Stosh

I have posted this before: In my former troop we had a boy who was large for his age. Because of this he couldn't do a pull up. We tried for quite some time until he was able to actuallyget a bend in his elbow, ever so slight. Well, it was improvement and he passed. He made Eagle without any other "problems". He went on to play defensive lineman for the University of Wisconsin, so it wasn't a total loss. I wonder if he ever did get his pull-up while in college....

Okay, boys, get out the compass and map, we're pretty much, well, ummm, LOST!

Jinks!

It refers to the right to peaceful assembly. I think this is being referred to in respect that if a group assembles the are not to be infringed upon by governmental or civil organizations to impose upon them and their assembly. While a lot use this to support assembly for protest purposes, it does not mean it is exclusively for this manner. It is easy to understand a group of religious people gathering and not being encroached on, but there are others out there that are entitled to peaceful assembly without others causing disruption being imposed on them. As long as the BSA assembles peacefully and causes no problems for others, they are given the right not to be disturbed by outside forces. Stosh

some boys are adults at 14, this does not come as any surprise, I have been exposed to many of them in the 40 years of working with youth. On the other hand, I have seen more and more 45 year olds who are still trying to figure it out. To me Scouting is that opportunity to learn what a lot of parents have given up their responsibilities as parents to day care personnel, school teachers, pastors, and others too numerous to mention. At least the BSA is still a independent bastion of solid character building training that has the potential of being a great help to these developing kids. I would rank a few other organizations like 4-H that mirror this effort as well. But we are few and far between for the large amount of absent parents out there. Such activity does in fact change the social make up of our country and I'm not seeing it moving in a positive direction. Scouting at least allows an opportunity for a few. Stosh

In past years there was a certain amount of social respect for others that one did not flaunt their dirty laundry in public. There was a certain amount of decorum that people followed so as to not offend others. However in this day and age, that Facebook posting telling me what you had for breakfast really didn't do much for me except wonder about what other things you were saying elsewhere. If one is to feel free to speak openly about themselves and others, what are they saying about you? When I receive a cell phone call, I leave the area and find privacy to carry on the conversation so it won't interrupt others. It's called being courteous. I don't tell people about my home life, I don't talk about others at work, I keep most of my thoughts to myself unless someone asks me directly about it with just cause. If I had a concern about someone I would ask, and if they didn't feel comfortable letting me know, I respect their "no comment". I'm just thinking that A Scout is Courteous has taken it's hits over the past 20 years and probably will continue to do so for a few more. Toleration is based heavily on respecting others, their beliefs, their choices, and their privacy. I give that courtesy and expect it in return from others. Stosh

While a lot is said about the Bill of Rights, one that often takes a beating is the one pointed out in this thread, "Freedom of Association." While I don't tout my horn as any goodie-two-shoes, I do believe it is my right to associate with people I like. I shouldn't be forced by government regulation to associate with those I don't. I don't hang out with druggies, alcoholics, criminals of any ilk, swingers, or others who don't have the same morals and standards I try to adhere to. While I afford others the respect to hang out with whom they wish, I would also like the right to do so myself. If BSA allows certain people in an association I am affiliated with. That's fine, but once those people's activities infringe on my personal beliefs, I have the choice to seek out other associations I feel more comfortable with. No problem, but don't criticize, judge or degrade my choices in life. I may end up a hermit because of those choices, but so be it, it's my choice. If people of different standards than mine are involved with a group I am associated with and they do not try and impose their standards on me, how am I to know? Keeping to oneself for the common goals of an organization is just fine. I don't impose on others and as long as they reciprocate in like kind, no problem, just don't insist their choices are what I must choose for myself. Toleration just doesn't work that way. I tolerate others, and if others wish to associate with me, they must tolerate me as well. If not, have a nice day, I'm going to seek other places where I feel more welcomed. Stosh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Centennial Unit patch optional in the first place? Sounds like an adult-led program with very little understanding of what the program is supposed to accomplish. Stosh

With Scouting a worldwide organization, I wonder what they do with their young men who reach adulthood at 13 or 14 years of age? I often think about the possibility of those men sitting around the fire after the hunt to provide for their families wondering why American men are so inept that they have to reside in their parent's homes until they reach 18 and for some 45. It's all a matter of perspective. And then we wonder who is the developed country, adults at 14 providing for their families or the highly techno dolt living in a basement room owned by their parents. Stosh

"For the dinosaurs and republicans maybe, for us no. Improvise, adapt, overcome." Us dinosaurs out in the electronic netherworld would like to know, which of the 12 Scout Laws is no longer relevant today as they were 100 years ago? I'm thinking there are too many out there today who are seriously trying to improvise, adapt, and overcome them on a daily basis. Stosh

