Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any impact on the environment by lead projectiles is truly, truly negligible and there is not one system or organism that would have any measurable or perceivable increase in health or quality of life as a result of a ban on lead bullets. The justification is a red herring.
I agree......also, dead rotten things make great fertiliser.
Of course, after the first and second consumers have been there.
Funny how you left out this quote in your Wikipedia spew:
Quote:
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[2] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever utilized it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[3] except as regards frivolous litigation.[4]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
Plus, the case with Butler(which has some interesting irony in the final decision if you read about it related to Madison vs Hamilton), as you pointed out, adopted one of three founding father interpretations of the "general welfare" clause, which came to this conclusion:
It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress."
Apparently you didn't read the case, since the Supreme Court shot down any arguements pertaining to the entirely fictious "General Welfare Clause." The phrase in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that states "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is the purpose for why Congress has the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts." They are not to do whatever they please for the purpose of the providing for the common defense or general welfare, but only levy taxes for that purpose.
If Congress could do whatever they pleased for the general welfare, then the US Constitution would not be any longer than that one paragraph. It would be completely unnecessary to list any other power since Congress would be all powerful and able to do anything they pleased without restriction or limitations, as long as it was for what they perceived to be the general welfare. Obviously that was never the intent of the framers, and the Supreme Court has never given Congress that unlimited power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
And this is how they[Obama] will be arguing health care FYI. Be interesting how the current Supreme Court takes it with this precedent behind them.
Not even the Obama administration is that stupid. They will attempt to argue on the grounds of the Commerce Clause, and lose badly.
Once California legalizes pot, the Mexican cartels will need a new black market item to sneak across the border. Bullets may be heavy, but hey, drug kingpins gotta eat too.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,620 posts, read 12,691,805 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Part of the big deal is people who obviously have no knowledge of what restrictions they are arguing be imposed upon others because it has little impact upon them. Please explain to us your background in regard to the studies of bullets, velocity, penetration, expandability as well as your studies into the evolution of shooting ranges in efforts to limit their impact on the environment.
First problem is that you equivocate the problems associated with lead shot and falsely assume that it applies equally to handgun and rifle rounds. It does not. They are completely different animals. The link you provided goes back to 2005 and looks at a shotgun range next to a waterfowl preserve. Again, a completely different animal than hunting rounds for large game. Significant improvements are being made nationwide to shooting ranges to reduce the environmental impact. You have to understand that some of these ranges will never be "safe" by today's environmental standards just as many commercial business sites or landfills will never be "safe" moving forward.
Please define "safer". "Safer" to what, to whom? The dependable expandability of lead combined with penetration has been long studied. For large game hunting on a limited budget there is no more reliable of a round. A round that expands too early and does not penetrate well is not "safe" for the animal being hunted and increases the likelihood that it will run off injured.
By eliminating the lead round most sport shooting will be either eliminated or greatly restricted to only those who can afford the ammunition. Thus such EPA regulations will actually impact those who have to carefully allocate their funds to acquire ammunition. Law Enforcement and the military have already been hugely impacted by the rise in cost and limited supply of ammunition. Just one unintended consequence is to supply those men and women in uniform a substandard round with penetration factor that can be unsafe in urban or other congested setting settings, killing innocent people, and limiting training and firearm proficency due to expense.
You've probably not shopped for handgun or rifle rounds by the case or pallet and compared the price per round difference between "ball" ammunition from copper, have you? If you had and if you were a person of the gun, you might actually have an understanding of the subject you attempt to argue. Obviously, this is not the case.
tell all that hog wash to the generations of the year 2125.. they will shoot you with a copper bullet..
I bet they got tons of "comments" from vulnerable dems.
NRA-ILA :: EPA Denies Ammo Ban Petition (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6010&issue= - broken link)
Quote:
Responding to a grassroots outcry from gun owners, the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and other radical groups that had sought to ban the use of lead in ammunition.
The dangerous game cartridge called 600 Overkill is commonly loaded with 900 grain solid brass bullets. As a car guy I'm more worried about what the EPA can do to those of us who like to rebuild our own engines and how we want them to run and with our own exhaust system design.
Actually, no. Sarcasm should at least have a modicum of truth don't you think? There was no "poisoning" about it. Typical liberal cheap shot to tug at heartstrings.
The lead we dump into the enviroment largely comes from the tons of lead or firearms industry uses to make ammo and the lead that naturally occurs in coal. Coal is also our largest source of Hg contamination. Drinking water that has lead in the parts per billion range if drunk for a few years has an impact on a persons nerve system. Organo lead and Hg compunds are neurotoxins. So that is my explanation for why a lot of Americans talk as if they are brain damaged. The poor things are suffering low levels of neurotoxicity. The good thing is you can't reverse it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.