic approaches cutting across ideological lines are the easiest and fastest ways to get things done. The president's declarations and lock on both houses and majority of governors indicate there couldn't be a better time for adjustments.

My experience with changing how society works has shown me that it's not so much what you do as how you do it, and success in any pioneering or legislative initiative depends on absolutely no mistakes in the planning, consultation and execution. One mistake may stop you in your tracks.

It would be fantasy to attempt "authorization" in Canada's firearms legislation for what you're proposing because the use of lead is permitted except for waterfowling but I wonder if it would be possible making a local precedent; there are thousands of those under the Second.

My point is to not wake up sleeping dogs but give communities a voice to support activities as benign as traditionalists shooting flintlocks and muskets during specified times before or during hunting seasons as we do now for youth, blackpowder and archers. Start small and ease it up with acceptance.

This is broad brush, Michael. Success comes from consulting widely and collegially with common sense for a common purpose. Like the Masons and Lions, DAR and Legions. People like to be useful taking their turn at community oars. Your notion isn't fantasy. It's how our countries generally manage.

KY -great idea. I suggest that we make transgender illegal immigrants the posterpersons for lead, and denounce all those opposing the plan for being racist, transphobic xenophobes.

I wonder if it's possible to declare some game birds to be pests, then it wouldn't matter how lead affected them. Some feel that ducks are nothing more than rats with wings, similar with doves? Hmmm.

LGF, Could that be Rossie O'Donnell? Did not know she was a illegal immigrant, or as they wish to be called illegal migrant. With no real career she might be glad for the work.

You sure you're not a liberal.

We sure don't need anymore taxes...what's next free government controlled gunsmithing for clunkers ?

Must be a Kentucky thing.

And another thing....asking for a tax is an admission of guilt.

Special stamps, or limited licenses would never pass muster, IMO. The way to get our foot back in the door with lead shot would be to lobby strongly for use in muzzle loaders. Use the ploy of the antis, get a little at the time.

SRH

Old saying in US journalism: "Write for the Kansas City milkman."I know a bit about Kansas, the wide open spaces mostly where a consensus for a common interest could be made if launched properly in careful hands. Start small with a model for others to look at. Kansas isn't a place folks expect to find foolishness. If it works in Kansas, others say, why couldn't it in (fill in the space). You're going nowhere if you're scaring people.

I don't often agree with jOe but he's on the money here. Every tax, regardless of form or amount, should always be resisted. Why? Because the government will ALWAYS waste the money. The only way to encourage careful government spending is to limit the available funds.

When I dream I dream that sensible people using rational thought and accurate science would make sensible laws and regulations. But as I said, in my dreams.

In real life, we have to fight the way we have been fought against....in ways that appeal to feelings in people who don't hunt that get them on board. Want to get lead back in use in a more widespread way. Get the ban lifted on those giant flying crap machines, Canada geese. The ones that have, over the last 30 years, stopped migrating and decided life is good on the no shoot zones of public parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other open spaces frequented by the masses. Get their populations under control.

Also on snows that are devastating wide swaths of the north during their summering. Start showing what the over population of these birds are doing.

This sounds good, but are there other considerations? How about the last US 'popular' vote. On the one hand, the single state of california could be seen as the lone reason that hill won the pop vote. That point alone is a fact, but it's the meaningless talking point that drives the 'conversation', at least as much as it's the flavor of the week.

Of any state, doesn't cali drive the national mantra about enviro ideology. Back to starting small. Have you ever seen such a campaign to delegitimize the will of so many people who voted for the current President? Doesn't the electoral college represent 'Kansas', when cali spots the dem a 20% head start to 270, the second voting closes?

On a side note, I'd rather leave gramps old five hundred dollar beater in the closet than buy some stamp or permit for it to shoot lead for some romantic notion. Whats given in the way of permit will certainly be taken at some point. The main difference would be that places like cali would teach us what would now happen to the old duck gun when it comes time to pass it on to the next generation.

The tax stamp could easily be restricted to be spent in waterfowl enhancement only. BATF already is use to special taxes like for full auto guns and that goes back to 1934 as I recall. Do we just amend it so lead shot on waterfowl sing black powder if needed. Just get your foot in the door. RST could make a run of black powder ammo for the first year. Start small, be honest about it and make it like a reenactment of how duck hunting was a hundred years ago.

I'd pay $100.00 a year to use lead shot in my doubles. I don't want it tied to just one gun because for all my hunting needs I use several guns. A100/yr fee is nothing when you figure out all the other associated cost of duck hunting. You have nothing to loose. It would be voluntary. Like paying a hundred bucks for the right not to have to use more expensive ammo and enjoy our old doubles at the same time. Hell if I could get a lifetime permit I'd pay ten grand for myself and my sons.

And calling me a liberal is like calling Al Sharptin a white supremest. I was lol when I read that. My wife who is much closer to one was also.

Why not just buy bismuth or ITX shot?

Cost and different ballistics. Not the same as lead. Bismuth is not easy to find in a lot of places. Why not cut your lower leg off and get a prosthetic leg instead of taking care of an infection after all the prosthetic will let you kind of walk Bismuth and ITX are a lead shot replacement, a prosthetic substitute, with real draw backs. Bismuth is a lesser replacement. A step down in effectiveness at a much higher cost, $180/7 pounds verses $40/25. Lead is 100% double gun safe. I won't use ITX shot in a classic double and it also is not cheap.

Did you know that the braintrust in the US military had decided planes would not need machine guns in the future. They tried it for a short while and found out rockets could not replace the machine gun. You had to expend several 100k rockets to do what a few hundred rounds of 50 cal could do. So they went back to putting machine guns on planes. Progress is not always progress in the real sense.

Much of current law excludes the use of lead shot where waterfowl and upland overlap. ALL Federal Waterfowl Production Areas (often quite good pheasant hunting, here in the Midwest) are nontox only. Here in Iowa, where our lead shot restrictions are not as comprehensive as they are in South Dakota, all public areas in several entire counties (where most public lands are wetlands) are nontox only. And just about all public wetlands everywhere else in the state are also nontox only, even for pheasants.