ScoutDaddy, I hope that as your boy progresses, matures, etc. he develops an awareness of the importance of this "lesson". If he's PL, he'll work with his boys to make sure they are ready for their SMC's and BOR's. He'll check over their paperwork with them, make sure their uniform is spiffed up, and the boy doesn't have to go through what he has had to. Yes, it's difficult for your son today, but tomorrow, he'll be and even better scout than the adults he has to work with. But that's the key, even the inept adults he has to work with will give him insights into how to work better with others in the future. Suck it up, find the patch, and make sure he learns what he needs to do to help others in similar situations. I often see a lot of scouting "crap" become some rather valuable lessons for the boys down the road. A scout is friendly, helpful, kind, courteous, and as he learns the difficulties in maintaining these Laws, he will develop into a really neat kid! Stosh

And the really sad part of it is when someone drops out of active scouting in order to get more outdoors activities. Stosh

"- Being treated like an adult/SM in training.." Isn't this the way it's supposed to be? This should not come as a surprise to anyone. When trained, the older boys should be treated like adults. I'm thinking some boys are more scout savvy than many of the newbie SM's out there, at least from some of the other comments on the forum, that wouldn't be much of a stretch. This is not like someone flips a switch on someone's 18th birthday that makes them an adult. Stosh

Obviously I don't expect ever Eagle Scout to be the ultimate outdoorsman, but I expect a reasonable level of proficiency. I once was prepping breakfast and one of my Eagle Scouts were nearby. I asked him to start a fire so I could cook breakfast and the other kids could have some hot cocoa and after a half hour didn't even have it lit. When I asked him what was up with the process, he informed me he never had done this before. I had always assumed that a first class scout had all the training to at least take care of himself in the outdoors. I have had many occasions where I could not rely on that assumption. And in this day and age of personal responsibility, I often wonder about the excuse, "it's the programming that is bad!" bantered around. Since when is it solely the responsibility of the teacher to insure learning? A teacher teaches, the student has a responsibility to learn or at least press the issue with questions until they do. Sorry, when I get to the point where I rely more on the outdoor skills of my wife who has had no scout training over that of my FC+ scouts, there's something wrong. There's nothing wrong with the program, it's all in the book, but seldom in the heads of the scouts. Okay, the Grubmaster is making dinner. He has 3 12" dutch ovens sitting next to the already lit fire. He asks an Eagle Scout to prep the charcoal. Okay, 3 up-3 down. That's 24 briquettes for each dutch oven. Multiply that by 3 dutches, 72 briquettes, toss in 3 more for good measure and toss them in the fire to start. Do the math, none of that is in the book, but it's something that should have been learned by the time they get to Eagle. Otherwise, they are pretty much useless when it comes to camp life and working with making sure others are able to go out into the woods with him. Be Prepared - if you're not part of the solution to a problem, you are the problem. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

This thread was spun from another thread.. Jblake47 - "Right now we are so gun shy that we don't even dare "re-test" at the BOR's. Why not? Do the kids know this stuff or not? If not, why are they advancing? " Imagine a college student in his second semester of his senior year. Before he can graduate, he has to be retested on every course he took the previous seven semesters. Would you pass? Do the grades he made in each of those classes mean nothing? The school doesn't need to retest. His employer who hires him will retest him every day from that point on. If he can't perform as was expected from the graduation expectations, he will be fired. I don't have an Eagle pin to wear on my shirt, but I'll take on any Eagle scout, skill for skill and I'll at least hold my own, if not blow him out of the water. The Eagle pin is supposed to indicate a certain level of accomplishment. If reality doesn't match, people will soon find out and make appropriate judgments. Yet since 1911 the requirements for advancement have changed so much one would hardly recognize them, or even allow them in today's world. Stosh

Wouldn't it be a bummer if all scouts had to pass a written/skills test of the requirements in order to pass as they used to do? None of this once done, checked forever advancement. It will mean the boys actually had to learn the material regardless of how it was taught. The standardized test would require all the boys to know the minimums of the requirements and if someone wants to go beyond that, so what. Learning too much is not a bad thing. But for advancement, they need certain skills, that is a good thing too and then we wouldn't be having any Eagle Scouts who have never lit a fire in their life on the rosters. And so the argument pops up, what's going to happen if the SM teaches only to the test? Yeah? and what's wrong with that, isn't that the whole idea and skills acquisition and competence? And scoring the test? 100%! Isn't that the point of the REQUIREMENTS for advancement? Right now we are so gun shy that we don't even dare "re-test" at the BOR's. Why not? Do the kids know this stuff or not? If not, why are they advancing? I'm thinking that every Eagle Scout should have a complete weekend of testing on a number of different subjects, skills and accomplishments so that everyone knows the boy knows his stuff! He should be able to set up a camp site for himself and his patrol, build a fire, prepare a meal, clean up, design and build something with the help of his patrol, take a hike showing his map/compass skills, demonstrate swimming skills, etc. etc. Isn't Being Prepared a result of knowing your stuff? Stosh

