EPA shuts down last lead plant in the United States

January 30, 2014
Robert McDowell

On December 10, 2013, there was in my e-mail box a message, forwarded, with a news report that the last remaining manufacturer of lead bullets in America was closing down its operation after dropping a planned substantial expansion.

The stated reason for this move was some onerous and extremely expensive mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency with the excuse of reducing emissions of sulfur and lead.

While this may seem innocent enough, one should remember what the aftershock effects will amount to.

First, how many employees of the company will be put out of work and become unemployed and perhaps unemployable at their skill level.

The story did not indicate what other minerals the company could fall back on or whether it will just go out of business and cease to exist after the shutdown.

Next, there are some effects that will drift down to the majority of citizens who possess and use firearms for self-defense, range practice or hunting.

This will, at the very least, drive up the already increased cost of ammunition and will serve to drastically reduce the availability of same.

Further, it will put our citizens and the military at the mercy of foreign producers, who might very well decide to embargo shipments to the United States for their own purposes.

Imagine our troops being involved in one of the numerous “police actions” that have seemed to be continuous since the action in Korea began  in 1950.

While some of these may have seemed quite proper, and in the case of South Korea had excellent results for those we went in to protect, others appeared to have no “victory object” and had disastrous results.

That is especially true where the occupant of the White House, or the staff, maintained micromanagement of the operation.

The rules of engagement now established for our military in combat areas seem to be deliberately established with the goal of achieving defeat at the expense of death or wounding to our personnel.

A more nefarious and direct purpose was also raised.  That is to make it almost impossible for citizens to obtain ammunition, with the purpose of effectively disarming the whole population.

The prospect was raised that this move is just another extension of the much-publicized actions of government agencies ordering many years’ supply of ammunition with the desired result of making the shelves of shops become bare.

After all, any dictatorial administration MUST achieve the disarming of its population of slaves in order to keep them in that state.

In the years leading up to the issuing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the British crown had forbade the establishment of any form of firearm manufacture in the American Colonies.

This put the citizens at the complete mercy of the Crown for everything and the king and Parliament took every advantage of the situation.

The result was the realization by the colonists that the only option open to them was to separate and go their own way.  Not wishing to lose their excessive taxes  for his treasury to pay for his wars against the French and Spanish, he then chose to take military action against the colonists who had gradually built up supplies.

They were more for hunting and protection from wildlife and against the  natives in the area.

The result was the mislabeled Revolutionary War, which really should be called the War for Independence.

Time has not allowed my verification of this story  through other sources, but there was a suggestion to go to Google.  My congressman  will be contacted to obtain such proof that the story is factual.