It's called regulation for the redistribution of wealth, and the lib's just hate us having a good time when others can't afford it, so they pile on more regulations (read: costs more) to discourage all but the very wealthy. Eventually they won't have to ban lead, hunting, or fishing because people will be priced out of the sport. Mission completed.

Yet, they openly bashed being a community organizer (Rudy laughed at it) allot the night before and a little last night. That did not set well with me while watching the RNC coverage and looking for reason’s to vote on their side.

Also it’s not fair to say that the Dems represent the Radical extremists (PETA). That would be like saying the Reps represent the other side (Nazis, Skin Heads, KKK).

But I will stand by my statement that there is a large group of Liberals that would love nothing better than to see Hunting and Fishing outlawed. I cannot quantify the word “large”, but I think you know what I mean.

I also do not think the sky will fall if Obama is elected, I think I have a little more sense than that. I just think we need to be careful in knee jerk legislation.

I don't want to shell the $$$ for nontoxic stuff that licks it any more than you do. My entire point is that the stuff is toxic, suitable alternatives at a comparable cost need to be made, and when they do, we should switch.

Because some people are incapable of comprehending change, a law banning it is necessary. And I will be fully in support of that ban, when the suitable alternatives come to market.

oh and they did not bash Palin on being a mayor? Get real.....
Rudy and Palin made a retort.

to answer (as an argument) by a counter argument

Remember the whole mayor thing and no experience?

Can you say Bias?

Does the dem conspiracy paranoia keep you up all night?

Johnny, I won't argue the stuff is toxic. But I will say, that after all the years of handling lead duck decoy weights, biting split-shots, I'm sure ingesting lead pellets from ducks and pheasants, rigging the "old school" Lindy Rig sinkers, living in houses with lead paint, living through the era of leaded gasoline, making my own lead sinkers, my own shotgun shells, and on and on, the stuff may not be good for you, but I'm still here, as well as a billion other people.(maybe that explains a few things.... )

I'm with you. When a suitable substitute comes along, I'll use it.

Sorry I brought that up swill.. my mistake.

How much more are we talking about for nontoxic sinkers? It is a little much to act like this will keep someone from fishing. I don't have a problem switching, and don't we have suitable substitues already?

Really how much is the difference?

I'm only speaking for myself. I use a lot of 2-8oz sinkers.

I haven't seen an alternative.....

Even with the lighter sinkers, though there are alternatives on the market, they don't have the density of lead, so sinkers the same size as lead are lighter, and of course you have to use bigger alternative sinkers to get the same "sink" as lead.

Just like non-tox shotgun shells, there are alternative out there. It's been awhile since I have actually looked at any, but the ones (Sinkers and Jigs), that I looked at are larger, due to less, is it density(?). Having to be larger in size(non-tox tackle), it has the draw back of being larger(to achieve the same weight characteristics), more resistant in the water(if your trolling), and though I've never purchased any, if it's as expensive as Bismuth or Tungsten waterfowl shells, it will be considerably more expensive.

I don't think it will keep anyone from fishing, but it will change the way we fish.

If lead is so dangerous to the birds why are there any left? How many years have we been fishing with lead tackle and shooting lead ammo? There are no more people hunting and fishing today then there were 50 years ago, even though our state population has doubled.

There are tons of things out there that are far more harmful to wildlife than the 2 lead sinkers I lose in a year. Should we ban them all? Of course not, that would take away all of our modern day conveniences. How many birds, deer, raccoons and other wildlife are killed by motorists each year? I'm sure the number is staggering but we will probably not ban cars anytime soon.

And getting back to the original gun issue that this thread is about, what does the waiting period to buy firearms solve anyway? You mean to tell me that people that want to cause someone harm usually go to the store first and purchase a new gun? And if they were denied the ability to purchase this gun they would just go home and watch The Price Is Right instead? If someone wants to do harm to another, the gun is just the means. There are other ways to kill and none of them require a waiting period. Wouldn't it be silly to have a waiting period to buy a set of steak knives, or piano wire?

Tsk....tsk Dave.

Your letting common sense come into the argument, and as you know, we the people have gotten beyond having to use it.

The Government is here to free you from having to use sound judgement and common sense.

is the waiting period for causing someone else harm or for suicide?

I have no issue with a waiting period on handguns. I agree a person who is determined to do harm will find another means, but i also agree we need to give our law enforcement time to run the appropriate checks. Seem to me this is a good balance between both parties.