I don't think we'll ever get lead back again for waterfowl. For one thing, the enforcement people like the rules as they are because they're relatively easy to enforce. If you're hunting waterfowl, it's strictly nontox. If you're hunting on areas that are nontox only, then no lead. As for vintage guns, there are nontoxic options (like bismuth). More expensive than lead or steel, and I suppose individuals could show that's a burden if they do a LOT of waterfowl hunting with a vintage gun. But since those options do exist, I doubt there will be a lead loophole for vintage guns. Again, difficult to enforce. What's a vintage gun? And since Browning says no steel in any of their Belgian-made classics (Superposed, A-5) and a whole lot of those aren't really "vintage" . . . it quickly becomes very complicated.

I'm more than happy to put the antis on the defensive when it comes to hunting upland birds other than around wetlands. And we're doing a good job of winning there . . . as long as the new head of USF&WS reverses the ban on lead shot put in place by Obama's director.

I believe they could draw a line similar to the BATF by saying prior to 1899 and proof of manufacture system could be set up. Further if date of manufacture and a system of proof is too hard they could draw the line on Damascus barrels only.

While both those courses of action leave alot of what most of us would hold to be vintage out, nonetheless it would open things a a small bit.

As for additional taxation for the privilege, not sure I like the idea of pricing out those without the same resources I have

Are you willfully obtuse or just slow naturally?


Just kidding. I know your remarks are driven by an ideological bent you are powerless to use common sense and reason to overcome.

This is what I was thinking Jon. I think the dems could easily be on board for this. Have the folks not only agree to backdoor registration, but pay for it. It could also be a path to go completely notox, because it's the same old, if you like your lead, you can keep your lead, if you can afford to jump through hoops.

Just speculating out loud. Besides, haven't you heard, just run some #7 steel through the old gun and all will be just fine, in someone else's world.

Everyone has an ideological bent, James. Mine is conservative in many ways, particularly with the environment and lead. It doesn't prevent me from suggesting a proven change formula to a thread inquiring of a way to benefit members in the public interest. A collective urban-rural, pro- and anti-gun ideology removed Canada's long gun registry because it made common sense. We opened the tent and respected a wide range of opinions.

Asking for a tax is more than an admission of guilt, as you and Joe say, James. It may cut off noses.The proposed Mexico border tax will be paid by Americans buying those goods, a double-whammy, the kind of mistake that would stop what old colonel is suggesting before it started.

King, as I'm sure you know I was responding to his singularly stupid post. Not his philosophical bent. I happen to know what his bent is, know that the stupid post comes from that place but the reasons why not to just buy Bismuth and ITX are clear for all. Especially on this site. Perhaps our friend from Montana would make better use of his and our time by making a cogent argument in favour of the use of non-tox.

THAT might add some value to this discussion.


Although I already know why he doesn't. Because he doesn't have the evidence to support the bans. Just the philosophy.

I don't think it will be paid by Americans. I think it will be paid by Mexicans illegally in the US, sending their remittances home. As Trump suggests, a little 15-20% tax on sending that $23 billion home each year and that wall is paid for toot suite!

And if the tax dries up the flow of funds.....well, the Americans win that way too.

Trump is tearing down the bullshit of the state faster than any of us could ever have dreamed of.

Read this little quote from a former Superior Court judge from New Jersey analyzing Trump's very first executive order.



Read it and weep King. The nanny state will be substantially dismantled in the next 4 years. The statists will be cleansed from the bureaucracy. Unlike the blathering of politicians that I have lived with my entire life, Trump clearly means business. And for those a bit on the thick side, what Trump's outrageous trweets and complaints about crowd size or whatever serve to do is to deflect attention of the easily misled press onto non issues and away from the lighting quick, serious changes he's making in dismantling the leftist edifice.

The English are tired of it, the Dutch are tired of it, The Germans and Swedes are running out of patience. Change is coming, baby!

Obama talked about change....Trump is actually doing it.

I think a properly mounted campaign to reverse the rulings on lead could have success in the next 4 years.

Canvasback: I'm not trying to be obtuse. Rather just stating the current legal options for using your vintage double with non-toxic shot for waterfowl. Purchasing Bismuth or ITX shot is just a couple clicks away on the internet. And none of us are getting any younger. Why spend thousand-equivalent in retirement hours pulling yourself backwards through a knothole to change laws or regs. when instead you can purchase legal shells and just go waterfowling ASAP. Turn that frown upside down!

Trump's good for two terms by completing massive infrastructure, roads, canals, highways etc. Will Americans accept the debt that goes with it? Most sound like Hayek disciples, particularly the GOP, hooked on costs and not the benefits. That'll be a big change.

Because Canada stupidly follows the American lead on this bullshit. Because Bismuth, tungsten variants and ITX are next to unavailable or outrageous expensive. Because it keeps young hunters out of the game. Because the load selection is so limited that unless you roll your own, you can't shot this stuff out of old guns....pressures and recoils are too much.

I have stacks of Kent TM. I'll be buying a bunch of lower cost bismuth in preparation for next year. I've been hunting for over 40 years and I'm not about to stop.

But, you dumb selfish Fudd, this isn't about me.

And isn't this thread prompted by the asshats efforts to spread the stupid lead ban beyond waterfowl and into upland???

Aren't we getting off old colonel's notion of a particular place for a particular group at a particular time that wouldn't upset the public interest, like the old guys who go off alone to the lounge for their stogies and drinks after dinner? (Why they ditch women who always have something more than stale macho is beyond me.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting a full-court press to reverse lead ban for water fowling generally or ploughing old ground again about the efficacy of non-tox in particular areas or no requirement for it generally for upland, are we? Couldn't old colonel's "fantasy"---which I don't think it is---strengthen one size doesn't fit all?

