Stosh

I wonder what Abel would have done to Cain if he had a rock too? Things have kinda gone downhill from the beginning and I don't think God had a hand in it or intended it to be that way. People need to live with the consequences of their actions. And no one can accurately predict the actions of others, so one must be prepared for anything that comes our way. I'm quite sure Abel didn't anticipate Cain's actions or he would have at least tried to run away. Fight or flight are the only two options and outrunning a bullet doesn't seem like one of the better options even if that bullet comes from a single shot pistol that was common at the time of our Founding Fathers. Stosh

Nope, I didn't think the program was still in effect. Been out of Cubbing for many years, don't see them on current boy's belts. Maybe it is just because kids don't wear belts anymore. Stosh

So why don't they resurrect the old belt-loop program in Cub Scouts? Those were designed to be MB like and could be used to foster some program with little effort on the part of National to set them up. Stosh

Both were conceal-carry permit holders. Why the guy getting the crap beat out of him didn't shoot, shows even in a drunken stupor, some CCW holders can fall back on their training. On the other hand, the guy doing the pistol whipping, probably wasn't paying attention to relevant parts of the CCW lessons. Stosh

What's to say there can't be Venturing Scouts involved in exactly the same activities? Stosh

If people can't play together well, they need their toys taken away and put in time out. It was a good rule back in Kindergarten and still applies to everyday life. If these bozo's missed class that day, they deserve what they get out of the deal. It's time people take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences of their criminal activity. Stosh

According to 2nd Amend. all citizens have the right to bear arms. No it doesn't state what those arms can or cannot be. Everyone in our country has a right to defend themselves. Basically I don't care what weapon they possess as long as they don't use them to commit a crime. The problem I have is the infringement "laws" that restrict that right to law-abiding citizens and with a stroke of a pen turn them into criminals with no activity on their part. If I own a certain rifle legally today and I wake up tomorrow a criminal and I have done nothing but sleep in the mean time, it offends me my Constitutional rights are infringed upon by the whim of some warm-fuzzy seeking politician that doesn't understand and/or refuses to uphold the Constitution which they swore to uphold in the first place. Will crime go up because there are too many guns in the hands of real criminals? No one really knows. If all criminals knew that every law-abiding citizen has a-better-than-their's, self-defense weapon, maybe it would actually go down. Again, no one really knows. Again, my stance will always be, go after the criminal and leave the law-abiding citizen alone! So far all the "proposals" I have seen have been going after the law-abiding citizen and restricting their Constitutional rights and self preservation, while totally ignoring the criminal element and their destructive intents. Once a person commits a crime, I have no problem with taking away their right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and gun possession. That's the consequences of crime. But if the citizen has not committed any crime, leave them alone and protect their Constitutional rights in totality. Now, Basement, if you have proposals that go after criminals, I would love to hear them. Stosh

High Adventure is supposed to push the envelop. If I wanted an expensive Holiday Inn experience and got an expensive High Adventure instead, I would be disappointed. I expect to get a little inconvenienced, that's what High Adventure is all about. When I do a lake paddle with a kayak, I enjoy the experience for what it is. However, when I do a white-water paddle in a kayak I expect to get wet. It's inconvenient, uncomfortable, but pushing my limits is why I do it. If I drive 50 miles I expect a certain amount of safety and convenience. If I hike that 50 miles, I have different expectations. I've done Jambo, Philmont, summer camp to a camp 1,000 miles away, and BWCA just to mention a few of the more "expensive" trips, but I have also done a few bus tours to different parts of the country and my expectations have not been anywhere similar. Taking 50,000 people on a camp-out carries a certain amount of expectations, 20,000 reenactors at a national event carries a certain amount of expectations, and going with 10 boys to camporee carries a certain amount of expectations. Taking the wife for a weekend get away carries a certain amount of expectations. None are the same, no expectation can be switched out for another, and when I do, I will be sorely disappointed. High Adventure is not for everyone, and I don't expect everyone to feel the same way about it when they go. All of life is an adventure. Some of it costs more than than others. Wasting $7 for a crummy movie is not the same as wasting $700 on a High Adventure trip. These are important life lessons that everyone has to figure out for themselves. When people complain to me about a lousy experience at Jambo or Philmont, that's just fine. Now you know, don't make plans to ever go again. That's what experience is all about. That's what Scouting High Adventure is all about. Stosh

