This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
That damned North Dakota study is becoming the Kellerman of lead bullets. Yeah, blood lead levels were higher in those that ate game, but still FAR BELOW feddie guidelines (and if I recall correctly, below that of the average urban dweller).
And lead bullets in the environment don't magically disperse and contaminate everything. They develop impervious oxide coatings and sit in the soil inert (how do they think it is that civil war buffs can still find old bullets on 145 year old battlefields?). To ge lead into the ground wate, you have to grind it to a fine powder; bullet fragments are too big.
Yeah, and it's not even factually correct. The problem bullets are the thin-jacket expanding type, at least from the criteria set forth by the lead "ban"-ers. Thick-jacket bonded types and hard cast lead don't fragment on impact in most cases, and when they do, it's large chunks that are easy to spot and remove.
Also:
"Moreover, the evidence against lead bullets is now solid. In a North Dakota study of 738 people whose blood was tested, those who ate a lot of wild game had higher lead levels than those who ate little or none."
This is a source without a cite, we don't know anything about the sample, and it's an unqualified statistic because there was no test group of peers who don't consume game, or any mention of lead levels of the sample in other circumstances--or any anything supporting at all, such as groundwater or city water supply tests, testing of local food supply, habits of the people in the sample, etc. While most heavy metals have no nutritional value, they are naturally-occurring, and show up in traceable amounts in food and drinking water everywhere around the globe.
People can voluntarily choose non-lead ammunition for hunting NOW. Just as anyone who thinks we aren't taxed enough is welome to send additional donations to the IRS. I have never seen so many people come out in favor of overbearing government. Hegel certainly had it correct. Create a "problem," exaggerate the problem, propose a "final solution."
I take away from his article that he supports using FMJ types of ammunition for hunting?? If so, then he is promoting a practice that is both dumb and dangerous!!
5 comments:
That damned North Dakota study is becoming the Kellerman of lead bullets. Yeah, blood lead levels were higher in those that ate game, but still FAR BELOW feddie guidelines (and if I recall correctly, below that of the average urban dweller).
And lead bullets in the environment don't magically disperse and contaminate everything. They develop impervious oxide coatings and sit in the soil inert (how do they think it is that civil war buffs can still find old bullets on 145 year old battlefields?). To ge lead into the ground wate, you have to grind it to a fine powder; bullet fragments are too big.
I wish greenweenies had to study basic science.
Another politically correct A** kisser, just looking to ingratiate himself to who he perceives to be the future winners in this, "War on Guns"
Yeah, and it's not even factually correct. The problem bullets are the thin-jacket expanding type, at least from the criteria set forth by the lead "ban"-ers. Thick-jacket bonded types and hard cast lead don't fragment on impact in most cases, and when they do, it's large chunks that are easy to spot and remove.
Also:
"Moreover, the evidence against lead bullets is now solid. In a North Dakota study of 738 people whose blood was tested, those who ate a lot of wild game had higher lead levels than those who ate little or none."
This is a source without a cite, we don't know anything about the sample, and it's an unqualified statistic because there was no test group of peers who don't consume game, or any mention of lead levels of the sample in other circumstances--or any anything supporting at all, such as groundwater or city water supply tests, testing of local food supply, habits of the people in the sample, etc. While most heavy metals have no nutritional value, they are naturally-occurring, and show up in traceable amounts in food and drinking water everywhere around the globe.
People can voluntarily choose non-lead ammunition for hunting NOW.
Just as anyone who thinks we aren't taxed enough is welome to send additional donations to the IRS.
I have never seen so many people come out in favor of overbearing government. Hegel certainly had it correct. Create a "problem," exaggerate the problem, propose a "final solution."
I take away from his article that he supports using FMJ types of ammunition for hunting?? If so, then he is promoting a practice that is both dumb and dangerous!!
Doug
Newark, Ohio
Post a Comment