James, you leave me with the impression you want reversal of lead everywhere. I thought we agreed generally here that horse is long gone. old colonel posited the possibility of limited lead authorization as a way back for a special group or category that wouldn't make another antis' Guy Fawkes Day.

That would be such a small segment of the hunting community that I doubt they'd get anywhere. Not enough "squeak" in that "wheel" to attract grease. There are a whole bunch of guns out there through which steel should not be shot. But the problem is, you can't collect very many of them into a neat little group via something as simple as date of manufacture. Damascus only . . . I think the simple response from the feds would be "But those guns are all dangerous if shot with any kind of modern load. Only good for hanging on the wall." Within this little group, we know better. But try convincing many people outside of this little group.

Years ago, a poster here had a Damascus-barreled LC. He wanted to shoot it at his club. They wouldn't allow it. He got stubborn, sent it to the UK for modern reproof. It passed. That apparently satisfied the powers that be at his club . . . but I doubt it would satisfy the feds. OK for those Brits to do stuff like that, but not in the US of A, by God!

King, stupid laws and regs are just that, stupid.

If they are stupid, if their purpose and intent can't be backed up by quality science or real (not torqued) public opinion based on truth rather than manipulation opinion based on lies, half truths and spin, then it doesn't matter if the laws is 80 years old. It should be dumped.

And BTW, if I seemed less than civil with GG, I meant to be. His comment was flippant and obviously designed to troll. He got what he was asking for.

'We can only hope!

I'm glad that you recognize that it's proposed. The mex prez will try to paint himself as a hero for slashing it down. The new President knows that Americans won't buy those goods, if they don't value the price increase. But, I hope we haven't forgotten what it means to start from a position of weakness.

If there's a shot at bringing back lead for things that're currently banned, it's probably going to happen through leverage rather than kumbaya. No? How about that mayor of Miami, he seem quite a bit sharper than the double downer mayors of the biggest left wing cesspools.

I bet, the lefty mayors, lose the funding anyway and get leveraged by their own entitlement constituents for less gruel from the smaller trough. We may actually get to watch a gov brown type choose between human beings and bait fish or scavenger birds.

I usually don't participate in these useless rants, but this thread and others related to the subject of non-lead requirements have plucked my nerves.
A lot of you are too young to recall how all this started, beginning with the manipulated statistics surrounding the dying eagle found by the USFWS at Remington Farms in the late '70's which resulted in the lead shot ban for waterfowl, continuing with California's attempted ban on all lead ammo, and now an effort to ban lead for upland birds elsewhere. The end result of all this is (and will be) (1 ammo manufacturers will scramble to produce a product that meets the "requirements" at our expense, (2 the population who enjoys shooting sports will diminish further, and (3 loss of revenue from license sales will further cripple state wildlife agencies. The same scenario can be applied to the recreational fisheries industry.
I don't understand how outdoorsmen cannot see past their collective self interest noses when it comes to this subject-- the end result will be the destruction of all firearms-related activities--not just the use of vintage doubles.
I was (and am) waterfowl hunting before the lead shot ban, and vividly remember how poorly steel shot performed. Many times I witnessed shot geese and ducks, heavily hit, fly off to die from blood loss, never recovered. So, when improved non-tox became available I stepped up and purchased the best ammo available-- to the tune of $1.00+ PER SHELL. In all my decades of waterfowl hunting I've never found a duck or goose that seemed to be dying from some mysterious malady.
Allow me to pose a question--- have any of you found a dying Black or Turkey vulture or a coyote dead or dying????
We need to unite and be proactive regarding the lead ban-- rescind it!!!

The train's already left the station on the lead ban for waterfowl. Early arguments were that steel performed poorly, and that it was more expensive than lead. The cost argument is no longer valid. And while lead remains ballistically superior to steel, current steel loads are significantly better than those that were available 25 years ago.

Another currently active topic points out that different species exhibit different tolerance for lead. And when it comes to vultures and coyotes . . . no one cares. Unless, all of a sudden, we start finding a lot of dead vultures or a lot of dead coyotes with no obvious cause, no one is going to get concerned. And, if they've ingested lead, it's quite possible that they're simply more tolerant of it than are eagles and waterfowl.

Most attempts to ban lead for upland birds, outside of California, have been unsuccessful. Where upland birds are concerned, the "good science" to support such action simply does not exist. The advisory committee to the Minnesota DNR stated as much in their report. And it's not likely to ever exist, given the difference between waterfowl hunting and upland hunting. Shot fall is so dispersed in nearly all upland hunting settings that it's highly unlikely upland birds will ingest lead shot. Tall Timbers, which does research on quail and mortality factors, examined something like 300 birds--in an area where far more birds are shot than would occur in typical upland hunting--and found lead pellets in only two gizzards.

What we're facing from the antis is: "Lead is poison and therefore should be banned." That message is being sold, constantly. And the question we have to ask is: "Where is that "poison", spread by hunters, impacting the population of X species?"

Not much point in fighting battles lost long ago. Waste of energy.

I have little problem worrying about trains that have left stations long ago. I think if someone's asking where's the poison spread by hunters, one option would be to ask a hunter.

If the topic is about lead shot and waterfowl, it might be that some hunters will say, no big deal but we find lead in quail, or no big deal but we find lead in woodcock, or huge problem we find lead in hunter discarded deer gut piles, or we like to point out that deer hunters don't always retrieve lead bullet wounded deer, or we might find lead in coyotes but who cares, or we might find lead in vultures but who cares.

If one insists on building up the image of one species example as a glorious national bird. Why bother with the science, the hunter keeps saying that the image is more important. Wouldn't the anti think, let's get the hunter to help, he'll gladly agree to quietly accept an obscene eagle body count at the base windmills, yet walk us through the pervasive nature of lead. Ask the hunter, they might say no big deal if the lone state of kali hatches most anti regs and policies that sooner or later don't fly over the mid section of the country.

