"didn't know that lead poisoning was a liberal/leftist thing and that conservative/right wing people are immune to elevated lead levels"
Nobody, but
nobody, is or has ever suggested this. (Also, you make it really easy to make a crack about leftists and lead poisoning the way you phrased that statement, but I shall take the high road
)
What has been suggested, is that the unholy trinity of CYA that is health-science, legislation, and regulation have pressed the issue far beyond the bounds of imminent threats to life and limb that justified their passage in the first place. All three of these groups seek to benefit by scare-mongering or concern-trolling the body politic into giving them more resources to continue what they do. All three of these groups are historically dominated by those who do not particularly sympathize or endorse the idea of an armed populace. Propensity for self-serving restrictions + anti-gun sentiment = propensity for self-serving gun restrictions.
Your opinion is definitely from one extreme of the spectrum of belief about the people and organizations that work to protect public health and the environment. Considering how limited the resources are that our society provides these people and organizations in comparison to providing for other concerns I think you greatly exaggerate the financial burden it places on all of us. It is also ridiculous to imply these people and organization are just greedy when you consider that the monetary rewards are miniscule in comparison to those of the people and organizations that caused the health and environment problems.
It's naïve to simply reject such an obvious progression out of hand as mere 'right wing paranoia'
You must think we are all naive enough to be misdirected from realizing how much right wing paranoia is deliberately stoked by the propaganda of people and corporations that attempt to discredit concerns about public health and the environment.
I'm sure we can find a few examples of lead-infested ranges and lead-infested range operators, shooters, and bullet casters. What we don't see is a common or systemic occurrence of the same. I'd be curious to know exactly what the rate of 'sleazy range' is, though, and how much is due to lack of regulation as opposed to violation or lack of enforcement of regulation. Different things, those, but too often confused by those who endorsed the rules in the first place.
As we all know, there is definitely a trend toward 'ratchet regulation' in environmental matters, just as there is in anti-gun measures. Why should it be any different when the two overlap? Would whatever restrictions the anti's or environmentalists cook up to solve the 'lead problem' really accomplish more than the one's already passed? Would 'even one life' really be saved? And even if so, at what cost to everybody else who is now subject to additional cost and restriction?
I really wonder how much good 2nd Amendment rights will be to all the children of the future that make it to adulthood but are to mentally and/or physically disabled to operate or own a firearm because of prenatal exposure to poisons leaders of commercial and government organizations polluted the environment with because they were not prevented by fear of financial and criminal penalty?
I know it is anathema, but the notion we should spend in order to defend against some identified risk simply because it exists is also naïve. The reason corporations seek to delay expenses on safety and emissions stuff until it effects the bottom line is because that is when these concerns actually transcend theory to become reality. Nothing wrong with acting only upon reality in concept, but that is where poorly run or corrupt organizations (private, corporate, and governmental) often fail; they don't notice when a problem is effecting them until it is doing grievous harm due to systemic sensory inefficiency. A well-run corporation is nothing more than an optimization routine for profitability. A well-run government organ is nothing more than an optimization routine for political favor. Without very careful and clever consideration, both are capable of failing to consider human interests sufficiently in their deliberations (arguably, the latter much more so)
Things to keep in mind.
I think your beliefs about how corporations operate is very naive. I have belonged to and own stock in several corporations. Your excuse that corporate actions are delayed until “concerns actually transcend theory to become reality” is better stated as until the sick become the dying and the dying become the dead. Corporations do not have the souls, consciences, or sense of personal responsibility most human being have. This has often made it easy for the decision makers of corporations to conceal, deny, defend and walk away from the most heinous of public health and environmental crimes leaving it to others to suffer and pay for the consequences. Whether it is a bad corporation or good corporation the raison d’etre is profit above all else. At least with government the raison d’etre is serving and protecting the public regardless of how badly it may sometimes do that. We all can vote for leaders to create government that better serves and protects. We all cannot vote for corporate leaders who will serve and protect us. We can only hope the government leaders we do vote for will protect us from corporations jeopardizing our health and the environment.
Things to keep in mind.