No target in America? Who's the bad guy? Citizens with certain weapons, NRA, 2nd Amendment, etc. ???? Well, until criminals with guns gets on the list, I'm not backing the efforts. More police on the streets, better laws concerning incarceration, cleaning up the black market on guns, etc. are all better targets than Uncle Joe's Bushmaster he has for hunting or Auntie Anne's sawed off shotgun she has under the bed because a Glock is too complicated and her eye sight is not as good as it used to be. Every now and then we hear about some school getting shot up. It's a terrible tragedy and all efforts need to be made to deal with the actual issue. Round up criminals and put them away. But every day in most cities of our country, people's homes are being invaded as well. Some are looking to burglarize, some to rape, some for whatever reason you wish to think up. What about those people? The police can't be everywhere all of the time. Most crime is reported AS IT IS HAPPENING and by then it is too late for some. Not everyone believes fighting back is a valid option, unless it's rape, or kidnapping your child, or (fill in the blank). But those that do, should have the means to do so. Yes, the Constitution makes allowances for having our country as a whole to defend itself from the threats of other countries/enemies around the world. Well, it also makes it clear that in the Bill of Rights granted all citizens, the means to defend themselves as well. I don't think it is any wiser to disarm the citizenry as it would be to dissolve the military forces we have in place. And why isn't there any discussion, ideas, suggestions, etc. being made on these forums on the subject of getting guns out of the hands of criminals? Stosh

I have hot guns in my house as well. Yet I'm thinking what is even more scarier than a zombie attack from the NRA is when some governmental official sits me down as asks: "Are you or have you ever been a member of the NRA?" McCarthism all over again! If I give the truthful, "NO" answer I'm guaranteeing that the very next question will be: "Do you own or have you ever owned a firearm?" Now either I lie or hold my hands out for the cuffs. For a long time I felt reasonably safe in my home because of the protection I have prepared myself for, both mentally and physically. But I don't think the NRA scares me half as much as a government bent on disarming me, my neighbors and friends leaving the only guns on the street in the hands of criminals because it is easier to disarm law-abiding citizens than it is to disarm criminals. Again, any and all legislature that targets criminals, I'm 100% onboard with! Once that has been accomplished, the need for more than a hunting rifle in my home goes away. And surprisingly, none of this has to do with the NRA. Even as I write this post, Feinstein's proposal grandfathers in all guns as they stand right now. That's a lot of guns in criminal's hands. Stosh

It might be interesting to have a poll of those who have never had their home invaded and are pro-gun vs. those who have and are pro-gun people. I'm guessing there would be a significant difference in the numbers. As one who has had a bad experience as a kid, it ain't no fun realizing you are totally incapable of defending yourself, your family and your home. However, with that being said, I've done a lot to make sure it never happens again. And what even more astonishes me more is the number of people even this past week who have said that they now have weapons in their homes. My Ex-wife even told me she how has had the training and keeps a gun in the house. This from a woman 30 years ago would not allow any gun in the home under any circumstances. They had to be locked up and squirreled away in the garage. My niece announced yesterday she went to the firing range for handgun training for the first time in her life. With all the hype of having guns potentially taken away, why are so many people getting them? Gun dealers are having a hay-maker day! I'm thinking all this anti-gun political hype is making us a society of pro-gun citizens. Stosh

"The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining: The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.(New York Times, Nov. 9, 1938, 24) On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately." (Gerald Schawb, The Day the Holocaust Began (New York: Praeger, 1990), 22) My apologies Beavah, it was only targeted for a certain few.... Sometimes one does not automatically lose an argument with the Godwin Law if the point is the truth. So it begs the question, when push comes to shove, who's the target in America today? Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

During WWII the average infantryman with zip strips could re-load an M1 Gerrand in seconds. It had a fixed magazine, too. There's a video out there that shows a fella shooting 12 rounds of a revolver in less than 3 seconds. That includes one reload. Don't think for a moment magazine capacity limits will solve any problem for the criminals. Stosh