I keep wondering, the issues seem to be about tactics and strategies, not truly science. How do we know? Some say there's only science that fit my tactics or strategies, that's okay by me. But, why try to placate hunters while it's clear that some pro strategies just don't work from grass roots motivation, to the courts, to the highest regulatory levels?

Larry, I highlighted three portion of your post I'd like to respond to.

We KNOW that the antis will not stop, ever. Not in Cali and not in the rest of the country. We also know that it is only a matter of time before they win in Cali and eventually win across the rest of the United States IF WE CONTINUE TO BEHAVE IN THE FUTURE AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

A defensive position, which has been the position, will ultimately fail as those on offense will continue to chip away. It's not a battle, it's a siege. Some may think this a stretch but as Trump has just demonstrated, if we want to turn the tide, we need to go on the offensive. Start up the battle and take back the lost positions. If some of us are correct, and we have 4-8 years of a federal government reducing it's footprint, being more responsive to the people than vocal special interest groups, then now is fertile ground to bring that engine back into the station.

We're musing the possibility of slowing/stopping antis' lead ban everywhere (because on the evidence that's where it's heading). old colonel elicited opinions and suggested possibility of lead under conditions, maybe even waterfowling with muskets etc.

This would have to come after state-hunter-possibly wildlife coalitions drive home to publics that lead for upland in hunter-magnets Kansas and Iowa is all green. Current law is no guarantee it will stay that way. Stopping the nibbling first, becoming recognized poster girls for finding a balance, is the fastest course to holding our own and finding niches for odd fellows with smoke pipes.

I work on this daily in the controversial climate of forestry on a provincial, national and international scale; over 50 years our organization has never lost a battle with governments and the biggest corporations of their kind. I read ignorance of forest dynamics frequently here, of clearcutting particularly. Perceptions can be changed by better information, treating all publics with respect. Take a page from the antis: bashing gets nowhere.

King, that's already been tried, in varying levels of competence and with little success. Why propose we continue down the same path?

James, I added a para while you were responding to mine. Our organization is a world leader because it doesn't do it over and over; insanity as you say. The first thing to advance or promote anything is getting the poohbahs' attention by doing things differently. Petitions don't work, politicians don't look at them. What gets attention are ideas and innovation that the clunks haven't thought of---or can't do with their top-down bureaucratic and technological interference.

My suggesting old colonel's notion isn't a fantasy is not the same path. My notion of stopping the nibbling by doing something imaginatively makes the point that we'll lose lead completely if we don't change public perceptions. Canada removed the long gun registry, a response to the Montreal massacre, because publics saw from a reasoned, long campaign that it didn't make sense. It took years.

Stopping and starting stuff takes thinking, getting off our asses. That's how the antis do it---and it's working. Fight talk is great for stoking the troops. What do you do then?

As you may recall in the past, and in this thread, I perceive the balance as being as being out of whack. When friends call each other odd, who needs antis?

As for clear cutting, it's a term of endearment. I believe it's a code word that says welcome left, jump in the water's great! Have I ever told you about the time a racist, misogynist and a pedophile priest went into a bar?

Obama created much of this debt and we have nothing to show for it.

That's just too simple.

I've more than a dozen doubles, Joe, and bought a Beretta o/u 686 and two cases Kent's TM and bismuth, too hot in my opinion for the other guns. Handloading is simple answer for me.

I don't do much waterfowling but have recently been getting back into it.

I have been using up old supplies of bismuth and steel but just looked up the price on Kent TM at Cabelas.

Is that right, $3.50-4.50 per shell?

I am surprised that that has become accepted.

Rob, I don't know if that price is correct, but TM has always been expensive. Bismuth is back, and it's a good bit less expensive.

No one needs to "build up" the image of the bald eagle. It got built up when it became our national symbol. It got built up even more when the population was extremely low, and most people in the country never saw any. No way to "debuild" the image of the bald eagle . . . unless maybe we can resurrect old Ben Franklin and his proposal that the wild turkey should be the national bird.

How do we go on the offense against the waterfowl ban? We'd have to run tests, shoot a whole bunch of lead on areas where there are a whole bunch of waterfowl, and hope like heck that we don't find sick or dead birds that have ingested lead. And there's no point in doing that if we're going to fail. If ingested lead shot really DOES kill waterfowl.

If it doesn't, how did we get where we are? It wasn't all because of a dead eagle or two. If the "science" behind the ban were bogus, where were the wildlife biologists who focus on waterfowl who should have told us it was all bogus?

Let's compare to climate change. Yes, most scientists agree that it's happening, and it's happening due to human activity. BUT THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT AGREE, AND WHO SO STATE IN PUBLIC.
If there are climate change contrarians--which there certainly are--then why were there not lead ban contrarians? There was a conspiracy in which NO ONE came out and said this is bogus, and here's why? I have trouble believing that. Small conspiracies can work. Big conspiracies . . . they have to rely on too many people not saying anything. And there's never been any shortage of outdoor writers who would be more than happy to break a story like that.

I oppose going "on the offensive" not because I think "the offensive" in general is a bad way to go, but because I don't think THIS PARTICULAR OFFENSIVE can win. Custer won by going on the offensive . . . until he went on the offensive when the odds against him were too high.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for a more than a dozen doubles owning, clear cuttin', wine sippin', just buy another gun and cases of ammo elitest from Nova Scotia. Just get a better job, Rob. Problem solved.


______________________________
The U.S. pays 3 billion for the UN, more than 185 countries combined. (things that make you go hmmmm?)

Ah, Joe, I'm doing all those things and still raising incomes and working conditions of rural people continuously for 50 years, too. That's what elites do.

