Grouse

This is interesting as far as the future of capitalism in Cuba goes. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/chinese-use-american-crony-capitalism-and-obamas-blessing-to-move-into-communist-cuba

The only thing I want to see returned from Cuba is Joanne Chesimard. If you don't know, she killed a NJ State Trooper in May 1973, was sentenced to Life in prison in 1977, escaped in 1979 and has been living free in Cuba ever since. Obama doesn't seem to think it's of any importance.

Except that the big "American" hotel is owned by the Chinese.

Garland has been nominated for a single purpose. He is ideologically opposed to the Heller decision which stated the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms. That decision prevents the government from going completely to the extreme in it's drive to eliminate and ban all types of civilians arms ownership. Semi-auto firearms, both handgun and long gun, are the objective here. That, however, is just the beginning. All types of registration requirements would follow, as well as other restrictions like storage requirements, ownership limits, possession limits for ammo, permits and permit fees. Legal carry, in any form, would be eliminated. If he is sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, the 2nd Amendment will no longer be a right of the people, it will be a privilege from the government, granted only to those the government feels can be trusted to follow orders. This is something everyone who owns firearms now, be they hunter, target shooter or collector, should be writing their Senators about today.

Exactly!

This can be easily done by any Senate. It's a signal to the President to appoint someone that they can support. If a President keeps nominating Communists, Socialists or Terrorists, the Senate should never consider any of them.

What I want to know is how do we go about REMOVING Supreme Court Justices for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution? Some of the rulings are so obviously in violation of the written word in the Constitution, it's treason. If 5 Justices can find a "right" to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment, but not find an individual right to firearms ownership in the 2nd Amendment, those 5 Justices should be removed with extreme prejudice.

Attempts to control crime do not control crime. When you ask responsible citizens to surrender rights, especially the right of self defense, without proposing any actual crime prevention, you should expect well deserved push back. And that push back comes from any logical thinking people who do not see it as a good bargain. This is the real reason we keep seeing more and more idiotic demands placed on responsible gun owners.

I don't care about any of that. I demand the Senate NEVER confirm any Supreme Court nominee that has ever voted against the Constitution. I don't care what president nominates him, or when.

LOL!! I just heard Liberals are having a fit because Garland is white! Maybe they'll sink his ship for us. You can't make this stuff up.

Doc may be an example of how humans build up a resistance, or even an immunity, to lead if it is consumed in minute quantities over time. Maybe it works like vaccines, where a small amount of a virus will actually keep you from getting the disease. Many people over 50 were exposed to lots of lead in their youth and really haven't shown any verifiable evidence of harm. How do we know Doc is less of a person because of it? How do we know for certain he isn't more of a person because of it? Nobody has ever done any research on that so who knows for certain? Medical science is constantly revising things they were claiming to be absolutely certain of in the past. With all of the things that threaten humans today, from war and terrorism to invasive diseases, a concern about lead ammo is just far down my list of worries.

Just another example of anti-gun zealots getting an inch, then going for the mile. How can any thinking person propose or support any of this oppression when none of it does anything to reduce any crime, especially when that has been proven to be a fact? Has to make you think reducing crime is not part of the plan.

Does the bill propose a limit on possession or is it a 1 gun a month buying type of bill?

I think we will see a limit on how much ammo you can possess first.

Don't see too many of those original dog leg bolt action Rugers still in the field. They had really nice walnut stocks back then too.

Bismuth tends to be more expensive than steel.

This is an obviously radical extremist statement. If it were true ANY exposure, to ANY amount of lead would be fatal.

The indoctrination of the youth is unavoidable.

A wise man once resisted tyranny by burying all of his banned weaponry and telling no one where they could be found. As he lay on his death bed, he asked to see his beloved grandson. He told his grandson where the weapons were hidden and wished him the best of luck carrying on the fight for freedom. The man passed and the family laid him to rest. The day after the funeral, the grandson called the BATFE and told them to meet him so he could show them where they could find the weapons.

I see all of these "assault weapon" laws as illegal force used against otherwise law abiding people to coerce compliance with a desire by the government to control thinking. It's preventative law. They are criminalizing citizen's they believe have the capability to commit "gun violence", even if it is a statistically remote possibility. To me, that is why these laws are completely unconstitutional and illegal. If that line of thinking escapes you, look at it this way. People often claim rights can be infringed upon for the safety of the public. An often cited example is not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. A restriction on 1st Amendment Free Speech rights to be sure. But every person in the theater possesses the ability to yell that word. It is only a crime that can be punished if they do use the ability to do harm. How then is it not an unconstitutional restriction on 2nd Amendment rights to deny mere possession of any commonly possessed firearm? How can the Supreme Court find such a restriction to be legal? In a country that follows the US Constitution and the Rule of Law, it cannot. But in a land where politicians have the desire to expand their power and bend the Rule of Law, to see it as malleable, flexible, and even corruptible when it suits their desires, with the assistance of activist judges and courts that exist via executive appointment to serve the will of the government, and not the people, it happens all too frequently. In all actuality, the founding fathers and those who wrote the US Constitution, with a desire to prevent the usurpation of power outlined above, would be shooting by now. Rights and freedoms are quickly disappearing from America because people are not willing to stand up to the tyranny. Once they have been voluntarily relinquished, they can never be regained. Our 2nd Amendment rights are merely the first casualty in a self imposed, self justified, loosing battle. God help our descendants!

Many other countries are on board with the "New World Order" agenda and side with the Progressive Left in America and it's desire to move America in that direction. One of their tactics often used to try and minimize their opposition, is character assassination and ridicule, utilized to keep their followers believing they are superior. Those countries that say they believe Trump is a joke are lying. They are not laughing at his popularity. They fear it more than anything they have ever encountered before.

If you choose to use non lead ammo, that's fine. But trying to prevent anyone else from using it by force of law, ridicule or intimidation, is totalitarian. If venison donation programs are unhealthy because the deer are shot with lead, eliminate the programs with proof of contamination. (I think they tried doing that and got a lot of angry responses to it). I agree non lead is better and applaud anyone who uses copper, but I would never go so far as to condemn those who don't. Until more proof of effect is confirmed, and it's proven most raptors are killed by lead they ingest from hunter's bullets and not other lead sources, demanding nobody use lead ammo is a dangerous mindset. As an aside, if hunter's stop using ammo that kills raptors, but other raptor mortality factors are not addressed or given a pass, hunter's should not take that lightly. And if lead is to be banned, the folks who want it stopped bear the responsibility for whatever consequences occur from it afterwards. If supply cannot be met, or prices skyrocket, or the government decides no firearm hunting is safe at all, those who started the ball rolling should be the ones who are held accountable for their zealotry. Be mindful of the changes you think should be. A little extrapolation regarding the path created for the future may give you pause too.

If you go back and read post #32 you will see question marks, because I was asking questions. Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. Why do you guys get so upset with people who question you? (That's a question) If you post something, expect to be questioned. I'm not going to look up info for everything somebody posts right from the start. I'll do it if I don't think your answers to my questions are accurate. This is your pet concern, not everyone else's. Being passionate about something is fine, until you start belittling everyone who challenges your passion.

I think there is a big difference between this meat and the water in Flint, MI. ALL of the water in Flint is contaminated. Was all of the meat at this venison program contaminated, or just the pieces that were near the bullet impact point, which should have been cut away when it was butchered? I would like to see a normal photo of this same piece of meat prior to the CT scan. Most hunters and butchers cut away any blood shot meat from the deer.

Welcome.