Who's going to pay for this? Too expensive to keep criminals off the street? Okay, I'll go along with that. But then arm every citizen to be able to do what the government can't do to protect them. It's cheaper to give a gun to every non-criminal than it is to lock up criminals. I'm thinking that the body-count will rise in this country dramatically, but with the law abiding people outnumbering the criminal element, the gene-pool will dry up rather quickly. Stosh

Loss of community. Divorce, decline in social/Church, generation gap, neighborhood decline, latch-key kids, etc. are all symptoms of the disconnect people are increasing experiencing over the past several years. It's only going to get worse with the electronic disconnect of iPhones, internet, etc. It's a lot easier to harm someone that is not "connected" to you in any ways. It's a lot easier to drop a bomb (or pull the trigger on a drone missile) from miles away than it is to strangle someone with their bare hands. Guns offer the maximum comfort distance and is still affordable/attainable for most people. So how does one survive in as an individual vs. community member? You're on your own and the world revolves around you and your survival. No one has your back. You naturally are more prone to violent actions because survival is closer to the surface. Used to be when bullies were in school, parents, teachers, etc. handled it. You were never alone. You dated, one-on-one, none of the group date thing or internet dating or power dating, or any of the other quick fix solutions to finding a mate to base a family on. Divorce? The rates speak for themselves. Family? Kids raised by daycare personnel/nannies. So where are the communities? Gangs, clubs, bars, places one hangs out generally without the others of significance in your life. Not many really offer a positive community setting. So, when you read the newspapers and the mass-murderer is identified as "a loner", "kept to himself", "quiet", "didn't have any friends", you will realize that there's a ton of these people out there. It's a lot easier to kill someone when they are socially/emotionally disconnected from oneself. Yes, the world was more violent "back then". But if one wished to do community violence it usually took a lot of effort to raise an army before moving on one's enemies. In an individualistic society, it only takes a gun. Stosh

"This is another huge cost, since most crimes are committed by young people, and we'd be incarcerating 'em for a very, very long time. It's also unclear whether young folks think about that, so how much of a real deterrent it would be is an open question. How are yeh goin' to pay for it?" So then what's the cost of a person's life when they are let back out on the street after a slap on the wrist, which is the cheapest solution? "Then there's the zero-tolerance thing. So your son takes an unloaded gun to school to threaten a school bully. Yeh want him to get 10 years for that? Or if WasE61 gets his way, yeh want him to get da hangman's noose?" I'm sure the school bully's life expectancy will be a little longer. And what about the poor picked on kid who's only recourse is self-defense? Any kid, no matter how picked on, feels it is necessary to solve his problems with a gun, probably needs a little time out to work out some other issues in his/her life. Does this mean that if really threatened by someone other than a bully someone shouldn't be able to use a gun? No, self-defense is not a criminal act. The point is, the target of the restrictions is the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. If one is not going to keep criminals off the street, then one must accept what those people will do and if they do it with a gun, it could mean some innocent person pays the price for society's lack of vigilance. It's always easier to go after the law abiding citizen with legislature to make people feel all warm and fuzzy. It is far more disturbing to have to deal with criminals with guns. Do you lock them up? Kill them? What???? Taking guns away or restricting Mr. Joe Average who hunts once or twice a year is not the solution. We have prisons today to keep certain people away from the society in which we live. They have proven they can't take care of themselves so the legal system has to take care of them on behalf of the society they are protecting. We don't have many islands like Australia where we can send them all away to, like they used to with the penal colonies. So what's the alternative? Let them roam the streets or lock them up. Not much of a choice. But locking them up seems to be the safer alternative. Stosh

