Stosh

Rules of a gun fight: 1) If you are not shooting, you are reloading. 2) If you are not reloading, you are moving. 3) If you are not moving, you are dead. 4) Cheat to win if you have to. 5) There are no rules in a gun fight. You shot and killed an armed intruder with a sawed off shotgun/100-magazine assault rifle/Uzi (yes, they are capable of having a 100-round magazine)! So what, arrest me, you and the family are still alive and that's all that counts. Remember, if a criminal is breaking into your home, he/she probably hasn't followed the gun laws in America in the first place. Adjust accordingly. Stosh

Hmmm... Kinda makes one wonder. 1) How does it look? (like that makes any difference) 2) How many cartridges can it hold? (only takes one round to really hurt) 3) Does it have a folding or telescopic stock? (??? really?) 4) Pistol grip? bayonet lug? (??? com' on!) If it capable of automatic fire, it is not an assault rifle, it's a machine gun or machine pistol (Uzi). So, then when I look at my home "arsenal" I have no assault rifles. But I do have a gun that is: 1) a manual bolt action. (no semi-automatic setting). 2) magazine of 5 rounds. Zip strips (not a magazine) hold 5 rounds for reloading quickly. 3) "antique" it's been around for 130+ years. FTA says pre-1900 guns are not real firearms, but antiques. 4) is still in active use by some military/police in 3rd world countries. 5) is the same caliber as the AK-47 6) has more powder than the AK-47 cartridge. 7) the cartridge is only used today by Russian sniper firearms. 8) does not fit the definition of an assault rifle. I have two of them and they are the most prolific weapon in the world today. One can pick them up for about $100 at any gun show or used-gun shop. This gun does not fall under any of the current legislature, doesn't need to be registered, and as far as any new legislature, it still falls outside the scope of concern. Does that make anyone sleep easier tonight? Probably not. Stosh

For 50 years now I have been hearing the rhetoric that violence on TV, in the movies and now video games on how they contribute to the violence in our society. However, that is not true, it contributes to the insensitivity towards violence and it makes the ability to perform such horrendous acts like school shootings that much easier. The chickens have come home to roost. Just like the training of our military personnel. They take someone who who may naturally abhor violence and turn them into a killer. It's not that difficult to do. Yet, over the course of many years and a couple of generations we have accomplished the same thing to the general society in which we live. In the non-gun regulated society of the 1860's people were horrified at the body count of the Battle of Shiloh 20,000 men lost their lives in two days. The public was stunned, yet within a year 23,000 killed at Antietam in one day was more acceptable. And by the time the 3-day Battle of Gettysburg occurred, the public could handle 53,000 killed. In 3 days of Gettysburg more men were killed in all of Vietnam. This process ran its course in a mere 2-3 years. But the losses counted up and eventually, it was not really a big issue anymore. While the loss of 20 children shocked our country, the millions of lives lost through abortion doesn't even cause a blip on the radar as it did 30 years ago. Society changed and while some think it's a good thing, others do not and thus the debate goes on. When it comes to guns, the debate will go on until one side or the other wears the other side down and eventually all will become insensitive. What is abhorrently shocking today will be "normal" in a few short years. It's been happening slowly over the course of many years and will continue to do so until either our society implodes on itself or someone calls for some common sense (which isn't so common anymore). Stosh

Co-ed youth programs? I have worked with community based youth programs, church based youth programs, and BSA based youth programs (Venturing) for 40+ years and I have yet to have had a problem with the co-ed issue. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe the issue isn't as big a problem as people seem to think. Yes, there can be problems and I'm sure the media and grapevine has all those logged for the boogie-man discussions that follow. I have seen poorly supervised outings in the public school program that are far worse than anything on my watch. So is one only is dealing with the upper-crust of youth??? Nope, my experiences range from institutional juvenile delinquents to BSA/religious based youth programs. I guess I don't have a problem with the AHG/BSA cooperation, because Venturing is already in place paving the way for an extended program. As a father of 2 girls, I can attest that they care capable of handling the BSA program far better than most would give them credit for. Stosh

