Gun Control Reform Activism

Where did I lie? I stated that lead shot has been banned for use in hunting waterfowl by the Federal Gov. since 1991. That's a fact. The reason for that ban was a good one. Lead shot used in waterfowl hunting collected in sediment in shallow ponds favored by ducks and geese and was frequently ingested by them while feeding. Ingesting lead is particularly toxic. The solution was to ban the use of lead shot around water (waterfowl hunting) and replace it with non-toxic alternatives. That has been a successful regulation change, which eliminated most of the lead toxicity problems related to waterfowl.

I then said that there may some legitimate concerns about other types of lead contamination related to hunting or shooting, is that a lie?

Lastly, I've been supportive of many suggested changes that are part of gun control efforts, to claim that I'm attempting to fight any regulation of guns or ammunition is both false and ludicrous.

I don't view most topics, particularly highly politicized ones, as being all or nothing. In order for effective reform to be accomplished, it has to be politically possible. Some of the individuals who post here would like to see guns absolutely abolished from private ownership and take a black/white approach of intolerance to any opinion that differs from that absolute. I would disagree with applying that standard of zealotry to this group, lest it become a star chamber based solely on dogma, instead of an effective tool to promote gun control. If an effective campaign for gun control is to have even a reasonable chance of moving public opinion, there needs to be room for progressive minded individuals who also support private gun ownership rights, as defined in the Democratic party platform and by the President.