billeisele

Members
  • Content

    3,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Feedback

    0%

billeisele last won the day on October 1 2022

billeisele had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

120 Good

1 Follower

Gear

  • Container Other
    Javelin
  • Main Canopy Size
    168
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    176
  • AAD
    Cypres

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Carolina
  • License
    A
  • License Number
    5643
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA 5618
  • Number of Jumps
    4580
  • Tunnel Hours
    1
  • Years in Sport
    45
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
    4500
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Freeflying
  • Second Choice Discipline Jump Total
    85
  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
    Instructor
  • Tandem
    Instructor
  • USPA Coach
    Yes
  • Pro Rating
    No
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here we go, SC is the 29th state to pass Constitutional Carry. It will be interesting to see how this goes. We have plenty of good ole boys and girls that may start carrying. It sure can make the job of law enforcement more difficult. FL passed it last year despite DeSantis being vilified by, "Democrats, left wing media and anti-gun lobbyists," and Giffords claims that, "...such a bill would 'drive gun violence up' and put the 'safety of our families and communities at risk, and it was dangerous and unpopular", and MSNBC saying, "it was extreme and controversial." (Brandon Richardson - Adobe Stock, Pexels -Karolina Grabowska). In FL those concerns aren't supported, don't know about the other 27 states. Looking at the decrease in violent crime stats in two of their major cities, Jacksonville and Miami, maybe it's a good thing. They also made other changes so it's impossible draw a direct correlation to constitutional carry. With just one year of data it's too soon to tell. The Ansara law firm said, "It's no secret that Florida saw a drop in violent crime in 2023 - and we now have the statistics to support it - but what contributed to that? Was it the new constitutional carry law that helped deter crime, or was it the investment in innovative crime-fighting technology? To be honest, it was a combination of both - as well as a slew of other factors, including an increase in city funding and a more aggressive stance on enforcing the law. With that said, it can't be a coincidence that crime rates are dropping at a time when more citizens are walking around with guns." I'll be watching in SC and will have a front row seat to monitor the results. Back to basketball tournaments and registering for CarolinaFest (it's back after being shut down since 2020).
  2. The collection of replies is amusing, disheartening, false, and so many other words. It starts with immature name calling and labeling. That's never good but apparently OK here. Moves to the false assumption that people are afraid of someone. No, they are just tired of certain things and don't want to be associated with them. What happened to, "to each his own." They simply chose to move on and disassociate themselves with a certain lifestyle. Actions have consequences. The two executives were "put on leave" while 350 employees are losing their jobs. Religion is again inserted as if that's the sole guiding force and that everyone interprets "being religious" in the same way. Having a sole defining belief is for the zealots, IMO, most people aren't that way. Why insert new thoughts then assign them as if they were stated facts? Makes no sense. Using references to historical facts as if they were current news is equally senseless. Things change, remember that the D party was the slave party. Then there's the comment about not smart and "racist hicks" generalizations. That says plenty about ignorance and hate. To Jerry's point, yes, folks are free to do what they want. They weren't at attention or being respectful, as required by the team rules. And they aren't veterans. Big differences. Be on the team, follow the rules. Don't want to follow the rules, get punished. It's not complicated. Apparently if you are labeled a conservative you are the ONE that called Obama a raghead. Of course. it's just not possible that people with conservative values disagreed with that term or similar terms used to disparage people. Those same people, by definition, aren't allowed to disagree with Trump and the way he disparages people. That presumption is just wrong. The silent majority isn't just "conservatives." Here's that label again, as if everyone that has a conservative-like belief can be shoved into that box and thus defined in that manner. That is not reality. People can and do have ideas that are defined as conservative and also have beliefs that are defined as liberal. Exactly what box is that? I don't know, maybe that's the vast majority of those in the middle. Is that the "I" box? Interesting that there's no outrage about other entertainers with music videos flashing guns, promoting violence, reveling in destruction, full of race hating and disgusting language. As for the free country thing. That's seems to be OK until it's not. Folks flying a confederate flag certainly feel that way. Luckily that's not seen much anymore. People do get offended when their "rights" are constrained. 