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.

On 4/4/2024 at 10:58 AM, JoeWeber said:

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?

I mean clinging to it as a justification for what they consider to be an irreparable situation; for the creation of more guns for sale to anyone tall enough to put money on the counter or a pocket big enough to put it in; for the inability to deprive anyone of their made out of whole cloth constitutional right. I could go on for pages. 

 

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 desirable.

 

FIFY.  That is the point in a nutshell and that is why that dumb turd Kyle Rittenhouse was out at night playing vigilante.

 

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...." 

 

Middle of the road? Maybe on the road you live on but not on my road. All positions that include arguing nothing can be done owing to the immutability of the second  amendment, the cost of collection and smelting, the happiness of law abiding citizens, or the thrills of a local culture that deludes itself into believing that shooting wild pigs from a "rotary platform" with "scary black" semi-automatic guns as if they were "mercs" was a sport for citizens not a job for government. And let's not kid ourselves, were fully automatic scary black guns legal to buy and use for that or any other purpose more than a few of your friends would own them. 

 

I'd argue that my position is much more middle of most folks road. I own guns and did a lot of different sorts hunting over the years. I quit because slob hunters who couldn't shoot were wounding and killing animals they mis-identified, or were too lazy to find, not the guns. Now that I don't hunt I am giving my guns to responsible hunters not selling them to anyone. All will go except an HMR-17, a Beretta semi-auto 12 gauge my dad gave me (the only semi auto I've even owned for hunting)  and a Beretta 1301 tactical I have for home defense. I think at one time here, I offered some nice ones in trade for an AR-15  that I would turn in and got no takers.  So I do know my guns and calibers and the difference between semi and full auto. I am comfortable with regulation that might result in overreach, the absolute banning of concealed carry without hard to achieve reasons, and open carry. As I see zero need for hunting North American game with a semi-automatic rifle I see no need for that as a justification for owning AR-15 style weapons. To me those are middle of the road positions that aren't going to materially harm society or individuals.

 

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. 

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I don't know a single person who matches that description. And I bet you can not actually name one. The fact is "anti-gun nut" is simply the name calling you choose to use. But go ahead, name one. these people are not nuts. There is nothing nutty about wanting gun control.

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.

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course that would be a regulatory action unless you are imagining a one off state law. If you are thinking about something broader, what regulatory framework would be acceptable to achieve that much; that is to ask would it be state federal, or local for example. Then also, what additional gun and ammunition regulations would be acceptable as a part of that regulatory framework? 

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.

On 4/4/2024 at 8:54 AM, gowlerk said:

As long as the USA is filled with people like you who think that wanting gun control laws makes someone a nut the problem is only going to get worse. You seem to believe that not have a good working knowledge of weapons somehow means you should have no right to want them controlled. The fact is they are simply machines that spit bullets designed to kill things. Mostly to kill people. You don't need to know anything more than that to understand guns.

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.

On 4/4/2024 at 12:50 PM, normiss said:

I think personal transfers of weapons should take place at an FFL or the local Cop Shop.

Background checks on every weapon movement of ownership.

Well regulated should actually mean something, and be enforced.

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.

19 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I didn't say alter or dump it, that's not on offer. I suggested that folks like yourself need to stop clinging to it. Honestly, when you write "Scary Black" I consider you and others unserious. Bad enough that it has racist undertones, but it also denies a simple truth: some guns could be banned without overturning the 2nd but even that won't happen until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns in America and are personally willing to sacrifice military style weapons as a first measure. That includes giving yours up before it's a law.

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?

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Here, the answer is obvious: seriously enforce the ones we have and make more.

make registration laws with real teeth

convince people like you that there is a way that does not include throwing your hands in the air or clinging sadly to an old and moribund constitutional amendment. 

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

Just now, wmw999 said:

Sounds like the NRA's slippery slope has worked brilliantly

Wendy P.

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. 

On 4/1/2024 at 9:51 AM, gowlerk said:

You must be kidding. Or deluded. Or both. The USA is special in that it does not have gun laws. At least not in the context of the rest of the world. You don't have laws, you have guns instead.

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.

On 3/29/2024 at 4:51 PM, billvon said:

In the same way that closing coal plants represents people waking up to the fact that fossil fuels simply will not get the job done, I suppose.

However, the future will be a mix of power sources.  Hydro where it's possible.  Renewables for the bulk of our energy.  Nuclear for base load where possible and natural gas (eventually switching to biogas and syngas) for peaking.

The big problem with nuclear is that it is 3x the cost of other forms of power, and it takes ~20 years to plan, site and build a new plant.  That's a reason that repowering older power plants makes sense, because the cost is similar but the planning stage is greatly shortened.  The site is already approved, the infrastructure already exists and the studies have been completed.  I could see it taking 2-3 years instead of the usual 20 to get a repowered nuclear plant working.

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. 

On 3/29/2024 at 6:17 AM, kallend said:

Great argument.    Why have laws against rape when rapists ignore them?  Why have laws against fraud when con-men don't obey them?  Why have laws concerning taking classified documents when ex-presidents don't obey them?

 

We could eliminate all laws using that argument.

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?

On 3/28/2024 at 3:11 PM, kallend said:

When it comes to taking away resources from some and giving them to others, the map of giver vs taker states says it all.  The takers correlate pretty well with political leaning.

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)

2 minutes ago, johnhking1 said:

I better stock up on hammers and steak knives before a back ground check is required.

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

To the immigrant item. Yep, the overwhelming number are good people. The problem for me is the illegal ones that should have never been allowed in that do commit crimes. When Venezuela and other countries are emptying their jails and shipping them straight to the border, that's a problem. We're seeing plenty of it in the streets of NYC and other notable instances like Laken Riley. None of it should be occurring. 