"Paying for their own background and psych check is simply a tax on ownership. Just as other suggested." Or is it a tax on Constitutional rights? When they start taxing free speech, religion, etc. we will be in serious trouble. I don't think any stretch of the imagination on the part of our founding fathers envisioned taxing any of the Bill of Rights. "Far as registration goes....It is property, you register your dog, home, car, and even your person with the government." Dogs, home, car, income, etc. can be taxable, one doesn't need any of them and there's nothing in the Constitution that states you have a right to them. "Far as getting shot with 10 rounds verse 100......sitting here shaking my head, If the aurora, sandy hook, columbine or Virgina Tech would have been limited to 10 rounds before a longer reload process they would have been stopped much sooner. You have got to see that." Yep, and carrying a bag of 10-round handguns doesn't make it any less lethal either. "I am sorry if you miss your oppurtunity on a deer because you just needed that 11th round to finally kill it or it takes 2 minutes to reload for 5 seconds of shooting at paper targets." Once again, a Constitutional right should not be infringed upon when that's what the Constitution clearly states. "Yes we are cutting into your personal freedom and right to burn dollar bills at will....You need to see the bigger picture.......Whether we give up a the freedom to own a 200 round people killer or live in a Police state with a couple of LEOs on every corner and one in every school, we are still giving something up." Giving up rights shouldn't be something to give up to the State. "I will freely give up my guns to keep armed guards out of my kids schools and a LEO guarding my block. Just as Joebob's history lesson points out, The police can be more corrupt than the mob. I have experienced that locally with a detective on the local drug dealers pay role." And that merely suggests that a corrupt cop (criminal) has access to guns. Lets go after the criminal not the legal citizen. A lot of good points, but they all focus on restricting the legal citizen gun owner and does nothing about addressing the criminal who will be more inclined to use the guns for more than shooting deer or paper targets. Stosh

Why not go after the criminals instead? Why do innocent citizens (at their own expense) have to keep proving their innocence? Aren't these recommendations an infringement on the rights of the legal gun owner? Anyone who commits a crime with a gun has their sentence doubled with no hope of parole. Then we will keep the criminals off the street twice as long, they will think twice about using the gun and after they are put back on the street, if they commit another crime with a gun, the sentence is again doubled. The reason we have problems with guns is because we allow criminals on the streets with them. Law abiding citizens don't have a problem with guns on the street. The moment they attempt a crime, they are from then on, a criminal. A database of criminals which is kept by the federal agency will be easily accessed and any store owner, gun show seller or inquisitive individual, can quickly look at that database and if the name is not on there, sell them a gun. We have such databases for sex offenders, why not one for gun criminals? If your name is looked up and it's not there, no harm, no foul. Registration of guns? That's an infringement on my rights. And what does that tell anyone anyway? Now we know where the guns are and we still don't know where the criminals who use them are. Well, they register your car, why not then your gun too? Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right, big difference. No gun ownership for individuals with history of mental illness. Why punish legal citizens who just happen to have relatives with mental issues? And if a guy on meds misses a dosage and goes off the handle, even a knife or pipe bomb will do the trick. If I get shot with 100 rounds instead of 10, what difference does it make? I see too many people settling themselves into a false sense of security with all kinds of rules and regulations against lawful citizens when they aren't the problem and the security just isn't there in the long run because the criminals still have their guns and are most likely not registered (unless they were stolen). Stosh

I have heard from day one when Summit was designated as the Jambo site, it was going to be a fiasco. It hardly comes as a surprise. New venue and 3 years prep to do what AP Hill could pull off??? I don't think so. Pie in the sky is not the same thing as boots on the ground. For those going, it's going to be a real test of "Be Prepared" on the part of the participants. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

I wonder if there are any '56 Chevy's out there so the average person can finally make a good zip gun for a change. Criminals will always figure out a way, that's why they are criminals. Stosh

Hmmm, that kinda runs counter to Obama's claim that all children's lives are important. I'm sure that any protection is better than the Sandy Hook children who had no protection whatsoever. Stosh