Larry, a reporter friend told me of a fresh reinforcement officer who joined the platoon one night in Italy during WWII with orders to attack in the morning. Years later that officer, a duck hunting buddy, said my friend saved his life. Pointing out concealed German positions that had them taped, the corporal said his men weren't moving, wait for the guns. Outnumbered and outgunned is no place for offensives. The corporal earned a Mention In Dispatches the next day. Allied infantry casualties in Italy were greater than Northwest Europe, D-Day to the end.

Forget the job, Rob. Just grow alligator arms when the check shows up. Boo Coo dinero for shells then.


__________________________
The benefits of EU membership are inextricably connected to the obligations. Angela Merkel lecturing UK on Brexit. (pity she doesn't feel that way about NATO)

Bald Eagle preservation is it?

The former Green Peace loving administration permitted wind farms authorizing them an acceptable rate of kill on eagles and other birds of prey. So their existence is not sacred and as they are no longer threatened or endangered.

Since science is their argument, then science is ours, the percentage of shooters chosing to use damascus guns to shoot lead will be limited, as will the number of actual shots they take. They could be restricted from high volume areas. The actual threat generated is rather small compared to the green energy industry.

The only down side of it I can see is that there maybe some fool who fails to understand damascus ammunition limits and might blow their gun up.

If we can't account for a minut threat to eagles, then maybe we should go after the wind industry

Lead the way.

SRH

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.

Cadet, can you provide a link to the waterfowl lead regulations there so we can see how it is managed there?

Yes, that would be great cadet. And since it appears that you are still using lead for ducks there, please tell us how many sick and poisoned waterfowl there are as a result.

Since migratory birds return to the U.S from places in Central and South America where lead is still used, we should be seeing the same thing that was reported prior to the 1991 ban. And all of the shot that was fired into lakes, swamps, and shorelines prior to the 1991 ban is still there, but it suddenly ceased to be a problem even though it still gets churned up by wave action, etc. But guys like Larry want to believe all the crap that passed for science, and don't wish to revisit or reverse past wrongs that were likely intended to put a damper on the shooting sports, and reduce interest and participation in gun ownership and hunting.

You can keep the info on what you like about Australian gun control and bans though. Sorry for your luck in that regard. We are doing our best to avoid those things... except for anti-2nd Amendment guys like King Brown and FUDD's who vote for anti-gunners.

Keith, Cadet offered to share some information about the use of lead regs and he offered up the opinion that there are likely many here with a significant lack of understanding of Australian HUNTING and firearms laws and regs.

I would tend to agree with that opinion. The mere facts that you (and maybe a few others) have posted about Australian gun laws is meaningless in assessing whether the majority of members understand what they are. Additionally, it's likely NONE of us, except our few Aussie members, have any familiarity with Australian HUNTING regs.

Why do you argue about this shit? It's just insane. You make so many good points so regularity and then blow it up with this. You are looking for a fight when none is to be had.

Has Cadet defended their gun laws? Did Cadet suggest we look to Australia for sensible gun laws? No. He simply offered up the opinion that most here wouldn't know much about the firearms and hunting regs he lives with and that perhaps THERE MAY BE SOMETHING OF VALUE IN THE WAY THE AUSSIES HANDLE LEAD AS PART OF THEIR HUNTING REGS.

You are right that Aussie Gun laws have nothing of value to offer us. But you don't know shit from shinola about their lead hunting regs unless you researched it today. And guarantee, no one else here does.

And Keith, because I know you are going to go down this road, people use euphemisms and exaggeration in their everyday language all the time. Get over it.

Hey Larry, I admit, I was just speculating about a path that I thought would be plausible, didn't I say so? With the experience that you have mentioned you have with grassroots local advocating and nation publications, I didn't quite pick up on what we were going to do with your proposed studies? I considered your example of how science can present varying conclusions, but only the conclusion that connects politically correct dots is considered valid. Right?

You may recall, in the condor thread, that I did make an attempt to contact a couple of the major waterfowl organizations. On your suggestion, I 'asked a biologist', which is actually an offered service by one of the groups. No response, which is nothing more than an oh well. Anyway, why brush me off to DU? They have a policy position that appears apathetic on the surface of the issue, but certainly doesn't fit the conservation mantra. That's their business.

Anyway, here's the beating the ole dead horse part. If we're 'discussing' the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting, why would 'us' have to trudge through the presence of lead in quail, woodcock, hunter discarded deer gut piles, failure of hunters to recover game, coyotes and vultures? You also mentioned lead levels in soil while commenting about woodcock, in a thread about the source of lead being legally expended hunting shot shells.

There are preconceptions about the use of lead shot. Some say, there's a big stack of stuff I like on my side of the balance beam, so the rest of you just forget about it, or let the oddballs nibble, it ain't go'in anywhere. We have met the enemy, and go figure, they're persistent.

I'm not sure why, but this thread makes me want to punch a kangaroo in the face.


________________________
Meanwhile, in Topeka, the milkman is thinking, what a bunch of idiots.

Geez James, you must have missed it the first and second time, so I put it in bold type for you this time.

This is what I commented on, and you need to note that I acknowledged twice, now a third time here, that it is apparently legal to use lead for waterfowl there. And I said I would be interested in how that usage of lead for waterfowl works. And you accuse me of looking for a fight where there is none??? Please show us where I claimed to know shit from shinola about their hunting regs. I only stated that we aren't the least bit interested in anything about Australian gun restrictions except how to avoid them.

I know it's a bit early in the day, but maybe have a drink and chill out.

Hahaha, no thanks, it's a bit early for a drink.

You can play with the words, you can highlight what you want but you know exactly what Cadet was saying and the information he was trying to offer us. You tried to pick a fight that was completely unnecessary.

I'll put it to you another way. Not everyone uses the language as precisely as you and King. You for accuracy and clarity, King for obfuscation and diversion.

When there is no malice aforethought, why not just take the goodwill intended?

cback, just to help remove the image I have of cadet laughing at us. Will you join me, in an international effort, to see if cadet will followup on his comment and explain how it'll help in North America?

