Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Reloaders....Endangered Species? Is it a matter of time?

Discussion in 'Reloading' started by DoctaGlockta, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. I've just celebrated my 1st year of reloading. I have to admit that it is a far more rewarding 'hobby' than I ever imagined.

    However with the recent petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (permanently now at the top of my dung list) to the EPA to basically ban lead I have to wonder when the powers that be finally get around to banning our beloved reloading.

    I really don't want to go there but I really has gotten me thinking about the possibility. It wouldn't take much and the back door tactics (restricting primers for example) would shut us down faster than Jack makes it to the door for the UPS lady.

    It has me starting to think about really beginning to stock up on components in decent quantities.

    It is something that has been bothering me lately and needed to get it off my chest. I'm sure I'm just being paranoid.... or am I?

    Thanks for listening

  2. byf43

    byf43 NRA Life Member

    Apr 13, 2006
    Southern Maryland
  3. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    I just can't bring myself to repeat myself again. We'll be reloading our Photon laser cannons before that happens (because of the EPA anyway.. an ammo ban is certainly a threat.. but not from the EPA)

  4. ColCol


    Apr 15, 2010
    Don't go doing that!!:shocked: We don't need a shortage to boost the price of components again. They're bad enough as it is with $20+ per pound of powder, $30 per 1K primers and bullets that use to be a penny a piece that are now double that or worse. When I first started reloading EVERYTHING was cheap compared to factory ammo.Supply and demand always has and most likely always will cause prices to sky rocket so-don't hoard!
  5. fredj338


    Dec 22, 2004
    A hostile BO style govt could strike reloading from the USA w/ a stroke of the pen. HLS or ATF could "rule" it a threat to the govt & just ban reloading &/or the sale powder & primers. We have no constitutional right to make our own ammo. Reloading has been banned &/or heavily restricted in many countries. It all goes back to the clowns you elect to run the country. Elect socialist, you get socialist govt., pretty simple really.
    Keep in mind that Dems are NOT for freedom of choice, just freedom of abortion & gay marriage, oh & building non Christian temples where ever they wish. They seem to want to limit my choice on just about everything else from guns to cars to what kind of food I can eat. Here in the land of fruits & nuts, they even want to ban big screen tvs & black cars:af:. One only needs to take the blinders off to see what is really going on.:dunno:
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2010
  6. Rico567


    Feb 3, 2004
    Everything is "only a matter of time." A shovel and a little digging in the Earth's crust will reveal that most things that have been alive are now extinct. It only matters what we do while we're here.

    "Whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some transatlantic giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River, or make a track on Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we shall live forever, or die by suicide."

    - Abe Lincoln, 1837
  7. shotgunred

    shotgunred local trouble maker

    Mar 1, 2008
    Washington (the state)
    A smart thing to do.:cool:

    You have to realize that we are reloaders. As such we all stock up in decent quantities. I can't imagine anyone here raising an eyebrow at 10K primers and several 8 pound jugs of powder. A true hoarder would have 100K primers and several 50 pound jugs of powder.
  8. EL_NinO619

    EL_NinO619 EX-Swage Monkey

    Aug 11, 2010
    San Diego
    Only way to solve all this, is to spread the word. And not on here because you are preaching to the quire. Vote and stay active. the only 2nd amendment they can have is in the one in the porcelain god:pepper:..Lock & LOAD
  9. Happy Hunting

    Happy Hunting

    Jul 27, 2010
    Not to nitpick but... quire? Phonetics FTW
  10. EL_NinO619

    EL_NinO619 EX-Swage Monkey

    Aug 11, 2010
    San Diego
    I typed on iTouch and sometimes it goes rouge on spelling. May i have a class on Phonetics. Come on its a Forum, Not a Midterm.:rofl:
  11. steve4102


    Jan 2, 2009

    Things are going to happen fast after Nov 2. IF the Rep. take back the House or the House and Senate the Socialists running this asylum will have no choice but to move fast. They've only got till Jan to pass their agenda. They will push, pass and ban anything and everything that stands in their way of turning this country into a complete Socialist State.