Yeah, well that too. LOL! Stosh

One of the issues I have with any new regulations on gun ownership is that Hitler was the first government to have all guns registered in Germany. That way when it came time to confiscate them, they knew where they all were. I have a number of weapons in my possession. How many? Nobody knows but me. Where they all are? Nobody knows but me. Are any of them registered? Nope. Are any of them considered an assault weapon? Yep. Are any of them loaded at this time? Yep. Do I have a permit to conceal carry in any state? Nope. Do I ever open carry? Yep. Do I hunt regularly? Yep. Did I ever shoot something I didn't intend to eat? Yep (Shot a dog that was engaged in running down a deer, something our DNR encourages.) Am I a danger to society? Nope. Is society a danger to me? Maybe, I pray to God every day I never have to find out. Other interesting questions: Am I or have I ever been a member of the NRA? Nope. Have I ever been arrested for anything whatsoever? Nope. Have I even been called in by the authorities for questioning? Nope. Last "run in" with the Law? Speeding ticket (1982) Is there any reason in the world why I should be denied my Constitutional right or have it infringed upon? Nope. Should I have to pay the government to keep my guns? Nope, that's an infringement. Have I ever been subjected to a mental evaluation? Yep. (Part of a professional qualification determination.) I passed with no problems. Go after the bad guys with guns. I have 62 years of proof I'm not one of them. In this country, I shouldn't have to prove my innocence, but there are those that are working on changing that. With a stroke of a pen, I could immediately have my Constitutional rights stripped away and made a criminal. That scares me more than determining what an assault rifle is. Stosh

What did Gov. Christie say about all the children that wrote to the White House about the issue and then surrounded the president when he signed his useless executive directive? Both sides are equally reprehensible with their ploys that use children as political pawns. Stosh

I'm sure the boy will never know the Trustworthy, Loyalty and Honesty issues you demonstrated. Stosh

Police may be "civilians" by some definitions, but they are also highly trained and proficient professionals. With that being said, I don't want my brother-in-law taking out my appendix. There is a pretty big difference between him and a surgeon although they are also both civilians. As far as a government employees go, there are a lot of different definitions on paper that encompasses a government employee. Police and military are quite similar except the military is trained to purposefully kill and defend. Police are trained to defend and kill only if necessary. As a matter of fact the two are trained to a level where if something should go wrong, the military can invoke martial law and impose police actions and the police can be involved in a police state taking on a military role. Now we are getting picky with such definitions. How is a Navy firefighter on an aircraft carrier any different from a "civilian" firefighter down at the fire station? Fighting specialized fires in a floating city vs. house fire on land. The definition of professional indicates a higher level of expertise and training than the ordinary "citizen". Is a Citizen Soldier the same thing as a real Soldier? Don't cha just love these word games? Stosh

Doesn't sound like a problem unique to your situation. I'm thinking there are a lot of SM's out there that are trying to handle similar situations. Knowing all the history isn't as important as finding out the details of what went wrong so a good solution can be tried. My step son has a father that dumped on CS/BSA but the boy joined my Venturing Crew for a year and I tried hard to get him into Scouts. With dad's influence and I was only just dating his mother, it was difficult. However, he didn't join and in recent years came to me and told me he wished he would have listened to me instead of his dad. Can't win them all, but we all have to try. Good thread. Stosh

Good for you! But your job would have been a lot easier if the boy didn't get bored in CS and the uphill battle with Dad. Sounds like Mom is looking for a male role model and that implies there was a divorce in the situation. Yes, we must all struggle with the occasional returning boy, usually highly motivated, but that struggle would have been a lot less had the boy been motivated all along. Why was he bored? Anyone ever ask? Why was Dad anti-Scouting? Anyone ever ask? Etc. One can never solve a problem they don't know how to define. One cannot define a problem unless they have repeatedly asked the question why and collected up the information necessary to make those corrections. Stosh

Oh yeah, I stand corrected! ...that could be important! Stosh

According to the thread title: Getting Older Boys Back Into Scouting, it assumes the boy was once in Scouting. Yes, the thread has addressed new boys coming in at a later age with no Scouting background. But I would like to ask the question: Why did the boy leave in the first place? It is always harder to get a boy to return than it is to pick them up in the first place. What is happening in the program to cause high attrition rates? And even then, how many of them come back in only for the Eagle badge and/or college/employment application check box? It's almost like an unpleasant "task" one has to swallow in order to gain the life advancement potentials. One has to go after the cause, not the symptoms of a problem in order to correct it. Bandaids aren't going to work in this case. How many SM's, DL's, etc. out there actually do an exit interview on their drop out scouts? No data is being collected to determine what the cause of the problem really is. If that data is known and used to correct the problem, returning boys might be re-interested in Scouting, and those in the program might not leave in the first place. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)