Resources are being drained and shifted away from Americans. IMO Our Vets and homeless should come first. Not good. 

Liberal border policies, judges releasing criminals, sanctuary cities, none of it makes sense to me, the negative impacts are obvious. For many it's easy to ignore ... until it happens in their area or to someone they know. 

As for the comment about ignorant red states, I'll disagree. Yes, many folks are in lower income levels. Some of those people are the most honest people you'll find. Yes, there are plenty of gun deaths, gang violence, drugs and killings. I'll take conservative SC any day over liberal CA. If guns laws work then why were there over 3,000 gun deaths? Maybe criminals don't obey laws. 

Our electricity and fuels are half the cost. As are many other everyday expenses like housing, insurance, food and more. What's happening in San Fran is absurd. What we're seeing in SC is large numbers of folks moving here from blue states in the north and CA. They come here with cash money moving out of a 1,800 sq ft home taxed at thousands and buy a 4,000 sq ft home for less, and the taxes are one-fourth of what they were paying. 

When BLM tried to march, vandalize, burn and terrorize in Columbia and Charleston they got a taste of southern hospitality. In both areas they were gladly allowed to peacefully protest. When it shifted to bad behavior they were stopped. In Columbia (the police chief is a democrat) the violence was shut down, they were herded away from the retail areas with many arrests. In Charleston, the Democratic mayor told the cops to back off, the citizenry showed up in force. The good old boys pushed the trouble-makers out of the city. They stayed to guard the stores and helped board up those that were damaged. They sat in their big trucks with scary black rifles for days while the SWAT guys responded to any issues. The cops were glad to have them there. It never made the mainstream media, guess it didn't fit their narrative. The  incumbent Mayor was defeated in the next election.

We have plenty of immigrants in our area and don't have problems.  I have no clue of the percentage. On TV this morning a high school in Sumter with a Hispanic principal announced their first black female being admitted to West Point. The custom-built McMansion next to me was built by various Hispanic workers. The only whites on the job were the electricians and the cabinet makers. 

Yes, I'll take that any day.

Correctly, some pointed out that on a per capita basis CA is on the lower end of the scale for gun deaths. The gun deaths per 100,000 2021 numbers from one source show CA - 9, FL - 14, OR - 15, IL - 16, SC - 22, and Mississippi - 34. The raw numbers are: CA - 3,580, FL - 3,140, OR - 670, IL - 2,000, FL - 3,140, SC - 1,140, Miss - 980. No doubt the high raw numbers are bad but it's also clear that many other states have a much higher risk.  Gun Deaths by State 2024 (worldpopulationreview.com)

It's possibly accurate to say (speculation) that if one isn't involved in criminal activity and doesn't frequent areas with that type activity, the risk of harm is fairly low. After that the primary risks would be being a crime victim or a victim at a mass shooting.

It remains true that the majority of firearm homicides are with handguns (62%), rifles (3.5%) and unknown (32%). The amount of unknown data is concerning. Looking at data on all homicides it's found that 26% are with fists, knives and other weapons (poison, explosives, fire, hammers, etc.).

It would be interesting to compare the amount of restrictive laws in each state and the homicide rates. That might provide some insight into the effectiveness of the restrictions and which ones actually work. The data is available, with the known limitation that it's not consistently reported. Seems that someone working on a social PhD degree would explore this.

As reported by MSN yesterday - CA has some of the most stringent gun laws with waiting periods, registration, magazine limits, red flag laws, storage laws, a long-standing scary black gun ban, and universal background checks yet they had the highest number of active shooter incidents in 2021. 

Rather than do something effective the CA Democrats now want annual gun registration with a fee.

Maybe they should focus on the criminals rather than punishing the law-abiding citizens. None of what they've done solved anything unless one wants to argue that the killings would have been substantially more frequent and more deadly. If that was true they have bigger issues. Maybe sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, and state policies on crime and homelessness are part of the problem? 

On 3/23/2024 at 8:44 AM, JoeWeber said:

I didn't reference a source. But if you're in the mood for research I might recommend the  Yemen Times, the Houthi Herald, the Gaza Register Guard, or the Somali Sun-Sentinal.

It's comical that you and your tribe demand documented quotes but you have nothing. You made a statement. If I had done that you would repeatedly DEMAND proof, that's documented by your past behaviors. You said,  "I've also heard that folks in other third world countries feel safer with guns." If I said, "I heard", I'd blasted. You can't have it both ways.  Ever wonder why more peeps don't post? 

Then others feel emboldened to jump in and make more silly claims - it's basic gang mentality. 

Gowlerk says, "Yet he is careful to say that he is only watching to see if it is true. He wants it to be true but he doesn't claim here that it is. Instead he quotes someone else and disclaims that he believes. Why? I can only speculate that he knows deep down that it is nonsense."  Apparently he's a mind reader and a psychologist. It would be an amazing skill if it actually worked.

Finally Phil1111, "I guess if you want to wear the MAGA hat and stand next to DeSantis b.s. from an imaginary lawyer will work." Just more incorrect presumptions. I did check it's a real law firm. Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer | Broward County Criminal Defense Attorney | Richard Ansara (ansaralaw.com)
 

Apparently discussion on this topic just isn't possible. Too much emotion and plenty of conflicting information. It's been fruitlessly tried before.

What I said is exactly what I meant, nothing more or less, "I'll be watching in SC and will have a front row seat to monitor the results."   I'll also add that I don't agree with the SC open carry law.

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Great news. "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." 

Thanks for that deluded insight, Bill. I've also heard that folks in other third world countries feel safer with guns.

It wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from the FL law firm that you retracted from my post.
My post was clear.  
Since you require citations I gave one. What is the source to substantiate your post?
 

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).
 

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.

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.

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.

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Bill, are you  a practicing Christian? 

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?