I'm not much into the Godwin's Rule in debates, but to a degree it's valid. To put it simply, an assault rifle is any weapon whose cosmetic make up gives the impression of great lethality. When in fact it doesn't. Flash suppressors, telescopic stock, pistol grips, magazine size, etc. etc. etc. have absolutely no relevance to the lethality of the weapon. A 9-mm bullet fired from a Glock, Colt, Uzi, Luger, or pick a model of your choice, makes no difference. A .45 fired from a Colt Model 1913, or Tommy Gun, when it hits a person is exactly the same. A 30-06 cartridge fired from a hunting rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), Thompson Contender or M1 Gerrand is exactly the same. The 7.62mmR X 54 round for the most prolific gun on the face of the earth (Mosin-Nagant) is still used in the modern Dragunov SVD Russian sniper rifles and has the exact same bullet size as the AK-47 (7.62mm X 36). There is no difference except the powder charge 54 grains of powder vs. 36 grains. So we're down to magazine and rate of fire. The longest sniper kill recorded is 1.5 miles by a British sniper who took out another sniper, his observer and disabled their weapon with three shots quickly fired with a semi-automatic weapon, a common configuration of a large amount of hunting rifles in America today. I'm thinking that training is far more lethal than magazine capacity. Neither of which makes a weapon an assault rifle. I'm thinking the term Assault Rifle is nothing more than a media Boogie Man term used to scare small children and an uneducated populace. It always makes me chuckle when I remember why American skipped over the Great Plains and settled in Washington and Oregon instead. The Great Plains were ruled by the American Indians, one of two world's best light cavalry in the world. The other were the Huns of the Asian Steppes (aka, plains). Their weapon of choice? Bow and arrows. How can they win against gunpowder? Simply put, they were accurate with their shots and could empty their quivers (magazine) of arrows while the settlers were reloading their single-shot 50 caliber rifles. I wonder if that time the US government shouldn't have banned bow and arrows as an assault weapon! I'm thinking they had as much difficulty back then with getting those weapons out of the hands of the Indians as modern politicians are about getting guns out of the hands of today's citizens. Stosh

"And please don't take this the wrong way, this is not some snooty Brit looking down his nose at America. This is just a Brit being confused. So three questions for you." Being of British ancestry and with relatives of British citizenry (British and Australian) and 50 years of studying American history, and trying to not be an arrogant Ugly American, I'll try and address your concerns. "Quite a few on here refer to the constitutional right to bare arms, alongside right to free speech, right to vote and also the fact that there is no constitutional right to a roof over your head." Yes, that is true, Manifest Destiny and the American Dream implies Americans are allowed to make whatever life they strive for. Everyone is supposed to be pulling their own weight in our society and be allowed to prosper from the toil of their own hands. "Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech?" The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution (Bill of Rights) are the irrevocable basic rights of every citizen. They as a whole are not to be infringed upon nor is one more or less important than any of the others. "Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question." There are those that feel the Bill of Rights are revokable, others feel they are not. Some assume that God given rights are not a votable issue. "Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?" When America was set up originally by our Founding Fathers (aka Damn Yankee Rebels in your parlance) they felt that the federal government was to never get into the hands of just a few, i.e. monarchy, dictatorship, etc.) The Constitution actually states more often than not what the minimal expectations are for the federal government and more importantly what it cannot/should not be doing. Each of the "united" States was far more autonomous than they are today. Originally not all 13 colonies were on the same page! States rights for the first 80 years ruled as supreme in America. When the US Civil War broke out there were only 14,000 US federal soldiers available to defend the country. After the Civil War, the power of the various states was broken and shifted to a strong federal government, something our Founding Fathers would have had a serious problem with. For 150 years the strength of the federal power has increased to the point where it has become bureaucratic and unwieldy. As you read in the news today, many of the States are once again flexing their muscles and wanting to go back to the original intent of the Constitution, something that is not going to happen overnight. Can the US as a democracy ever become tyrannical? Like the frog in cold water, put on the stove and heated up slowly, YES! In the 1930's it happened in Germany, and evidence of such governments, even democratic governments, is obviously on the horizon. While the rule by King George was intolerable to Americans in 1776, the tyranny of a strong federal government in American is always a threat today. Can the individual states, when they see this on the horizon rise up to defend themselves? Yes, and one can see that happening on an every increasing level today in America. It's an interesting quote, but to give you an idea of the attitude of people 150 years ago, when the United States government offered Robert E. Lee a commission in the Army at the dawn of the Civil War, he turned it down, NOT so he could align himself with the Confederate States of American (Which almost word for word had the same Constitution as the US) but so that he could return home and defend his homeland...Virginia! Robert E. Lee held a commission from the Confederate States of America, but in reality he fought solely as the overall commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia!!! U. S. Grant on the other hand was overall commanding general of all northern US forces regardless of what state they represented. That gives one the perspective of how important the state rule of the US Constitution really means to some American today. Texas and Arizona are fighting the federal government on immigration issues. Kansas threw down the gauntlet on the oil pipeline, Washington tossed their hat in the ring on the marijuana issue, and one is seeing a movement towards returning to the intent of the original Constitution because they are seeing an ever increasing tyranny of a power hungry Washington federal government. I hope this offers you clarification on maybe just one perspective of your concerns. Stosh

