HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Eleanors38 » Journal
Page: 1

Eleanors38

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Austin, TX
Home country: USA
Member since: Tue Sep 18, 2012, 03:36 PM
Number of posts: 18,318

About Me

I have been on DU since 2006 under \"SteveM\" and later \"SteveW.\" Due to an account mix-up and a computer crash, I have \"rejoined\" as Eleanors38, but my history at DU includes the names cited.

Journal Archives

The best choke for hunting both dove and duck is... improved cylinder.

Outdoor Life in its latest issue confirmed that fuller chokes do NOT result in longer shot streams (full chokes are about the same as IC in that regard) due to the drafting effect of the tighter patterns. ICs, on the other hand, result in the outer pellets of the wider patterns pealing back (and slowing), thus equaling the full chokes in long patterns, but without the effect of drafting. Some duck hunters have known this for years, and use less choking, esp. over decoys when birds are usually closer and moving slowly.

I also use IC when hunting dove. The result has been more downed (and found) birds than when using modified chokes. And virtually all my kills this season have been via pass-shooting, using 1 1/8 oz of #8s at 1,200 - 1,250 fps. That suggests another recommendation: 8s are better than larger shot, and the more of them the merrier!

Incidentally, the add-on Remington IC tube makes a nice even pattern, even for a bottom-of-the-boat Remington 870 Express.

In the fight over guns and their place in culture, have you seen any T.V. ads...

mentioning products, events, or PSAs dealing with firearms?

Locally, Bold T.V., a low-power terrestrial television outlet which airs old t.v. series, movie serials and feature-length movies (often in poor and blurry condition), I have seen ads for Henry rifles. Sometimes gun shows are advertised (frequently on some radio outlets). No issue-oriented ads or PSAs. What is your experience?

Edit: I live in the Austin area.

Should blacks and POC have the same right to keep and bear arms as white people?

tRump doesn't think so.

(Hosts: Please note I rarely post about guns in GD, trying to follow the hazy rules about such in this forum. But evidently, Don the Con has made it a real issue.)

As several posts on this subject have indicated, tRump has adopted Michael Bloomberg's NYC "Stop & Frisk" policy for use at the national level. Bloomberg, noted gun controller who funds several control efforts around the country, was widely criticized for this policy in NYC as it was widely seen as profiling and targeting blacks and POC, thereby restricting their constitutional rights. Indeed, tRump has specifically proposed stop-and-frisk as a means to disarm black people based on suspicion and "knowing" (somehow) that they are carrying a gun, normally allowed by the Second Amendment.

So, I put it to DU: Should blacks and POC enjoy the same Right to Keep Bear Arms as do white people? Or is stop and frisk a reasonable price to pay in order to disarm Some people, all for the greater good and in the interest of a gun-control agenda? I would remind everyone, tRump's policy proposal would be National, somehow covering all states according to his brief knowledge of federalism, and I would also remind folks that pro-RKBA DUers do Not support tRump. Speculate as you will on what the NRA thinks, but the question is to YOU.

Zika funding stalls due to RW riders. UBC fails due to gun-control riders...

The objective in both examples of the same tactic is to kill the "mother" legislation.

No one expects a mythical "clean bill." No one expects the "riders" to be adopted. A perusal of the histories of this tactic should confirm this. What remains? To kill the original bill is what is at stake..

Only the motivations differ.

The GOPers have a mechanistic ideology which is corrosive to any funding outside of military, incarceration, policing, and some road project bills. Zika only represents federal "over reach" in support of centralized welfare spending. So it's worth it to try to put the squeeze on the "wussy Democrat Party," even though the effectiveness of bullying the Party on that basis is less effective. But the GOP is nothing if it ain't ideologically mechanistic.

The gun-controllers, on the other hand, have a different motivation. They, too, know the GOP won't even bend on gun-control (or ANYTHING that fits its ideology). But again, the objective is to kill the "clean" legislation of UBCs. So many Democrats load up the legislation with the dead-fish-smellin' AWB and other appendages. So what is behind the tactic, here? For many Democrats, it is a signal that they want to continue full-bore with gun bans, keep it on the front burner, and cultivate a passion (for culture war) which cannot be found in the Party's other murky issues, and certainly cannot compete in the same league as the GOPer's relentless issue campaigns. By now, most here on this site -- and in the country at-large -- know gun control is a self-defeating issue. But much of the Party structure is still cemented to the issue, and much of MSM has picked at the scab so long, that both see compromise as nothing more than an effort to weaken resolve, and to diminish the future of gun control as An Issue. And the Party, for some forty years, now, has cultivated a non-ideological and technocratic stance that it is singularly to inexperienced to deal with this community of rather extreme prohibitionists.

Same tactic, same dug-in inflexibility, same result, different motivations.
Go to Page: 1