When I was doing my Wood Badge ticket, I went back into Cub Scouts, picked up WB den leader position and worked the boys through to Boy Scouts. I had so much fun doing it, I decided to do it again, but when I went back to the pack the second time, they didn't have any Webelos II boys. So I took the Webelos I boys for two years. Well, it was my policy to meet weekly with the boys and so we progressed quickly through all the achievement pins and by the time they got to Webelos II normal starting time, they all had Arrow of Light. Everyone was in a tizzy as to what the boys were going to be doing to stay in the program for another year. So, we did the pins all over again, but at a much more advanced level. As long as we weren't doing it for advancement, we didn't have to stick with doing just what the requirement said and got to do some stuff on a deeper, more fun level. For the communications pin, they made Meyer's flags and send messages and learned Morse Code "just for fun". They also got to make plans, menus, design outings, go camping, made walking sticks and wood-burned their names on them with a magnifying glass, etc. with no burden of having to meet requirements and basically just sat back and had a blast. Once the boys turned 10 1/2 years old they were allowed, if they wanted to, go into Boy Scouts. They were all having so much fun in Webelos they chose to stick with Cubbing until all the boys were 10 1/2 years old and then crossed over together. Of course the Derby and regattas were a strong draw to keep them in the Cub program for the duration. The second summer we were together, we put together a "camporee" for the Webelos boys that had all kinds of competitions they they were going to have for real some day in Boy Scouts. They learned knots, fire starting, first aid, etc. so that when they got to their first real camporee they were all ready fired up for the fun. Of course their menus for meals didn't have any "traditions" to contend with and so they ate like kings. Of course, the event was "high adventure" for the boys and they packed up everything into canoes and padded out to an island where they set up camp, dug latrines, and built a fire pit to start out. The paddle amounted to about 5 minutes on the water, but to them it was a trip of a lifetime. The scoutmaster of the troop they finally crossed over into was concerned that they would be bored with the T-FC advancement requirements the first year because they had already been doing most of those requirements already in Webelos. They sat down the first week they were in Boy Scouts and did all but the second half of physical fitness for Tenderfoot. A month later they had Tenderfoot and most of 2nd Class done. But they flew through T-FC in about 6 months, stayed interested in Boy Scouts and 5 of the 6 boys Eagled. The only one that didn't, moved from the area. He may have gotten his Eagle as well. Sometimes the assumptions of adults over compensate for the reality experienced by the boys. They had a great time. They met every week instead of the normal Cub den sporadic meetings, stayed interested and did well in Boy Scouts. Never underestimate the boys, and never impose a bunch of "rules" on them that take away the fun they are anticipating. Stosh

The state I live in was one of the last holdouts to conceal carry. The finally passed it. With that being said, the state has ALWAYS had an open carry law on the books. One does not need a permit to open carry. Anyone can carry. They just need the permit to hide the gun from view. Without a background check, without training, without any governmental restrictions whatsoever, I can get out of my car, strap on a holster over my coat and walk any public place that doesn't have a weapons ban. The laws for open carry vary from state to state, so one size doesn't fit all. When I was doing presentations for various groups, as an "officer" I always carried a pistol and sword. Made sure it was on the outside of my clothing before I left the parking lot for the building I was to speak at. A police officer friend of mine reminded me that when I take the rifle-musket, I needed to take it out of the case and carry it open as well. I have never needed to register my "arsenal" of guns, no one knows where they are, except my wife, and I can carry them in public whenever I wish. Nothing illegal about any of this in the state I reside.

Someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and I'm the criminal? Why is it I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning here? Always love it when someone makes the victim the bad guy. In the case of rape, for years we have emphasizing the person threatened is the victim. But in the case of guns, it's the other way around? Someone breaks into your house and threatens you with rape. Are you to fight back risking harm or even death? Or do you go along with the perpetrator hoping for the best. Prevalent opinion says one should fight back with whatever means possible. Now take the above example and replace the word rape with gun. Gotta stay the same both times or someone's going to be accusing someone of hypocrisy and for just reason.(This message has been edited by jblake47)

However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal???? Well, of course it would require a vote of both houses of Congress and then da swipe of the president's pen, but don't let me stop yeh from foamin' at the mouth a bit more. Of course that would assume that the president wouldn't just up and do an Executive decree which is being bantered around now, then the whole Constitutional process you are suggesting would be a moot point. Gotta keep up with the latest news. I don't have a problem with the Constitutional basis for our Rights. I just don't like unilateral declarations replacing our due processes. I'm not foamin' at the mouth, I'm speaking clearly the threat expressed at the present time.