10-15 years ago the power company I worked for decided that folks flying a confederate flag from their truck wasn't acceptable. The primary person doing that had ancestors that were in the Civil War. He "said" that for him it was his history. But ... someone was offended so the policy was made. No surprise, in the following weeks dozens of trucks had flags in the rear window and there were plenty of bumper stickers. The policy said no flag flying, so it was OK. It wasn't about the flag it was about having rights restricted. "If I can't fly my flag because "they" are offended then they have to remove the various flags and symbols that they have because I'm offended by that." So it started, putting people in a box and labeling them. This issue got way out of hand. It took a sit-down with the company President with a room full of folks on both sides to resolve it. Everyone agreed it had gotten stupid. The flag guy calmed down and shared his family history. One appointed person on the other side shared his personal experiences and family history. They all agreed to calm down, respect each other's rights and to talk. The "family" that had been whole, then divided, was back together. For sure, all wounds weren't healed but they understood each other. When the next big storm came they were out, working side by side, restoring power. Having common goals works. Tolerance is needed on both sides of any issue. Shoving people into a box, labeling them, making false assumptions and accusations, none of that is good. Yet, as we see here, it's commonly done. This "majority" doesn't always fit into anything stated as some of these posts say. They aren't always silent and they aren't always meek or mild. I saw it firsthand in Charleston SC when certain "groups" bused in protestors to wreck the city. The weak Mayor told the cops to just stand by and allow them to do whatever. The local boys rallied, went downtown with their big trucks and ran that crowd out of the city. They then went to their suppliers and loaded up on plywood to help the store owners board up their shops. They sat in their trucks on street corners with their scary black guns as a warning for the troublemakers to stay away. It worked. Call from a tourist, "911 - what is your emergency. I'm in a boutique hotel on King St and there are two big guys sitting in a big truck on the corner of Cannon and King. They have assault weapons!!! 911 operator - Are they doing anything? Tourist - no they are just sitting there. 911 operator - OK, well let us know if anything changes. They have been there all night and they are helping us." Maybe some other cities could have been helped instead of occupied and destroyed. There are a ton of people that are in the middle ground. There are Ds and Rs that don't "fit" the purported model. The way one sees the R's and the D's isn't the same and they certainly don't conveniently fit in some box. Same goes for religion, gender issues and many other hot topic issues. Just because one has certain defined bioxes constraing their personal thoughts doesn't mean that is how the rest of the world thinks.
  3. The silent majority is learning that they have a voice. The self-appointed elites of the entertainment industry, music business, corporations and other organizations are getting a wake-up call. One road-marker is the Bud thing and now a song that has been mischaracterized. The 3-,month trend in Andeuser-Busch stock shows a decline from $65.56 to $58.63. Looking at the 3-year trend the stock has ranged from $54.43 to $78.16. Recent, 3-months - down 10.64%, 1-year up 7.9%. It's quite volatile. Their dividend payout history has been equally volatile. Not something that long term investors like. Bud sales are down roughly 28%. CostCo has dropped it from the stores. Revenue loss is in the range of $90- $115 million a month. Past sales and revenue can't be recovered. However, remaining monthly sales are not inconsequential standing at approximately $295 million. The stock value doesn't track the drop in sales of this one brand. They have approximately 12 main beer brands in the US, 6 foreign brands, and 18 craft beer partners. Bud has dropped from the biggest brand to the # two spot behind Modelo. But AB has the #2 and #3 spots at a combined monthly sales of $565 million. It's more of a pride thing than a "dagger-in-the-company" decrease in sales. On the music video ... the surveys and social media posts I've seen show overwhelming support of Aldean. #1 song, we'll see how long it stays there. CMT is in conflict with some country music heavy weights, including Blake Shelton, Luke Bryan and Lee Greenwood. Rumors about a $30 million canceled contract with Shelton and Bryan removing his videos from CMT appear to be false. They have lost $115 million in annual revenue from advertisers. Companies like Levi's, PBR, The GAP and McGregor leather have exited. McGregor is the largest loss, they sell fancy county attire. So that leaves room for new advertisers and some will move in. The drag queen performance at the CMT Music Awards was the start of problems and the cancelation of the video was the finale. Additionally, Hank Williams Jr resigned from the Board, and Aldean has sued CMT for $58 million, a 1st Amendment case. The CMT leadership has some work to do. And so they have and are ... Current news - CMT is moving to restore the video. They fired the Program Director (70+ year old white male, alleged to be a woke liberal, no clue if that's accurate) that unilaterally canceled the video, or so says the network. We'll see if that, and other steps, are sufficient to have the CMT peeps return. Anyone watch some of the women's US soccer team at the World Cup "disrespect the flag" by not putting their hand over their heart or singing the national anthem? Not smart. I'm sure the silent majority will have other opportunities to "show up." We'll see. And for those that seem stuck on the D vs R thing, I highly doubt that the silent majority all have the same political views or party affiliations.
