I SURE AS HELL_DON'T BELIEVE_AWB PLAN DROPPED

imported post

Obama and Hillary are blaming our 2nd amendment for Mexico's Drug Lords and Lou Dobbs is telling us all is well .

Do you believe this propaganda ?

Do you really think Obama is dropping the AWB ?

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/gun-ban-plan-dropped/532876979/?icid=VIDLRVNWS06-60k-

imported post

Ifa liberal judge , Kotelly ,can take away our unalienable right of self defense in our national parks by invoking an environment impact study of the effects of lead , what abortion of sanity will Obama's horde serve to destroy our constitution?

Can I still use LEAD SINKERStrot-lines ?

imported post

We are NOT safe from the grabbers. Never trust them. Period.

imported post

R a Z o R wrote:

Ifa liberal judge , Kotelly ,can take away our unalienable right of self defense in our national parks by invoking an environment impact study of the effects of lead , what abortion of sanity will Obama's horde serve to destroy our constitution?

Can I still use LEAD SINKERStrot-lines ?

Click to expand...

No, the NPS is to ban all lead by 2010.

http://www.gunsandhunting.com/forum/blog/guysagi/index.php?showentry=150

Lead Ban in National Parks?
Posted by GuySagi, Mar 12 2009, 07:47 PM

“Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a press release issued yesterday. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

I’m pretty naïve, but does the second sentence mean NPS is going to start mining for naturally occurring galena? If so, we’ve gotta dig everywhere, and if we hit the mother lode of all veins—at today’s lead prices—the cost of this recurring bailout déjà vu is covered.

More serious politicos, though, think it’s an indictment of hunting. The fact that the press release broke a cardinal editing rule in this sentence may have been subliminal, but it lends credence to more knowledegable observations: “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

If enacted, it would impact hunting on the 20 million acres in 60 different areas managed by the NPS.

imported post

I wonder what in the heck they are going to do about Gettysburg, Manassas, Shiloh, and Antietam National Parks.Petersburg,Chancellorsville, New Market....

Awful lot of lead laying around in them parks, I bet.

Oh. That lead is historic, and therefore much less dangerous to the environment.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

“Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

:quirky

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

imported post

And beef ribs should not be wasted .

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are.

Click to expand...

Wow... What kind of rights are you advocating specifically, or are you saying that our constitutionally guaranteed rights also apply to animals? Are you a member of PETA?

Have you ever traveled westward, at least outside ofyour northeasternstate? If you have, you should have a better understanding of the mentality of most of America that disagrees with you.Have you ever hunted down an animal and killed it?

Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. However, I am of the belief that I can hunt down creatures of the earth and still treat them ethically in the process by providing them clean, quick kills. I know you are not a believer, but my religious beliefs tell me that humans have dominion over the animalsand thatweare the top end of the food chain.

Something to think about before we go handing out copies of the Bill Of Rights to the land mamals.

imported post

Animals clearly do not have a natural right to do anything which they are incapable of doing due to lack of human form, and this precludes most of the rights the constitution protects.

However, while an animal has neither a constitutional nor a self-evident natural right to, say, carry and use firearms (being incapable of doing so), the fact that the animal is alive does evince a natural right to not be killed without some valid reason (this is the same logic by which nature is used philosophically as the source of rights).

Now, being that animals are not capable of understanding human conceits like society, you are free to treat them accordingly. Thus, if an animal trespasses on your property and eats your crops, you may kill it without asking it to leave first, or having been threatened with potentially deadly bodily harm. Thus may you eat an animal for food without justifying the act as self-defense before a court.

However, no amount of religion or anthropocentric "logic" will ever make the needless killing of an animal "for fun" (as some people are occasionally inclined to do) anything other than an act of aggression against what I would point out is one of GOD's living beings.

Then again, I don't believe in God.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

I wonder what in the heck they are going to do about Gettysburg, Manassas, Shiloh, and Antietam National Parks.Petersburg,Chancellorsville, New Market....

Awful lot of lead laying around in them parks, I bet.

Oh. That lead is historic, and therefore much less dangerous to the environment.

Click to expand...

No doubt they will force the re-enactors to use plastic replica guns and yell "BANG!"

imported post

Gordie wrote:

unless of course you think animals have human rights.

Click to expand...

Animals have the right to be eaten
Animals have the right to be skinned
Animals have the right to be force bred, rape rack (really called a breeding rack), to other animals to force impregnation
Animals have the right to have their fur worn by humans

Did I miss anything?