I have always been led to believe that in America a person is innocent until proven guilty. I have weapons of all sorts in my house including guns. I have never used them or had to use them in a illegal manner. If I do and it is proven as such, then I'm a criminal and should pay the price. However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal???? I don't care if a person has a 100 round, fully automatic Uzi on their bed stand. If it stays there to be used in an emergency. I have no problem with that. If they take it out and rob a bank with it, then the crime is not a weapons possession, but a robbery and should be dealt with accordingly. If a mental patient blows up a school and/or shoots the place up, it's murder and it should be dealt with accordingly. To think that we judge people by the weapon they use has never made one bit of difference. If someone commits murder, whether they used a knife, gun, baseball bat, bomb, poison, their bare hands or whatever, it doesn't change the criminal act at all. This is nothing more than political hype to make people think that for some unknown and strange reason, the people they elected to do something are now (for a change) doing something about it. If people can't see this whole thing for what it really is, they deserve the politicians they elected.

I love the ad banner that is across the top of the page as I write. It says, "Tell Congress to support the 2nd Amendment" and has a button to push to sign a petition. What concerns me is: Why do we have to tell our elected representatives to do what they swore to uphold in the first place when they were sworn into office? Once the political spin drags everyone down into the minutia of rhetoric, they will soon loose the vision of the overall picture. Kinda reminds me of the frog in the pot on the stove story. Who determines whether a weapon is ugly? And what difference does it make? If someone is breaking into my home and threatening my family, I don't care a mouse's butt about whether my gun looks pretty, as long as it works and does the job. Maybe my assailant has a nickel-plated, pearl-handled Colt .45 and all I have is a Bushmaster, so what. Am I a bigot because of that? At that point, I really don't care.

Executive decrees are what dictators do. Bypassing the legislative process in a democracy is to bypass the people's representation. The number of such decrees is astounding with our current president. He has sworn to uphold the laws of this country, not make them up as he goes along. One does not need to read between the lines on this to know that if a certain person doesn't get his way, he'll merely do what he wants regardless of what the people's elected representation has to say about it. If one is reading this correctly, if the judicial branch is called into determine it's legality, and if it is inappropriate, the answer will still be, "too bad". The Constitution was designed to protect us from tyranny. Executive decrees are nothing more than laws based on no representation of the people. It's time the people put a stop to such abuse of power in Washington. We did it once before, I hope we never have to do it again!

The Executive Branch of our government is supposed to enforce the laws. The Legislative Branch is to make the laws, and the Judicial Branch is to evaluate their legality against the Constitution. (Government 101) When all three Branches get dissolved into one, it is a dictatorship. This is one very slippery slope! Our Founding Fathers had a clear vision of how a democracy is to work. Our politicians today haven't the foggiest idea what that was.

Third World dictators do this kind of stuff all the time. If this happened elsewhere in the world, the US would be crying foul big-time!

In all seriousness, if I could chose the gun most adept at what I need it for, i.e. home defense in close quarters, it would be a 5-round, semi-automatic 12-gauge, sawed off with pistol grip. If someone breaks into my home in the dark and I only have a few seconds to react, I want a gun that will do the most damage with the least amount of aiming. Other than the fact that it's ugly, illegal, and not an assault rifle, it's the perfect choice. After all, if one wants to keep the playing field level, find out what the bad guys are using and make sure you have one of them, too! Yes, that's profiling at it's finest!

As a hunter that has never fired more than once at a deer, I'll preface my comments by saying one well aimed round will do more good than 50 wild shots. I have hunted muzzle loaded single-shot for years. There were two basic ammunition issued by the US military in WWII. The standard infantry soldier was issued a M1 Garand that had a 5 shot clip. The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) also used the same ammunition (30-06), but with a 20 round clip offered a semi-automatic/automatic option. Officers were armed with .45 caliber semi-automatic hand gun (8 round magazine) and the 20, later 30, round magazine Thompson sub machine guns. Basically the only difference between the various guns is the magazine sizes. There are times in military strategy that the larger magazines make a difference. The rate of fire between the M1 and BAR is also important, but only 1 BAR per squad was available. The 45 cal. hand gun was pretty much self-defense for the officers and the Thompson sub-mg was offensive. As far as the popular 9mm weapons of today, the WWII German Luger and many of today's popular civilian/law enforcement handguns are 9mm. Of course the Israeli army issued a standard 9mm hand gun for personal protection that shoots the same ammunition with 20-100 round magazines known today as the Uzi hand machine gun. I have fired the Uzi at full-automatic, and I can assure you, that after the first or second round, all the rest are pretty much wild shots that aren't going to do anyone any good anyway. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with limiting magazine sizes but the type of gun should never be restricted. Unless one is interested in simply burning up powder and wasting lead, the small magazine weapons for personal self-defense are just fine. An Uzi with a 100 round magazine isn't going to fit in one's sock drawer very easily anyway. Dialogue on the merits of sensible needs should take precedence over wild rantings anyway.