  4. I've made 50 - 100 jumps on the Nova with no issues. It was designed by a German guy, can't remember his name. It was on the cutting edge and needed to be kept in trim. We were jumping it at the old Z-Hills in a Teardrop container. After a few jumps they would go over to Derek's shop in town and make minor changes, then jump it again. I distinctly remember the first jump making a low approach way before the beer line. Folks starting yelling beer then stopped as it made a long glide landing well past the line. At the time it didn't have a label on it and everyone wanted to know what it was. Before that I jumped a Raider. Switched from the Nova to an Aerial. Jumped that for a few years until it was for sale and stolen by a supposed "friend." I know a guy that still occasionally jumps his Nova, the label is removed.
  5. Interesting question and not 100% sure what qualifies as "practicing", so I can't say yes or no. So ... Yes, I believe in God. I try to follow the law, do what is right, share what I have, and be a good person. I try to be tolerant, and less critical of others, and seek to understand the "other side" when differences exist. This isn't a religious saying but, On my honor I will do my best, means something to me but knowing that I'll never reach that goal. I recognize that I often fail and that, IMO, it's difficult/impossible to manage all the conflicts between life and religion. This discussion could go on forever, best left for its own thread. How about you?
  6. Jerry - In my reply to Phil is some data to consider, Post #3106. In short, Australia dealt with ~700,000 guns 25 years ago. We have ~100 million, that's 142X more. I didn't say it wasn't possible just improbable. I hope M114 is adopted, bit IMO it's too soft. My reply to Wendy in Post #3073 gave a list of ideas that go much further than M114.
  7. Great and thanks. We agree 100% on your last paragraph. Where we differ is on the cost type stuff. It's impossible to put a value on each life that is lost, yet that is done all the time in civil trials. That makes it easy to say that it's worth it. But there are real costs. I don't know what that total cost is but it's above 100 billion. There would have to be some way to manage that. The buy-out cost would be simple to estimate. The Australia effort was in 1997 and involved approximately 700,000 guns. It banned semi-auto rifles and shotguns and they paid market value for them. Using that model, in the US: ~400 million guns in private ownership. From various sources, and the data differs: 30 million semi-auto rifles, 50 million semi-auto handguns, 20 million semi-auto shotguns. The number of semi-auto is hard to pin down but the exact number doesn't matter. I'm taking general numbers, the actual number of semi-auto could easily be 150 million. Let's use 100 million semi-auto weapons in private hands. AUS only went after long guns, in the US that's ~50 million. Using that estimate and an average fair market value of $500, we're talking about $25 billion. Raise the FMV to $1,000 it's $50 billion. That supposedly solves the mass murder issue. But it doesn't. Handguns are used in 65% of gun murders so it's also important to address those. That puts us in the $50 - $75 billion range for buy backs. Handguns are used in 65% of murders, rifles in 3%, shotguns 1%. If handguns are not addressed then not much will change. The next most common weapons are knives. The estimated annual economic impact of the industry is $81 billion, guns and ammo. That puts us somewhere north of $100 billion the first year in easily identifible costs. Add in the small businesses that close, lost jobs, tracking and destruction costs, government oversight costs, etc., and the figure jumps again. A US collect and crush effort would be 143X bigger than what Australia did. The sheer volume is mangeble by recyclers but it's huge. And no, for me it's not just about dollars, but I recognize that it's a real issue that would be raised to stop any progress towards that remedy. Yes, no doubt something needs to be done. I just don't think that will ever happen.
  8. Agree, not all are bad. You are the one saying that all GOP politicians do not support any changes. Why do you continue to lump them all together? It's just not true. Oregon's 114 passed with a vote of 50.7%. In Oregon, D is 34%, R is 25%, I is 5% and non-affiliated is 35%. The allegation that this is an R problem isn't supported by the vote in OR. Even if all the Ds voted for it (which is just a silly assumption) they needed some Rs and Is to get to 51%. Peel back the onion on 114. It's interesting that the Oregon State Sheriffs' Assoc opposed it. “We recognize that we must address firearm violence,” said Shane Nelson, president of Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. “But measure 114 is just not the answer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon#:~:text=Democrat >%3D 50%,Republican >%3D 30% Look at OR Measure 5 in 2000 on requiring background checks on gun transfers. It passed with 61.8% vote. Clearly there were Rs supporting that. The party leaders and extremes are using it as a hammer to beat on each other. There are moderates on both sides that agree that something should be done. Until the D and R argument stops, nothing will get done.
