Previous Post
Next Post

“I need my gun so I can shoot people who cut me off on the 405. Wait. Did I say that out loud? No, no. I need my gun so I can shoot animals who’ve done nothing to me. And, I need to be protected by law to choose any toxic substance I want to shoot those animals with. Because animals on public lands are there for hunters to enjoy killing, not for those environazis who believe animals have a purpose beyond benefiting humans. The world and all its creatures were created specifically for me to kill, even if most of those creatures existed millions of years before humans.” – Tina Page

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Logical fallacies? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Inflamatory rhetoric? Check. All according to script.

  2. Does she realize that the “toxic substance” existed for millions of years before humans and animals? It’s not like we manufacure some toxic chemical… we get lead out of the freaking ground!

    • While you are, of course correct, and her rhetoric is idiotic, poisonous substances come from the ground: arsenic and asbestos, for example. Just because lead comes from the ground does not make it benign.

      • I don’t think he is suggesting that is benign. I think he’s saying that hunters are just putting it back where it came from. They’re really being environmentally friendly by not depriving the earth of its own resources.

    • From wikipedia

      “Steel, bismuth, tungsten, and other exotic bullet alloys prevent release of toxic lead into the environment. Regulations in several countries mandate the use of non-toxic projectiles especially when hunting waterfowl. It has been found that birds swallow small lead shot for their gizzards to grind food (as they would swallow pebbles of similar size), and the effects of lead poisoning by constant grinding of lead pellets against food means lead poisoning effects are magnified. Such concerns apply primarily to shotguns,”

      There are lot of countries that do not allow lead when hunting water foul and this is the primary concern. While lead may come from the ground, it is not just sitting there for these birds to swallow. For shooting ducks and other water fowl the alternative is not all that bad that is she is talking about.

      I don’t see the issue because the alternatives work fine and I don’t believe that congress needs to involved. Simply do it on a state by state basis and I believe there are some states that already have these rules in place.

  3. Hmm last time I checked in most places it was illegal to hunt over water with lead shot. Unless they consider fowl overland with lead shot to be lead poisoning. But even then most guys I know who go hunting (including the 5 or 6 of us who hunt together and share the same boxes of ammo) just use steel regardless of where we are shooting geese. However Bambi still gets a lead injection, but only when he is in season. Hogs get whatever I can get my hands on, be it truck, lead, steel or nuclear warhead. Sporting or not, Hogs cost me more money in damages on a yearly basis then they are worth.

  4. If Tina Page were Queen for a day you would not be eating anything that wasn’t a plant.
    How about this one, Tina, I want lead in my ammo because it stops bad guys really well.

  5. A flawless snapshot of the type of “thinking” we’ve come to expect from a silly little twit.

    Oops, did I misspell that last word?

  6. I love my guns; I hate the lead associated with shooting.
    I would pay more for lead free bullets and primers. Exposure to lead is the one thing I would change about shooting.


    • Steel shot works well. No problems there as far as I’m concerned. Lead-free bullets suck.

    • If the melting point wasn’t so high, I’d melt down pop cans and cast aluminum bullets.

    • Feel free to use what you want, but don’t be using the force of government to compel others to live to your standards. This is especially true when the science on this topic is far from conclusive.

  7. I love these environazi’s who have never spent time outdoors or around animals. If I let my dog loose even in the city, he would kill squirrels for sport, just so he could shake them to death. He would also try to kill any other dog he saw, although that probably wouldnt work out too well because he is only 20lbs.

  8. Kudos to “John” (whoever he is) who posted this on the lady’s comment section:

    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    -— C.S. Lewis

  9. Aside from a long string of profanities followed by the word “stupid” there’s nothing to say.

  10. She starts her diatribe with, “I need my gun so I can shoot people who cut me off on the 405.”

    I hear that sort of thing so often. Is that what gun-grabbers really think? I wouldn’t be surprised if armed criminals and gang-bangers shoot someone who cuts them off in traffic. But I have never heard of a single instance of an armed citizen with no previous criminal record who “snaps” one day and shoots someone who cuts them off in traffic. Maybe such an event has happened once or twice … it certainly doesn’t establish that such an event is by any means typical.

    Equating armed citizens with criminals is like equating Pediatric Gynecologists with pedophiles. (I was going to use a bankers and crooks comparison but that actually does have some overlap!)

    • Is that what gun-grabbers really think?

      Who says they think?

      If “cogito ergo sum” is a valid argument, those idiots don’t exist.

    • Projection is a wonderful thing. I for one am glad that sociopaths like her are willing to self identify as unfit to carry a weapon.

  11. There is more lead in Tinas ass and the batteries in her Prius than all the wetlands around here.

  12. You’re right Tina, we shouldn’t kill animals. Animals have been killing each other or eating each other alive for millions of years, I guess its ok for them.

    Animals > Human Beings

  13. Ok here in CA is you are hunting water foul then yes it is steel shot only. I don’t duck hunt so I will not claim to say one is better than the other. I don’t care for her article since it really treats those that hunt like some sort of neanderthal instead of people. Some of the biggest rational environmentalists I know are hunters. Why? Because they want their kids and their grand kids to have someplace to hunt. Assuming steel shot is better for then environment for hunting birds, and assuming it doesn’t tear your gun apart and is just as accurate then ok cool. States can implement an ordinance based on land management to deal with it. No reason the feds need to be involved.
    I wouldn’t think the same would be needed for large prey like deer etc. Those bullets usually go in and stay in. They are not ingested by other wild life so it isn’t an issue.
    It is like a lot of politics it is so much easier to lash out and make fun of someone else then to sit down and and state it. A common solution to protect wild life and ensure a healthy population of what ever seems to be applicable. To that end taking it up at the state level seems to make more sense.

  14. In Ms. Page’s article about saving the Black Widows:

    “I’ve finally convinced my husband to stop killing the black widow spiders he finds around our yard.

    He’s come a long way. Almost vegan five years into our marriage, he grew up on the Atlantic coast of Spain boiling lobsters alive, enjoying Spain’s most famous delicacy, jamon serrano, almost every day and running with the bulls without a second thought until our first date.

    Today you can find him building a luxury suite for the injured moth we’ve taken under our wing, or capturing and re-homing rouge spiders scurrying across the floor attempting to escape our cats’ merciless appetite for fun.”

    You picked a real winner, Dan.

  15. She claims to believe that animals exist for reasons other than to benefit humans, but she sure didn’t hesitate to take the opportunity to jump over that shark.

    • Not to mention the shit she’s doing to her husband (according to gophenator’s quote), the poor emasculated critter.

  16. It offends me no end that fruitcakes like Tina, in their effort to hug all the trees in the forest, effectively lobby to deny me the means to defend my life. I don’t care about the trees, toxic bullets or hunting. I just want to protect my life. And my family’s life. Go hug a brown bear, Tina. Because you wouldn’t care how many poor, working class, non-white people have to die for your moneyed, white, enviro-nazi jibberish.

  17. I totally agree! After all the whole justifcation for wilflife protection was to make these resources available to the public. And after all, we DO shoulder a significant amount of the cost of maintaining these lands and without our support it may very well be impossable to keep these parks open. And of course there is not dening that sportmen are a invaluable force for wildlife conservation as well as reliable supporters of ecological protection.

    Oh whats that? You were being facetious? Never mind then.

  18. Sorry to hear that Tina is married. I was thinking of a troll here that she would be a good match for. Since neither of them can ever possibly be wrong, they’d be perfect together…….. or maybe not.

Comments are closed.