No playing with words James. It was all right there in the first half of my reply to his post. The second half of my reply was aimed at Larry and his older brother King, and their anti-lead history that they frequently attempt to deny. I didn't make any claims about knowing anything about Australian hunting regulations, and I sure as hell didn't try to pick any fights. I simply told him that we are not interested in anything that Australian laws pertaining to firearms might offer the U.S.--- beyond being an example that we should avoid.

I think most of us were aware that candidate Hillary Clinton proposed that we should modify our gun laws to be in line with the Australian example. It was on her campaign website as well. That is a huge reason why gun owners who actually can connect the dots voted for the guy who promised to respect our 2nd Amendment. But it didn't stop guys like King Brown from openly supporting her in spite of being aware of her views and her life-long record as a devout anti-gunner.

Thank you for pointing out King's penchant for obfuscation and diversion. I prefer to simply call it the dishonesty it is.

Lonesome should check out those Australian hunting regs before he goes punching any kangaroos. It may be illegal to use a lead weighted sap to close the deal.

Is it really too early for a drink? It is the weekend, after all! Make mine a bourbon and water. Why bourbon? I'm buying American! Cheers.

Well, it's not too early now!!

Certainly I will Craig. I look forward to hearing Cadet's comments and description of how lead use is managed (or not). He's probably sleeping now. I was up at 3:00 am this morning to watch the finals of the Australian Open. A tennis match for the ages with two of the best ever playing. Spectacular match.

Oh, like two hours makes a difference. I had a Great Aunt who lived in Toronto who drank whiskey for breakfast!

edit: I'll hurry up and say she probably poured it out of a lead crystal decanter so I don't get accused of thread diversion!

Hahahahaha! Is it okay if I pour it INTO the lead decanter and then out into my glass? On topic still?

Good questions all. Maybe, you should be asking DU?

Going back to the focus of the thread, it would be intersting to see how other countries have chosen to regulate lead shot and waterfowl.

This includes Australia, yes we may be able to positively learn from their hunting regs and further learn what not to do other areas.

I doubt we need to fear the board will somehow be swayed against our principles in adopting gun control ideas that were neither offered or intended.

I think we are all curious about how Australia regulates lead and waterfowl hunting

If we talk, listen and read only those we agree with, we get small.

Craig, going back to my analogy of the squeaky wheel getting greased, here's my suggestion if people are serious about revisiting lead for waterfowl:

1. As already mentioned, try to get DU on your side.
2. Get the NRA on your side.

At which point it's no longer a tiny training wheel off a bike, but a great big wheel off a locomotive. And that train just might make it down the track. You've got the nation's biggest gun group and the nation's biggest waterfowl group. IMO, that could easily grab the attention of the current administration.

The NRA might be easier than DU. And if the NRA were to jump aboard, DU might be more likely to come aboard as well.

Off to hunt quail for a few days. Will be interesting to see how the pot simmers on this one.

I could not agree more.

Thanks for indulging me guys. Safe trip Larry.

That might explain why you are so small little King. You pretend to ignore those you really disagree with because they keep assaulting you with annoying things like facts. Please tell us again about your Father's baptism and adult conversion to Roman Catholic despite his disbelief in the Resurrection of Jesus, and all of those Roman Catholic clerics who don't believe it either. Then tell us more about your award winning wine... which was actually made by someone else.

Even those who you still respond to notice your obfuscation and diversions which you use to get away from facts they take the time to present to refute your continuous stream of Liberal Left propaganda, lies, and outright bullshit.








I know they enjoy attempting to debate you, but I doubt any of them can recall a time when you admitted you were wrong. I don't miss debating you one bit. It is impossible to debate a pathological prevaricator.

I do enjoy debating and conversing with those who have opposing views, but are also man enough to admit when they are wrong. I'd like to see someone shut you up by asking you what advice you gave to the NRA or what you did personally to help get rid of the Canadian Long Gun Registry. When you slink away from those ugly questions again, you could always claim you were out quail hunting with your little brother Larry.

I wonder what brand of keyboard Larry will be using to shoot those quail???

... Wow, a whole covey with one shot! Blindfolded! Damn am I great!

For those who have expressed some curiosity, duck hunting is regulated in Victoria by the Wildlife Act 1975, and subordinate to that by the Game Regulations 2012. R.32 specifically deals with "toxic" (elsewhere defined as anything other than a list of things such as steel, bismuth, tungsten etc) shot. Here are the specific clauses:

32 Use of toxic shot
(1) A person must not use toxic shot to hunt, take or destroy ducks.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply to a person who is hunting, taking or destroying, or intending to hunt, take or destroy ducks, in the open season for duck, if the person is using a firearm that is a muzzle-loading, Damascus steel or twist-barrelled shotgun.

This regulation came in some years ago in a phased manner. If I recall correctly, things like sub-gauges and private land retained lead for a little while longer before being phased out. Our local Vintagers - some of them of some standing and seniority in our shooting community, and reasonably well connected - were instrumental in retaining lead's use through damascus barrels, reasoning that so few people would take advantage of such a clause as to cause negligible environmental effect, and that most other allowable options were unsuitable in damascus barrels.

Lead remains in general use for most other forms of hunting and pest control.

Happy to dig out more information if people wish... Unless their communication style reminds me of my ex-wife... then I'll be triggered and have to retreat to my safe space...(!)

Please, please tell me your safe space is the local pub or my faith in Australia will be shattered forever.


_________________________
King, I had to take a long pull off the potato "vodka" jug and put in my Jefferson Airplane 8-track to figure that out. That was heavy, man.

Thanks for that information cadet. Very interesting. The idea that such a small segment of shooters of vintage Damascus, Twist, or muzzle-loading guns could get an exemption runs perfectly counter to what Larry suggested earlier.

But since Larry is always right about everything, are you sure you aren't mistaken? Just kidding. Don't go running to any safe space just yet. And please tell us what getting hit with 20 Penalty Units for violating the law means.

