billeisele

The USPS has declined far too much, to the point that's it's unreliable. Someone came to my house on Monday from Charleston on the way to Atlanta on a business trip. She left something important in Charleston. On Tuesday her hubby had it sent to her hotel in Atlanta Next Day Delivery. The cost was $30 plus $17.50 for Tracking. By Friday it still had not arrived. Tracking indicated that it had not left Charleston. Her options were to have the hotel refuse delivery or cancel the delivery for a fee. The response from USPS was, "If you come to our office we'll refund the $30 if you can prove what you're saying." How does this make any sense? They take no responsibility, don't care and there's no recourse. We're wondering if it will ever arrive at the hotel and IF the hotel will remember to no accept the delivery.

The 2017 eclipse went directly over my old house on Lake Murray. Monday was an off-day at the DZ, had one heck of a party. It was strange - the wind stopped, temperature dropped, birds stopped, frogs started then reversed.

In general we agree on much more than we disagree on. I guess, for you and I, the middle is fairly wide, at least we're not in the extremes. I know you know guns. We've, pleasantly, discussed that. We've discussed the semi vs. bolt action hunting topic and I said I prefer bolt. As for the helicopter pig guys. I doubt the government would ever do anything on private land, and yes there are options to pig control other than helicopters. Seems that the private land owners found a way to do pig control and have customers pay for it. Good marketing, companies called HeliBacon and Aerial Assault. Last week I saw an ad for it in GA. Don't think we've talked directly about the 2nd, if not we've certainly talked all around it. It may simply be too big to change but that doesn't mean that laws can't be enacted. I'm no constitution scholar and have no clue about how hard that would be but maybe it does need changing. Yes, I have friends with all kinds of AR style guns, none of them hunt with them. One guy is ex-special forces and owns numerous automatic weapons. He does the Bonnie and Clyde re-enactment week in Louisiana as Clyde and has a couple operational "Tommy" guns. The other 3-4 I'm thinking about just enjoy shooting them. Fun to shoot but not my thing. Yes, some of them might not turn them in if that became a law. One guy in particular is especially paranoid and will not buy a gun from a dealer, he thinks there's a secret database. Most others I know with guns, at most, own a shotgun, a .22 and a couple handguns. The only semi I've owned was a shotgun, Remington 1100, sold it 25+ years ago.

I guess you don't watch or hear things from TV or other media outlets. You can put AOC (and some other politicos) and the stars of The View on the list. There are plenty others. I freely admit that the problem has become much smaller than it was just 5 years ago. Nothing nutty about wanting gun control. It's the behaviors that can be nutty. To avoid a reply - I said "can be" not "are." They are nutty when the person doing it uses all kinds of incorrect terminology and facts. To add another factor, to me it's nutty to just go after military style rifles when they are only a tiny part of the problem. Reverting to what I've said many times ... wanting laws that are enforceable, legal and reasonable is great. I'm all for that and have listed many that IMO are enforceable, legal and could be passed. Gun confiscation and destruction isn't a workable solution and that's a position that some advocate. We've seen plenty of laws passed that the Supreme Court has knocked down. There are a recent cases in NY, CA. MD and OR. Why pass laws that will be reversed? Elections are a thing - some will do anything to create the appearance of gun restriction. To me it's a waste of time, time that could be spent working on acceptable laws.

Good afternoon Joe, or maybe lunch time for you. Since gun purchase laws are federal (except the extra ones passed in certain states) I'd like to see the federal law expanded to include private party sales. Some states require private sales to go thru an FFL or at least to have the background check done thru a licensed dealer or some other designated entity. That practice is more widespread than I thought. This article has a list of required actions for private party sales. Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw These are the two laws in SC, some states go further, some less. Note that most of these laws use the term "transfer." I'm assuming that means change of ownership to prevent someone from "gifting" a gun to another. Seems that would also cover transfers to a family member. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-30(A): May not transfer firearms to anyone who is prohibited from possessing them under state law. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-530(B): May not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone unlawfully in the United States. As to what guns and ammo to cover. The laws above cover all firearms but not ammo, and don't cover private party transfers to peeps than can legally have one. I'd like to see background checks done on all firearm transfers. For a few reasons, IMO, trying to manage ammo would be quite difficult if not impossible. 1) there's so much out there, 2) it's easy to find, 3) reloading isn't difficult, 4) no serial numbers, and 5) it would create another huge underground economy. Of course, that excludes ammo that most regular people aren't supposed to have. Armor piercing, etc. It's concerning that there are particular rounds like Flechette bullets, "exploding" ammo, bolo rounds, and Dragon's breath that are legal in many states. I don't see any real purpose for those. But, the common hollow nose is illegal in NJ.