    Look out, it's coming and it's guna come fast.
  12. fredj338


    Dec 22, 2004
    This is actually quite a concern. Hopefully any remaining Dems will see the writing on the wall & not go along w/ a nuclear decision like that. Really, people should be very concerned about what is going on in less than 60days. This could be the downward spiral of the US economy. Many have not seen really bad times. SOme od the older guys can rememeber the depression years & we haven't gotten that far, yet! MY fear, if the Dems hold both houses, they go wild & spend us into Greece.
    The only way out, right now, w/ this current admin, is to get people in there that will say no to ALL increases in spending, across the board. Everything has tp be on the table, starting w/ roll backs in ALL govt pay, freezes on hiring & all the boondoggle military spending. Really, do we need another aircraft carrier or planes that cost so much we don't fly them in combat (B2)?:dunno:
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2010
  13. PCJim

    PCJim Senior Member

    Aug 4, 2008
    Unless POB tries some sort of Executive Order, I don't believe Congress will be able to pass any anti-gun measures. There are quite a few Democrats in Congress that are pro-gun. In 2009, the estimate was something over 60. Add that to the Republican votes and I just don't believe Congress will let it happen.

    Don't get me wrong, as I am not a Democrat. I just believe that there is not enough support in Congress to enact such legislature.
  14. Only thing I'm really seeing is a slow purge of lead wheelweights for casting. Everyone is going to Fe and zinc.
  15. garander


    Nov 29, 2001
    the position that the dems might try to pass more misguided legislation in a sleazy lame duck session is exactly the reason they are about to be removed. all their bills these last two years have been passed in the middle of the night, in secret, on weekends,
    not reading the bills, or even knowing the extent of whats in them. massive payoffs to garner the last vote to gain passage. the people are hip to them
  16. I hope so. May I quote the Hag Pelosi regarding the Healthcare bill:

    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

    Wow....that kind of stupidity and ignorance just blows my mind.
  17. Brucev


    Jul 19, 2009
    In 2008 control of the federal govt. was seized by a regime hostile to the 2nd Amendment and allied with those who advocate for the total banning of firearms and ammunition. That regime has placed on the sc two extreme left-wing liberal judges who are clearly threats to our Constitutional rights. That regime has placed persons in control of fed. agencies who are advocates of Constitutional destruction. That regime has acted with international bodies to take steps to restrict and ultimately eliminate our Constitutional rights. That regime is in control of the epa, which is headed by a person known to be hostile to hunting (acted to eliminate sport hunting of bears). Now a petition is presented to the epa that seeks to eliminate ammunition and thus render the 2nd Amendment null/void. The sponsor is a extreme left-wing organization supportive of and sharing the same hostility to the 2nd Amendment held by the current regime. The current regime has plainly refused to obey the law when that law was politically inconvenient... cp. refusal to act against illegal aliens. The current regime has acted illegally to support it's agenda... cp. funding of abortions under the nationalized healthcare program. The current regime has acted to seize control of 1/6 of the national economy by nationalizing healthcare on a socialist scale. And now... the epa backs down on regulating lead in ammunition because the law restricts them? And a reasonable person is suppose to think that such obedience to the law of the land is to be the norm of a regime whose regard for law is based on the law of the gang? In this case, the epa did not act because the current regime is facing the growing threat of a November ballot box review of its administration. Even the msm can not provide sufficient cover for it to avoid responsibility for it's broad failures to deliver on all that the current resident of the white house promised. If November 2010 were a month ago instead of only two months away, there is every reason to expect that the epa would act precisely and exactly according to that pattern of Constitutional manipulation demonstrated by the current resident of the white house and his gangsta administration. Thank God for the NRA. It is one of the very few pro-gun advocates that can act aggressively to stop this regime.
  18. Well then take them off for pete's sake. As for unions, 80% of our range membership is comprised of union members and Gov workers and just good ole folk like us. By the way, Thank You to all the LEO and 1ST Responders out their. Your effort and talent is appreciated.

    I dont see how any respectable citizen would call the president a socialist and go and cash a Social Security check. Not directed towards anyone in particular.
    ETA If you are really paranoid remember....we are coming for you!!!
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2010
  19. GioaJack

    GioaJack Conifer Jack

    Apr 14, 2009
    Conifer, CO

    Been a bit off my feed for the last week or so and have spent my time laying around trying to get enough energy to eat my Honey Nut Cheerios but this thread has piqued my interest so I thought I'd chime in with my drug clouded opinion. As always, it is a worthless opinion but mine none-the-less.

    Although I agree with very few of PB's political views he certainly has the right to not only have them but to actively work to see them come to fruition. Conversely I have the right to try and counter those efforts since in my perverted view of life, and the intended American model they are a perversion and in no way foster true freedom... or as close to that ideal that we can reasonably approximate.

    Having been born during the Truman presidency I was fortunate enough to have lived most of my life with the knowledge that the 'American Dream' was not a house with a white picket fence, two cars in the garage and a chicken in the pot but rather the 'opportunity' to achieve those things, or anything else my warped mind to conjure up.