I can imagine that such an exemption might cause a surge in demand for those dangerous Damascus barreled guns, and even perhaps a market for printing faux Damascus patterns on fluid steel guns. Has there been any outcry or whining about this exemption causing poisoning in waterfowl? If guys using Damascus, Twist, or muzzle-loading guns are flinging lead shot into the environment, then a lot of ducks, geese, raptors, and eagles should be sick and dying since the anti-lead junk science frequently claims that only a couple pellets can or will be fatal.

I am not in denial that lead can be a toxin... as is tungsten and bismuth, but the evidence I've looked at strongly indicates that the need for lead ammunition bans are grossly overblown and most likely a ploy to undermine shooting, hunting, and gun ownership. There are so many other sources of lead in forms that are much more bio-available, and thus much more likely to be the real cause of any major problems. But don't try telling Larry that or he will cry to Dave to lock the thread, and then pretend to ignore you.

Thanks also cadet, c'mon, ex?

I'd also like to know what happens when you get penalty points, and how many are you allowed. I think though that it begs the strategy to just try not to get caught. Use the shooters, carry a few for show, and eat a few penalty points here and there? Would someone get checked for gun registration at the same time as an ammo check?

You guys spend your whole life thinking there are rules. There ain't.


__________________________
Don't worry. Be happy.

Cadet, Thank you for the input

Lonesome, there are rules, or we would not be talking about possibly getting a lead exemption.

Life is full of rules both natural and man made, many of both are only honored in their breech

cadet, from your post it seems regulations favouring lead in a particular category were phased in subtley and slowly with help from persons with senior and distinguished public and private responsibilities.

Since Australians have a reputation for not doing things by half measures, and Victoria is densely populated and small compared to the other states, I'm anxious to know how long it took and if your regulations were copied by other states.

Your mention of phasing and influence in the right places makes me wonder how they made the case over time that hunters were trustworthy and their small numbers in a particular category warranted an exemption.

Penalty units are the amount of fine you will have to pay. So 20 times the basic unit is your fine. The Victoria penalty unit is $155.46 according to what I can find on the net. So 20 times that is a not small amount. Call it $3110. And that is Alstralian dollars so $3110A is $2369 in US dollars.

The penalty unit is an interesting concept. It ties the fine to inflation. Defining the fine as so many penalty units allow the fines to go up as prices do and allow the fine to be adjusted up or down based on which province the crime occurred.

Thanks for that KY Jon. So essentially, Grouse Guy would get fined differently for poaching a deer the day before the season opened on posted land in Montana than he would if he poached a deer the day before the season opened on posted land in New York.

Maybe Trump could use that Penalty Unit oncept to fine illegal aliens and officials of Sanctuary Cities that harbor illegals. I also wonder what the Statute of Limitations is for illegally crossing the U.S.- Canada Border with a pistol in your airplane, and how many Penaly Units that would hit King Brown with? We could use the proceeds to clean up poisonous carcinogenic tungsten shot, and bismuth shot which compromises the immune system. Or to fix the teeth of people who bite into steel shot.

Fines may also be determined by severity or prevalence of the misdemeanour: jacking deer, out of season, fishing without license etc. Some years ago I dropped in on a buddy, a businessman, in a neighbouring province. His staff said he wasn't there, and I asked when he would be back. Some baleful looks all around until they said he wouldn't be back for a long while. He had been convicted for jacking deer. I've known murder and manslaughter convictions of less time. Buddy went on to become mayor.

PS---Re keith's above. I've left a trail of minor misdemeanours across Canada and the US over the years. The .22 Ruger pistol was in my survival kit. The time was 40 years ago of crossing borders without customs checks in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, upper New York states. Taking liquor across illegally would have been considered more seriously than having a pistol (later Savage .22/20ga Model 24) for survival. On the tarmac in Buffalo, I saw customs confiscate an American's Cessna twin 310 for bringing in one bottle of undeclared rum from St. Pierre et Miquelon.

Hmmm, maybe there's nothing wrong with the lead after all. If critters are considered higher value than humans, then we should be able to extrapolate all sorts of conclusions from that. Just kidding King, did you drink up his beer while he was on vacation?

Not a chance. He was having marital problems and as his friend I was persona non grata at home.

Which reminds me of the time when I went missing on assignment in Cuba and a reporter asked my wife if he could have my diving gear if I didn't come home!

I was in one of Fidel's jails.

There's gotta be a joke in there somewhere? A reporter, fidel and a slug crawl into a tiny northwoods bar after a long day deer hunting. fidel says, I'm the worlds most interesting man and orders an imported beer. The reporter says, I've got a great expense account, and slams forty-three cents on the bar hinting he may leave a tip. The waitress stands up tall by the slug and says, get me out of here.

King, thanks for once again responding to me even though you claim to ignore me. You told us that your illegal border crossing with a pistol occurred in the 1980's, so you lied when you said it was 40 years ago. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Customs or Canadian Mounties would look upon smuggling a bottle of whiskey as a more serious violation than repeatedly bringing a pistol across the border?

You also accused me of lying about your illegal transport of the pistol. You tried to tell us that it was a Savage model 24 .22/20 ga. You publicly called me a liar for several days until I found your post where you told us about your illegal transport of a pistol.



However it wasn't just once, and it wasn't with the Savage model 24 either. That turned out to be another lie you concocted in order to denigrate me. Why don't you tell everyone what a big man you were by apologizing when I proved you were lying about illegal transport of the pistol? Oh, wait... you never did apologize.

Do you recall what James told you about your illegal transport of a pistol King?



To think that people ask why I make frequent use of the QUOTE function. Without it, you'd be lying through your teeth every damn day. I'd ask why you were jailed in Cuba, but the story would most likely be a total fabrication anyway. Dishonesty is not civility King.

Time to change the subject again, eh? You could stop the thread diversions and get back to pretending you support the use of lead ammo, or you could veer wildly to the Left and blame Trump for Muslim on Muslim murder, terrorism, and violence in Quebec.