Oh, animals have the right to be clubbed and their furs ripped away

There

imported post

people eating tasty animals

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

“Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

:quirky

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

insane.kangaroo

If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

“Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

:quirky

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

insane.kangaroo

If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.

Click to expand...

Well seeing as how the article was written by "Gordie" and you ARE "Gordie," what I said holds and your observation is idiotic, to which you've now added another non-sensical post.

:quirky

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. However, I am of the belief that I can hunt down creatures of the earth and still treat them ethically in the process by providing them clean, quick kills. I know you are not a believer, but my religious beliefs tell me that humans have dominion over the animalsand thatweare the top end of the food chain.

Something to think about before we go handing out copies of the Bill Of Rights to the land mamals.

Click to expand...

Marshaul explained it just fine. They have the right to ethical treatment, just like any living creature. Hunting for food is fine. Hunting for sport is pointless killing. And I don't give two @#$%s about what your religious beliefs tell you, because religious beliefs have justified everything from rape to genocide. Nordo I give even half a @#$% what the "majority of America" thinks because the majority of Americans are complete air heads.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

“Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about?Substituting "that" inthe sentence makes it sound ridiculous. Using "that" would imply you're refering to a specific carcass, as if pointing at it while speaking. They said "the carcass" because it's a lot more general, meaning any carcass that's been shot as opposed to "THAT" particular carcass over there.

:quirky

Oh, and animals should have rights. They're as much of a living thing as you are. Just because they're less intelligent doesn't make them less worthy of ethical treatment.

Click to expand...

Once again,AWDstylezstarts to type without engaging his brain. That was inan article that was written by Gordie. It was just one of many articles that talked about the lead ban being proposed to the NPS, it also just happened to be the first one that came up when I Googled it. I didn't realize that I had to get your approval of articles that are linked to.

insane.kangaroo

If you are going to quote me, make sure it is me, not the author of an article that I linked to to answer a question that someone asked. I would use a source other than AWDstylezif I were you.

Click to expand...

Well seeing as how the article was written by "Gordie" and you ARE "Gordie," what I said holds and your observation is idiotic, to which you've now added another non-sensical post.

:quirky

Click to expand...

My first post on this thread is as follows:

No, the NPS is to ban all lead by 2010.

http://www.gunsandhunting.com/forum/blog/guysagi/index.php?showentry=150

Lead Ban in National Parks?
Posted by GuySagi, Mar 12 2009, 07:47 PM

“Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” said Acting National Park Service Director Dan Wenk in a press release issued yesterday. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

I’m pretty naïve, but does the second sentence mean NPS is going to start mining for naturally occurring galena? If so, we’ve gotta dig everywhere, and if we hit the mother lode of all veins—at today’s lead prices—the cost of this recurring bailout déjà vu is covered.

More serious politicos, though, think it’s an indictment of hunting. The fact that the press release broke a cardinal editing rule in this sentence may have been subliminal, but it lends credence to more knowledegable observations: “Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass.” I hate to break it to low-level boilerplate bureaucrats, but animals are not people, therefore the underlined word should have been “that,” unless of course you think animals have human rights.

If enacted, it would impact hunting on the 20 million acres in 60 different areas managed by the NPS.

Click to expand...

There, I made it a little easier for you.:what: Now, can you see it or will I be forced to draw a picture?

Note, posted by GuySagi, not Gordie. I provided both the link, and the article so that people would not have to worry about going to the link provided, but could still check it out if they wanted to see where the article came from.

Stylez, who's posting nonsense now?

imported post

Gordie wrote:

That was inan article that was written by Gordie.

Click to expand...

Ok, now I get what you're saying. However, it isn't my problem you suck at quoting articles so it ends up looking like YOU were the one making the comment ON the article, and then go on to say that YOU wrote the article. :quirky

imported post

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Ben Franklin



At what point do you think the masses will resist?

imported post

T Dubya wrote:

At what point do you think the masses will resist?

Click to expand...

When they discover all - all - of the lies.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Misattributed

• Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
  • Widely attributed to Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.
    A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." This statement also definitely occurs in the "Conclusion" (p. 333) of his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337

imported post

... Doug Huffman ...

This part of the Carolinas lunch is called dinner . Many do not realize that photography started way back in 1825 . Colocalisms do not travel very well thru the centuries .