The military version is called the M1 Gerrand. The sporterized deer hunting gun version is called the 30-06. Works the same, uses the same ammunition and the only real difference is that it doesn't look the same. All the .308 hunting rifles out there use the standard NATO round. Oh, and by the way, all those shotgun enthusiasts out there that are fond of the 12-gauge, it was the same ammunition used from WWII-Vietnam that was nicknamed the "Trench Gun". A mobster from the 1930's will tell you the same bullet that comes out of the Thompson sub-machine gun is also the same bullet that comes out of a Colt Model 1913, the standard side arm of the US military from WWI through Vietnam. (.45 Cal) A very "in demand" gun by the civilian public today. As is the 9mm which was the standard Luger handgun of the German military in WWII. The Mosin-Nagant Model-1893 was the standard rifle used by Russian forces from 1893 through Vietnam. When a scope was added, it was their standard sniper rifle. It fired a .762 X 54 round. It was replaced with the more modern .762 X 36 round and is fired by the AK-47. Is it any wonder why Russia has maintained a standard .762 round for almost 140 years? By the way Mosin-Nagant rifles are so prevelant in today's US society that one can pick them up for under $100 at any gun show. How a gun looks is totally irrelevant. They all use some pretty standard ammunition which is the real measurement of damage a weapon can inflict. Once society gets over it's knee-jerk reaction of how ugly a gun may look, it might want to sit down and start discussing the real issues.

It always amazes me that when the boys pick patrols they tend to pick by age and buddies. When adults pick the patrols they tend to mix and match. Both in many ways both work out. So why is it the adults are running the show under the disguise of boy leadership? If the boys age out and patrols die off, so what, make new ones. If the older boys don't have enough to make a patrol, so what, they are usually the mentoring SPL, ASPL, TG, QM and Instructors. Let them do their job. By the time they are 16-17, they already know, or should know the routine of leadership, let them pass it on to the younger boys by mentoring patrols. If they haven't the leadership skills by the time they are 16-17, then there's something wrong with the program. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

FScouter, you're a little late on that one, they are already suggesting that.... I think we need to ban all cars capable of doing over 55 mph. If one doesn't need a 100 round magazine on their gun, they surely don't need a car that does 120 mph. Just think of all the people that can be saved by getting speeding cars off the road. We also need to ban the amount of TV a kid can watch. Far too much violence on TV. Then we can work on the movies, too. Then we need to ban restaurants that serve too big of a portion. Outlaw doggie bags! No one needs super-sized fries with their meals. If we ban XXL sized clothing, then people, if they wish to go out in public, will need to conform to a smaller "magazine" of food on their plate. People really don't need more than their Saturday night bath either. People used to live to be a hundred and bathe only once a week, or less often if necessary. Just think of the great environmental impact that will make on our world. Ban or drastically reduce displays in all museums of any and all weapons. After all a quiver of Native American arrows should be limited to 5 arrows. They don't need more than that. I'm thinking the Geneva Convention should also be amended to ban more than 5 bombs on a terrorist's vest. After all we are talking about non-military, civilian people here. All homes need to be limited to 5 light bulbs. After all, they can be moved around as needed, they aren't bolted down. Even as I joke about such things, I am kinda concerned about all the personal liberties one is going to lose going down this slippery slope. Every ban and every zero-tolerance policy is designed to reduce the civil liberties of a free people. Stosh

Carrying a gun is not a statement on one's testosterone level, there are plenty of women who carry as well. Anyone wishing to make a statement on the possibility of a testosterone level in them? No? Didn't think so.... Stosh

Gun Control, what is reasonable? has made it's way after 5 pages to Zombie Apocalypse! And then people wonder if it is a good idea to put guns in the hands of just anyone. Dang am I going to sleep easy tonight. Stosh