  9. No you did not answer. Again, here it is: Explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan How can your plan be accomplished?
  10. Jerry - I get it, the elected officials are bad. If the elected official continue to lump together and vote rather than representing what is best for their voters that's a problem. What I was talking about is the general population, their political label and their position on these issues. There are plenty of Ds and Rs that want reform. Just like there are people in both parties that oppose some or all of it. Again, as long as it's used as a political hammer, nothing will get done.
  11. Phil - you don't want a conversation, you just want to argue, label and diminish others opinions. And you continue to LIE and misrepresent my position on firearms. You want me to answer your questions but yet you can't answer the legitimate question that was posed to you?
  12. That's a lot to unbundle and unfortunately there's more. IMO there is no easy big solution that will work. That's why I advocate for a series of small changes that can pass the legal test and can make some difference. Hopefully Oregon 114 will pass and we'll see if it makes a difference. If so, roll it out but add more. Clearly the gun laws in Chicago don't work, no need to repeat that experiment. One other item I keep seeing is accusations that this is a R or D thing. There are plenty, millions, of D's that own guns, hunt and conceal carry. Just like there are millions of R's that do the same. There are also millions on both sides that do neither. It's silly to keep using one term or the other on this topic. R this or D that, the generalizations are not accurate. I hold out hope that the politicians can make some decisions that will pass the legal test and that will be effective. You may be right, not in our lifetime.
  13. Again, you just want to argue and make false accusations, and still offer no intelligent answers to a simple legitimate question. Not productive. You've stated a flat out LIE. What I have written directly conflicts with what you wrote. To some extend we do agree. Yes, the number of people that have access to guns must be restricted. I've made plenty of suggestions, just wrote a small list in reply to Wendy (above). I've made other suggestions earlier in this post that I don't remember.
  14. Hey Wendy - I've posted on this before. And just discussed a couple things in responding to Jerry. Don't remember the full list of suggestions I've previously made (guessing, way earlier in this thread) and don't know how to find the post, some are: Guns must be removed from vehicles when the vehicle is at their residence or overnight location. Require a background check for all gun sales. No limitation on the time it takes to do the check. Mandatory recurrency training for permit holders. Maximum un/concealed carry allowed caliber is what was used to qualify for the permit. Mandatory reporting of stolen or missing guns. Make, model, serial #, caliber, etc. 21 years or older to purchase ammo. Illegal to transfer ammo to someone under 18. New one - Background check when purchasing more than a certain number of rounds (50?) larger than ?? (32-caliber?), especially for rounds typically used in "assault" weapons. New one - All hunting guns must have a part removed making the gun inoperable (rifle bolt, shotgun forearm removed or separated), if possible, outside of hunting season unless the gun is locked in a safe or has a trigger lock, with the removed part stored in locked case. No bump stocks or binary triggers or other devices that increase the rate of fire. Eliminate access to tracers, armor piercing and similar munitions except those specifically designed for hunting. As for gun locks - trigger, cables, biometric, etc. My thought is that those are primarily intended for in-home safety. Having them would stop the accidental kid deaths, sudden rage domestic violence (maybe), and maybe some of the suicides. An argument that may be legitimate is that it restricts the owners access in an emergency. Not sure that is a legitimate argument but it would be used, loudly. I'm undecided on this one. Gun safes can prevent theft but that would be a difficult one to pass. They are big, heavy and expensive. But yes, effective.
  15. I've been watching 114. Once the legal battles stop, if 114 survives, we'll have a model to watch, see if it's effective and how it works. I read it when you first posted it and found parts to be too lenient. I support what the legislation says but have advocated for periodic retesting and recurrency training. Here in SC one can have never handled a gun, take an 8-hour class, use a 22-caliber to qualify and they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That weapon could be a 45 with a 12-round magazine, or an FN 57 with a 20-round magazine. IMO That makes no sense. I think the permit holder should be restricted to the maximum caliber that they used to qualify. As for smoking and drugs. we'll have to disagree. No doubt there are differences between gun deaths and death from smoking and drugs. Excluding suicide, gun deaths are violence by one against another, where smoking and drugs are generally self-inflicted. Using that description they are different. The similarity, that I see, is that smoking and drug deaths could be stopped or significantly reduced by restrictive legislation, just as gun deaths could be reduced by restrictive legislation. Regardless of laws all require enforcement.