    I was taught, and still believe that the pursuit of happiness was an inalienable right but that it was up to me to pursue and catch that happiness and that I should have no expectation that I had a right to have it handed to me, especially at someone else's expense.

    I firmly believe that the fruits of my labor are mine to do with as I wish just as the consequences of my failures are a burden that I alone must carry. My decision to wallow in self-misery or carry on and try again are not for others to make, question or dictate, they are mine and mine alone.

    Many scholars far, far more intelligent than I have formulated elaborate and eloquent definitions for the concept of FREEDOM. I am sure they are lauded for their philosophical insight and wisdom but in my simple mind the most accurate definition is a single word... CHOICE. None of us have really earned the right to make choices, we were born with the right, just as we will die with it.

    At times some of us choose to defend this right through military service when outside forces challenge the concept while others do not. This may not be totally palatable to those who serve but in the end it's the most significant reason to fight... to preserve the right of choice.

    To me, and again, this is just my worthless opinion, the most insidious enemy to freedom is that which infiltrates from within. There is no aggressive state attacking with military forces but rather an enemy that relies on human frailty, wanting something for nothing. Certainly a utopian concept but one that has, does and always will fail when it comes to the human species. One has only to look at the great civilizations throughout mankind to see glaring examples... each ultimately failed because of entitlements granted to and then demanded by the populace. Individual spirit and assertiveness was discouraged in lieu of the collective good. One need only to look at a household pet or zoo exhibit animal to see the same abhorrent consequences... provide all of an animal's, or human's needs and they will lose the ability to survive on their own. (A vigorous and lively debate could ensue over our well meaning yet utterly disastrous welfare system. One could argue that a great percentage of the local populace of Katrina had been conditioned to wait for guidance and rely on others rather than adapt to changing conditions and take matters into their own hands.)

    It would seem that our current political climate is one that embraces the concept that life without risk is a one size fits all model. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a very old adage that states, 'a man who does not take risks can not win'. We now have new financial regulations that limit 'the investing risks' that institutions can enter into. Why do we need these, to protect those who choose not to educate themselves on appropriate investment vehicles to fit their needs and risk aversion levels? Why should those who are willing to take risks for a potentially higher rate of return be penalized because of those who are not willing to dedicate the same amount of effort to better their financial effort?

    There are those in our political structure and in society in general who want to deny others the basic right of self-preservation through the ownership of a firearm. They cite the supposed ambiguity of the second amendment and claim it does not give a citizen the right to bear arms. Why do we even need a second amendment? Who on this earth has the power, or right to tell you that you can not defend the life of your wife, children, neighbor or perfect stranger for that matter?

    They use the argument that we have law enforcement agencies to protect us. Really? We have had organized law enforcement in this country for two hundred and thirty years but yet we still use phrases such as mass murderer, serial rapist, child molester, etc. My personal experience aside, ask any police officer if he writes more crime reports or stops crimes in progress. Ask if he witnesses the autopsies of more criminals or innocent citizens.

    I often wonder if those who want to deny me my right of protecting myself, or you, do so because they have exercised their inherent right of 'choice' to live as a coward and if they force that choice on me they will feel better about themselves.

    So as you can see, I fully support PB's right to have and believe in any political ideology in which he sees fit... it is after all his choice.

    As an aside, I consider myself a respectable citizen, at least I've tried to be and I unabashedly believe that President Obama is a socialist and I equally unabashedly cash my social security disability checks. Do I need the money, no, but that's not for you to decide. I paid into that trust fund for over forty years, my contributions were mandated by a system that thinks they know how to live my life better than I do. Could I have gotten a better return on my money if left to my own devices? We'll never know, I wasn't given the chance but I do know that if I had invested a thousand dollars in Walmart in 1970 and just forgot about, (much like my social security tax) I would have had five hundred thousand dollars in 1990. A like investment in Microsoft in the eighties makes my disability check look like loose change in the sofa cushion as do many other investment vehicles that might not have been an option due to a mandated contribution.

    Do I feel bad taking back my own money? Not in the least. I am not my brother's keeper... unless I want to be. When I buy an electric wheelchair for some kid I see on the evening news it is my choice, and my choice alone. When I pay the deductible or co-pay for some woman's breast cancer surgery it is my decision and my decision and my decision alone, the same as if I decided to blow that money on hookers, scotch and cigars. I earned it, it is the fruit of my labor and in my uneducated and ignorant opinion anyone who tells me that I have a 'duty' to share the wealth is a socialist and simply knows that left to his own devices would starve to death if you locked him in a Safeway overnight.

    Debate is fine, disagreement is fine, but please never question my moral character or respectability as a citizen... I don't take kindly to it.