|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Non-Lead Bullets are Better for Hunters and Hunting
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutinnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hunting is a pastime steeped in tradition. Conservation, coming-of-age hunts, first beers and butchering parties, to name a few. One tradition that is on its way out, however, is the use of lead core bullets. Growing numbers of hunters are giving up their “daddy’s bullets” for more modern, equally effective and wildlife-friendly non-lead alternatives. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(1/7/2019)
|
| Kinda funny to refer to projectiles designed to kill animals as "wildlife friendly" |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/7/2019)
|
"Corey Ellis lives in Missoula and is an avid hunter, angler and active member of several hunting, fishing and conservation organizations."
Yeah, but you left something out. Is Corey a DEMOCRAT?
If so then he's a Fudd and nothing he says should be given any credence.
The final score should always read, "Fundamental Right 1, Animals 0".
Only Fudds think otherwise. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