Sheesh. OK fine. Let's make it easy to follow so that you don't continue to misconstrue what I said. For me ... an anti-gun nut is someone ranting and raving about guns without having any facts or understanding of what they are talking about. They sound like idiots when they talk about "all those automatic" guns, "shooting hundreds of bullets a second" and all the other misstatements they make. Cue the famous clip of Joe arguing with the Chrysler auto worker about guns, talking about an "AR-14" and telling the guy he was full of ++it, while denying what he said during his campaign about gun control. Uh, Joe, you said it, nothing goes away anymore. Yes, they can kill things. I'll disagree that's the sole purpose. Many use them simply as a form of recreation. Be that shooting flying clay targets, putting holes in paper, or chasing cans across field. If that's your idea of all the knowledge that's needed that's an awfully low standard. Anytime one tries to from a credible statement it becomes meaningless due to the inaccurate content. But, yes, anyone is free to say whatever they want.

Yep. That's another big problem that should be easy to fully or partially resolve. With the few firearms I've sold, an ID and a copy of the CWP was required. That stopped one guy from obtaining a gun, at least from me. In SC the gun shows used to be "anything goes", including private sales in the parking lots. A couple years ago they changed that. No more parking lot sales and background checks are done on all transactions.

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?" If you mean that folks should stop using it to support their argument on guns, IMO that make no sense. The law is what it is and lawyers will use the law as it's written. The racial undertone thing is laughable - look at where the description came from - the anti-gun nuts. As for the scary black gun phrase, as soon as the typical anti-gun nuts take 10 minutes to learn about guns I'll stop using the phrase. It's amazing to me how many stand up publicly to denounce those guns. Even Joe did it. They are clueless about caliber, operation, or anything else. They regularly use the term "automatic" as if all the black military looking guns operate in that manner. All they know is that it looks like a military gun therefore it's dangerous. That's ignorant and stupid. They either don't know or don't care that those type guns are about 3% of the problem. They don't know that the vast majority of semi-auto guns are sporting rifles and if they did ban those that look like a military weapon it still leaves a few million other semi-auto rifles that are just as dangerous. Are they so clueless as to think that if the AR platform disappeared that the criminals wouldn't simply switch to the other firearms? My point has been, and is, that banning that type gun will be almost meaningless. There are too many similar type firearms. The ban would have to include all semi-auto long guns that have the ability to accept a large capacity magazines. How long do you think it would take for the private sector to create high capacity magazines for the ones that don't currently have them? Case in point. Are you aware of a company called Infinite, located in (wait for it) CA!?!? They produce products that act like suppressors but aren't regulated and they're much cheaper than a suppressor. I just learned about these 2 weeks ago at a booth at an outdoor recreation trade show in SC. These peeps are going around the country selling this stuff. I stood by and listened while the Dept of Natural Resources guys questioned the vendor and examined the products. They confirmed that they were legal. As stated before, IMO, bump stocks, binary triggers, these products and others that have a similar effect should be banned. You seem to keep wanting to demonize me. At this point you should realize that I'm middle of the road on all this stuff. You state, ",,,, until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns...." I've been clear and my position doesn't support your statement. Regardless of how many times you try to shove me into that corner it's just not true. You continue to make false accusations about my beliefs, gun ownership and other things. I'm not in the NRA, don't own an AR type firearm, or any type of semi-auto rifle or shotgun. Therefore, I have nothing to "give up." as you've stated. Kallend said, "Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes, buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50), then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois." This points directly to a concern of gun owners. Disarming the law-abiding public won't be effective since criminals don't follow the law. It's also an example of a real smart guy that is clueless on the subject (or maybe he just spoke without thinking). It's basic knowledge that a non-resident can't buy a gun from a dealer. Your reply to his statement was, "... if serious gun laws were exacted those law abiding citizens like BillE would hide their guns in opposition." More unproductive and false demonizing. Is it possible to stick to the topic instead of using personal attacks?

Two points we definitely agree on, the others, not so much. To the "real teeth" one, that requires real punishment from judges that don't practice catch and release. Threats of punishment aren't effective when the criminals know the risk is low. The last line is inaccurate. In past posts I've listed plenty of ideas that, IMO, would be legal to implement and effective. I don't think it's likely that the 2nd will be altered or dumped. IMO it's smarter to do things that can be implemented instead of wasting time on things that have a high likelihood of not being successful. The newly proposed law in IL, House Bill 3239, will be interesting to follow. The bill requires one to obtain a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. That requires a background check. To purchase a gun one must obtain permission from local law enforcement, and attend an 8-hour training class. New Gun Law Requires Triple Background Checks and Mandatory Training (msn.com) The FOID is done by the State police. If it's the same background check that the buyer must pass when they buy a gun I don't see the benefit. But, hey, maybe 2 checks are better than one. To get a gun in IL it would require 3 checks. Getting permission from local LEO could be a problem and it's certainly a burden for the police force. Trying to understand why it's needed, I'll speculate that one could pass a background check but the local LEO would know about other issues that won't show up in the check. If that's the case then it would be effective. Upon approval one receives a paper permission slip to buy one gun. I'm all for required training. But if it's the same quality as what's done in SC and other states it's not effective. Anyone can show up with a .22 pistol, having never touched a firearm, sit thru some training, pass the written, then hit a target that's super close and be certified to conceal carry. The next day they can legally strap on a .45 and wander in public. NO, not good. The training must be more extensive. Two ideas are that they must show proof of xx hours of range time firing xx number of rounds. And they can only carry a weapon as large as what they qualified with. :Luckily, in IL to carry concealed the training requirement is 16 hours. The FBI says that IL conducts more background checks than any other state. 4 million were done in 2023. They already have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Clearly they aren't working. 2,000 murders in 2021, and in the middle of the deaths per 100,000 rankings at 16. Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality (cdc.gov) Unfortunately, increased laws lead to more peeps obtaining and carrying guns illegally. This is a good read on the topic in IL and Chicago. ICJIA | Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