Along with my comments on loss of community I posted earlier, I'm going to add on the topic of increases in the deadliness and frequency of violence in society. Let's start with 1776 - 10 year period of warfare.... Not with massed armies, but neighbor against neighbor, Tory vs. Rebel. History books write about the battles, not the fighting and hundreds of refugees from America fleeing to Canada to seek protection from the rebels. (Sound like a familiar story today?) Jump to 1830/40's - Mexican authorities had a problem with too many guns on the streets. Texan "forces" from America were the majority of citizens in Texas and they were causing problems. (Illegal immigration on steroids!) Jump to 1860 - 4 year period of warfare.... Okay, they amassed armies, but in places like Kansas and Missouri, and other border states it was a far different story. I believe the first citizen soldiers of the war were shot by civilians in the public streets of Baltimore... It is interesting to note that when John Brown raided Harper's Ferry just prior to the war, he was trapped in the arsenal and his avenue of escape was cut off, not by federal forces, but by the citizen militia of Harper's Ferry before the Marines under Col. Lee even showed up. Oh, and of course there was Bloody Kansas. There's a neighborhood you wouldn't want to be in. Jump to the next generation of almost constant Indian warfare and expansion into the west. 1920's??? Oh, yeah, that era had a gun problem, too. The Thompson sub-machine gun was in the news all the time. Everyone knows about Tommy Guns. Clyde's (of Bonnie and Clyde fame) favorite gun was a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle, aka machine gun shooting 30-06 rounds) So when did we ever have a peaceful, non-violent society? Our media today hypes up the populace for it's political agendas. Sure we had a mass shooting in CT. But the largest loss of life in an attack on a school was back in the 1930's and the criminal used a bomb. For the most part everyone's history goes back to only as far as they can remember. Yet, I remember the race riots of 1960's. That was ugly. I remember also taking a trip to New Orleans for a vacation at that time and there were loaded guns in the house trailer we were pulling. That was the only time my dad left the house armed when we weren't going hunting. They were only hunting guns, but we both knew how to use them to defend the rest of the family. My dad didn't know or even care what the laws were concerning them, but he told me the license plate on the trailer stated "Motorhome", and he had a right to defend his home no matter where it was. Yes, one hears about gun violence every day in the news. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been happening all along. It just wasn't the 'crap du jour' in the media as it is right now. We are no more, no less violent today than we were yesterday and with all the thousands of laws trying to counter this tendency in the human race has been about as effective as putting lipstick on a pig. Our Founding Fathers were exactly right when they put the gun issue into our Bill of Rights. 237 years and maybe we haven't solved all the problems society has to offer, but it has at lease kept the playing field level. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Any law that criminalizes the law-abiding citizen while having no effect on criminals is not the type of law this country needs, especially in the area of Constitutional rights. Criminals don't care about what the laws say, that's why they are criminals. Law-abiding citizens, however, do take laws to heart. So it begs the question, who then is affected by restrictive legislature? Do these gun control bans really keep criminal activity at bay or just restrict law-abiding citizens from effectively defending themselves if necessary? There will always be a universal howl if restrictions were imposed on free speech, religious beliefs and voting. All of which are identified in the Bill of Rights. Well, so is the right to bear arms. Why would anyone think it acceptable to ignore the howl of that right being imposed on? Yes, I think that restricting voting in any sense of the word, is unacceptable. I think that restricting free speech or religious beliefs is unacceptable and I think restricting the right to bear arms, any arms of any sort, is unacceptable. I will stand against the people who propose such things, especially those who were sworn to uphold the Constitution as part of their responsibilities. Are these people who swore to uphold the Constitution liars? Ignorant of the Constitutional law? or just didn't mean it when they took the oath of office. In any case, we really don't need elected officials who fall into any of those categories. Sure politicians lie during their campaigns, but once they take the oath of office, I expect them to honor their oath. Stosh