"Yeh might want to carry for fun, for fashion, for a political statement, to attract women, whatever. That's perfectly rational, and I support your right to do so. Mine too! But when yeh start talkin' nuts about safety and protection, it's time for someone to take away da key" Since by law your weapon must be CONCEALED it therefor is not going to impress anyone or be a fashion statement. Carrying for the reasons you state is NOT rational. Of course this all depends on the particular state law. In my state a concealed weapon must have a permit. If it is NOT concealed it does not need a permit. A conceal carry person can have his coat open with the gun showing. No problem. The permit is required if one closes the coat and conceals the weapon. I have been told by local law enforcement this is how our state operates. If you are carrying a gun from your car to a building and it is concealed in a gun case it is technically illegal. That would apply the same for a handgun in a briefcase/backpack. However, take it out of the case and carry it or strap it to your hip over your coat and it's no problem. I have been told that in the winter when I do Civil War preso's, I am to wear my officer's pistol and sword on the outside of my great coat rather than under it. If I happen to have a long gun along, take it out of the case and carry it. I am considering conceal carry just so I don't have to worry about such things. It was the big hullabaloo around here that a person could without permit walk down the street with a gun strapped on his hip, but needed training to put it under his coat. So in my state, one could use the gun to make a fashion statement and pick up chicks. Kinda scary isn't it. Stosh

And what many people assume is written in the Constitution is that any public entity cannot have anything to do with a particular religion. People came to the New World to escape state religions of Europe. They wanted relgious freedom and so the Constitution reads the US government cannot establish a state religion. Doesn't say anything about States or any local governmental assemblies being able to do that. After all, many of the states were established on religious principles in the first place, i.e. Utah, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc. Having a group of kids in school sing a Christmas carol as part of their "holiday" concert doesn't establish any religion. What we have done with all the subsequent "interpretations" is turned our country from a institution that promotes tolerance of all religions into an institution that tolerates no religions. We have turned our country into one of those godless nations that we used to read about 50 years ago that were the scourge of the world. I guess I don't worry too much about it, after 2,000 years, the persecuted Christian church always thrives under oppression, it seems to have waned when that persecution went away. Stosh

I have been at events were people have wished me Happy Hanukkah and I didn't feel the least bit offended. I simply took into fact that these people were enjoying their traditions and it was kinda nice to be included in their well wishes. I'm thinking I might have been a little disappointed had I been left out. However, with that being said, I was raised to be polite, tolerant and take into considerations the feelings of others. Yes, I have been known to make mistakes and others have mistakes made towards me, but I just shrug it off and assume the person was trying to be nice. It all takes me back to my childhood when my father was a member of a men's chorus in the local church. The chorus was open to any man wishing to join and have fun. They had one member of the group that was Jewish and yet chose to sing in the chorus. He was really a neat guy. At Christmas time everyone got a canned ham for Christmas as a present from the church. It was really a lot of fun when they got around to this gentleman who graciously accepted his ham and wished everyone a Merry Christmas. My dad told me many years later that he, too, was very impressed with this man's kindness because he couldn't eat his Christmas ham, but he would always take the ham to some needy family in his neighborhood. I could assume that 1) this was a mean spirited man who was out to poison the first Christian he could find, or 2) he was one of the most impressive men I have ever met in my life. I have always opted for #2. Sometimes people rise above the pettiness of life to show what the world could be, rather than what it is. Stosh

I don't think the comments were faulty logic. I never been a professional EMS person, but I have been trained in EMT-A, carry current CPR certification as well as first aid, all our boys are first aid trained, I was a Emergency Rescue Technician, and even though I no longer am certified, I did know what to do for a gentleman having a seizure last Sunday night. If given the proper training, Mr. Joe Average can be a very capable asset in our society. I know how to use a fire extinguisher and have had to use it in an emergency situation. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a professional firefighter use a wall extinguisher...ever. So, according to your logic, with all the EMS, police and firefighters out there, all my "Be Prepared" skills are useless or not needed? Sorry, by there are gaping holes in such logic. If the public is properly trained, they can provide invaluable service during the response time in an emergency. First responders/civilian CPR until EMS shows up. Wall fire extinguishers until the fire department shows up. Conceal carry until the police show up. Nothing illogical about that. Stosh

What often amazes me is how anyone be offended by someone wishing them something good... I have often wondered if I should be saying, "Merry Christmas, but if that offends you, please disregard my well wishes for you." Stosh