Hey Ms Wendy. I'm not getting the intent of your comment. My comments point to the issue of confiscation. I'm no lawyer but don't think that's legal. That means buy back or something similar would be needed. If just the scary guns were included at 50 - 75% of their value (if that's legal) that's in the range of $6 -- $13 billion. If the handguns were included that adds another $3.5 - $6 billion. Total of $9.5 - $19 billion. 2023 fed spend was $6.2 trillion. In that sense it's only 0.3% or less of the annual spend. Regardless, crazy high numbers. Interestingly, current info points out that, "stressed out and disturbed" individuals are doing the mass shootings. The handgun stuff hasn't changed much over the years. Some is crime, most of it is between peeps that know or have familiarity with each other. Gang violence, drug crimes, neighbors shooting each other, etc. This doesn't begin to address the billions in annual commerce, lost manufacturing, employment, lost wages, etc. that's engaged in firearms. There's a firearm manufacturing plant in my area and I've been in the plant a few times. It's a n international multibillion $ business, 24/7 operation with a couple hundred employees. Primary production is military weapons but they also produce civilian products. Don't know the % of military vs civilian.

No doubt that the US is much laxer than many other countries. There are laws and restrictions. How well they are enforced is a good question. The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership. Estimates: 44% are handguns, 56% are long guns. Of the long guns, 63% are rifles and 37% are shotguns. Drilling down further on rifles, 40% are semi-auto with half of that, 23 million, being scary black guns. To make this issue even easier, what is a legal and effective method to remove those 23 million? Keep in mind that only 3%, 630, of gun murders are from that type gun. Even if the removal was successful and none of the criminals shifted to other firearms or knives, the effect on gun murders would be minimal. Not to say that those deaths don't matter but to say that solely focusing on that type gun is foolhardy. To make a meaningful impact, the 145 million handguns must be involved in any effort. They are used in 59%, 12, 400, of gun murders. Two concerning facts are: 1) 54% of gun deaths, 26,300, were suicide, and 2) in 36%, 7,500, of the murders are listed as gun type is unknown.

In 2013 SC closed Canadys, a coal plant, with 3 units that had a total of 470 MW output. During that period they also closed two coal units at McMeekin Station (converted them to gas) that had a 270 MW output. It was done to help manage the politics to push the AP1000 nuclear construction project that eventually failed. The Canadys site is now proposed for a 1,020 MW gas turbine. It will be interesting to see if it's built. The regulators have approved it but there's more approvals to go. They need a larger natural gas pipeline to serve it. The enviros are screaming about the ACE basin area and other things. The public is scared because of the failure of the nuke project and how those costs were and still are being collected. Fortunately this tech is well understood and much less risky to build than the AP1000. The site has all the required permits and the transmission system. The major hurdle is getting fuel.

If guns laws work then why were there over 3,000 gun deaths? Maybe criminals don't obey laws. Another silly reply. Should have included the word "effective" so that you could follow. The point is clear, "criminals with guns don't follow the law." Passing ineffective laws is done to make people think something was accomplished. Effective and enforceable laws are required. The comment about classified documents is selective. Did you mean a Senator that has no privilege with classified documents keeping them in a garage in a house where a known criminal has regular access with foreign nationals?

You conveniently left out a link and the context of the article. It's a good read. It says much more than what you are trying to portray, "That’s true at the state level and at the individual level. “Takers” include farmers receiving agricultural subsidies, so called “corporate welfare,” and individuals for a variety of reasons. The class warfare rhetoric of ‘givers vs. takers’ breaks down when you actually look at where money goes. Do they really want to demonize the retired WWII vet who receives VA health care in his waning years?", and, "But we have a debt to GDP ratio of 100%, created by both parties working together. We have problems moving forward in developing a sustainable budget. We have big issues concerning energy, global warming, security, and the environment. In that we’re not givers vs. takers, we’re Americans who get something from being part of this country and give something back with our work and actions." Givers vs. Takers | World in Motion (wordpress.com)

You'll be OK unless they're black. The ignorant peeps can't seem to understand that trying to control scary black guns will have almost no impact on gun deaths since rifles are used in less than 4% of gun deaths. In Europe, where Kallend is thrilled that firearms are controlled, the murders with knives and hammers is huge. It happens all the time. Crazy and stressed out people will find a way to kill. Yep, I get it, a nut with a knife can't kill as many as quickly as a nut with a gun. Knives or sharp objects - Rockford IL - 4 dead, 7 injured, NYC 4 dead 2 LEOs injured, and so on. London 67 knife attacks. UK, 12 months ending September 2023, 48,716 knife attacks. Knife Crime Statistics | The Ben Kinsella Trust