You guys just can't help yourselves

Rather sad

Rather sad but not sad, old colonel. You set the bar too high. Dave made the rules and administers an adult membership with a soft hand compared to others that don't put up with nonsense. Overall, for those interested in double guns generally and specifically, our board is respectful with no or few peers world-wide. We have one troll, a humourless, anonymous, malicious mischief-maker. Only one troll here is worth celebrating.

That's almost all true King, except you aren't anonymous, and you aren't the only anti 2nd Amendment Troll we have here.

I wonder how many other gun forums would put up with Trolling anti-gun nonsense like this:










And to get back on topic, one to demonstrate that your fake support for lead ammo in this thread is nothing but more of your disingenuous crap:



It must really suck not being able to pretend to be a gun guy anymore, eh King? I can't wait to put all of your anti-gun rhetoric in "Silent Doubles" as a permanent tribute to our #1 Anti-Gun Troll.

Narcissists are so self-absorbed in their own personal perfections they can't see how their declarations are seen by a majority as personal defeats; in the case under review, each post weakens him and his intentions.

Some members respond sympathetically and with good humour or both---"Keith, we understand"---and I try to restrain myself (imperfectly) because it would be seen as foolishly bullying the afflicted instead of providing him comfort.

In my tender moments, I see him as a blessing, an example of what we become should we allow ridicule to efface our better instincts of love and respect. No other member speaks as rudely and disrespectfully, another blessing.

This board is truly laden with good values.

King, the "Keith, we understand." comment came from your fellow anti-gun Troll, Ed Good.

I'm sure most here are as impressed with Ed Good's comments as I am. But It's perfectly understandable that you'd find comfort in having his affirmation of your low opinion of me. You lie to us once again when you say you try to restrain yourself. I showed your brand of restraint yesterday when I reproduced those quotes of you accusing me of being a liar in order to cover up your own rotten lies.

As usual, your response to getting caught in lies, or to be reminded of your lies, is to act as if it never happened and move on.

This board is indeed laden with good values, but your incessant lies and dishonesty are not among them, you disingenuous old fraud.

In my own tender moments, I see you not as a blessing, but as an anti-2nd Amendment Troll who cannot stand to have people reminded that you are nothing but a dishonest Trojan Horse. One who spends an inordinate amount of time supporting anti-gunners, and trolling Liberal Left Socialist dogma that has nothing to do with double guns. If your new little buddy "old hypocrite" weren't so invested in targeting me, he might take you to task for that style of thread diversions. But he won't. He thinks he'll change me, but that will never happen. However, since you think that each post I make weakens me and my position on guys like you, I'm sure you'll be happy to see more of them in the future!

Since you chose to use Ed Good's little comment to bolster your view of me, I'll do the same using Ken61's response to your 2015 justification for lying. Enjoy!



"Pathological lying." "... punk, sociopathic, statist, religious little troll". "intellectually vapid". It would appear I'm not the only one to recognize your so-called values King. The whole exchange can be found here:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=389228&page=1

I've been worried sick about microaggressions, should I be offended? You guys have been using the plural form? Actually, I'll probably be okay.

You're doing just fine, craig. I enjoy your company. On microagression, I was thinking today of my mother who said during her declining years---she died at 89---that she never had an ache or pain. It made me happy. I have enough experience with aging to believe she was lying. D'ya think I'd be a lying troll against the Second if I said I never have an ache or pain? It wouldn't be true but would make my huge family happy.

You're always trying to trick me. Isn't it yes either way? But, I understand that it's painless to be a troll against the 2nd. It's always other folks that feel the pain, eh? Naw, be well with your whole gang, may they carry you to the edge of the drink and toss you in for a polar bear swim.

This one's a keeper for sure!

Only King Brown would tar his own Mother as a liar in order to justify his own rotten lies. I wonder who, exactly, King Brown thinks he is making happy by telling lies like these about the 2nd Amendment... repeatedly demonstrating that he is still in denial about the 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions? Well, I suppose he is making the Liberal Left politicians he supports very happy.

First we have him once again offering support for his notion that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to guarantee an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, actually lying about Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin's position on the matter:



Then we have him here conceding after being confronted with the truth, that Mark Levin believed the Individual Right may have been on the Framer's minds... but that they neglected to "write it down."



But King knows damn well that they did indeed "write it down" in the Federalist Papers, in their writings, in their personal correspondence, and in contemporary editorials. King has been repeatedly educated on that matter for many years here, yet he always returns with his lies and denial of the truth.

Here's King's idea of supporting the 2nd Amendment:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=369094

Here's a long 2007 thread where King was informed that the Framers did indeed "write it down.", and that The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was investigated in the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary US Senate, 97th Congress second session 2/82.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=40567&page=1

Then he has the gall to piously pretend that he supports the 2nd Amendment, now referring to his own Mother as a liar to justify it. Just when I thought my opinion of King couldn't get any lower, he finds a way to top himself.

Keith, we understand. Bless you.

Wow! King Brown responding directly to me instead of pretending to ignore me. I do believe I have made a real breakthrough in re-establishing good relations!

And more and more people understand you too King, in spite of your lame excuses for lying and attempting to run away from your repeated attempts to undermine our gun rights.

Of course, being effective at deception is the hallmark of a con man. A lot of people believe con artists until their curtain of lies is brought down.

By the way, how did you like today's news conference with President Trump, where NRA President Wayne LaPierre was seated at the table right next to him, in support of his Supreme Court nominee? President Trump remarked to LaPierre that more people in the audience probably knew Wayne than him.

We sure as hell wouldn't see that scene from any of the extreme anti-gun politicians you support and defend King. Happy Days Are Here Again!

One more thing King... "Bless You" from a Godless atheist like you is just more of your dishonesty on display. I see you are emulating old hypocrite now, eh? Bravo! Two frauds are better than one!