Stosh

Regardless of the laws, criminals will find a source of large magazine automatic weaponry. It is imperative that our police have equal if not better firepower than the criminal. But when the police are not around is where criminals are most often found plying their trade. The police can't be everywhere all the time. Thus there are "blind-spots" in the scenario that the law-abiding people feel needs filling if nothing more than self defense. If that be true, shouldn't the citizens be given the same level of protection afforded the police for self-defense? Stosh

It's kind of hard to imagine the response time for the police is measured in minutes, the response time for a gun is measured in feet per second. Waiting for the police is not always a viable option. That argument along with many others is rather flimsy. Yes, I may only get one shot off before being killed, but that's one more than I would have had without a gun. That argument is the same one that says, why should I learn CPR, the person is already dead. Well if that person has a 1% chance of survival, it's worth the effort. Same for having a gun. I may have only 1% chance of survival, but it's better than nothing. If one is looking for the definitive argument to this issue, they're never going to find it. Stosh

Personally, I don't think this issue can be resolved with legitimate argument/debate. It is so totally subjective, that nothing can be concluded. Like EagleDad points out, people who once were totally against guns are now carrying. That doesn't make any sense. My Ex wouldn't let me keep my weapons anyplace under lock/key in my closet and that occurred only after lengthy arguments. Now she carries. It's a personal choice. I prefer to be prepared to a certain extent. I have toyed with the idea of conceal-carry, but I don't necessarily want the government to have my fingerprints, etc. If I need to carry a gun in my state it is okay to open carry without a permit. You have to pay $100, get a background check, give up fingerprints, and do training in order to wear a coat. Given the choice of a legal conceal carry person with their training, background checks, evidence comparison, etc. vs. some young punk with a stolen gun who's only interested in my money, I'm going to feel safer with the option #1. A lot of these points remain arguable in many respects, and until one finds themselves confronted by an armed individual, are rather moot. I can sit in the safety of my environment and feel quite secure, but given a confrontation, I really don't think any amount of persuasive argumentation is going to be of much value. Either I have a gun to defend myself or I don't. I really don't like the idea of someone else making that choice for me. Stosh

Ever wonder why when a construction contractor builds a house and the windows aren't square, the roof leaks, the plumbing drips, the lights don't come on, the doors don't shut and we blame the tools the workers used...??? As far as being armed? I have carried a knife just about every day of my life since I was 8 years old and know that if a police officer has his weapon holstered and secured, from 25-feet I can still get to him with that knife before he can draw and shoot. If the weapon is holstered and unsecured, from 20-feet I can still get to him before he can draw and fire. AND, if I am deranged enough, if the officer has the gun pointed at me, from 10-feet, I can still do damage with a knife. Why would I do such a thing? If a person is crazy enough, what difference does it make what the law says? I have conceal carried all of my life. One doesn't need a permit to carry a concealed knife. Have I "carried" on a scout outing? Yep, belt knife, belt axe, 6'X1" walking stick, jack knife, Am I a gun nut? By definition I probably am. The largest caliber rifle I own is .58 caliber, the largest caliber hand gun I own is .50 caliber, and the largest gauge shotgun I have is a double barreled 10-gauge. Have I ever been involved in questionable gun activity? Yep. On a family vacation to New Orleans, back in the 1960's with all the racial riots, my father told me (I was 15 years old at the time) that the loaded 12-gauge was in the house trailer under the mattress and if he couldn't get to it in time, I was supposed to do what I needed to do to protect the family if necessary. So when all is said and done, I have owned many guns and yet to this day, I have never owned a registered gun nor have I ever had to register one. And all my guns are 100% legal, even when I had 14 "military assault" rifles in my house. Not to worry, I sold all of them to minors. Isn't it exciting to not know the whole story???? And yet after 50 years I have never shot, nor intend to shoot anybody. So, does that mean I'm a danger to society? Some people think so, but that's a different story that doesn't involve guns. How does one write reasonable legislature when there are so many different "exceptions" that in the long run will never be covered in the first place. And then when was the law ever a major concern to a criminal? It's kinda like crossing the street. You might have the right-of-way as a pedestrian, but if the semi-truck isn't going to stop, what difference does the law make? If someone is shaking you down for your wallet at gun-point, does gun legislature ever cross your mind? Knee-jerk, Chicken Little, rants for gun-control laws are nothing more than political posturing giving people the false sense of security that something in the world of reality is really being done, when in fact it isn't. Stosh

If criminals can't control themselves in the use of guns/weapons, the citizenry should be able to defend themselves. If every mugger were to think twice about whether or not their victim can defend themselves there will be a lot less muggings. Police carry guns to primarily defend themselves, others are secondary. If I have a gun of my own, then I have skin in the game. We are a society that relies on gun laws to protect them, if those laws are not enforced, then there is no protection. What we end up with is a society of target rich victims. That scares me more than a criminal with a gun because it's just a matter of time before I become one of those targets.

One cannot make heads or tails out of the depth of God's will, but then one cannot make heads or tails out of the depths of Satan's will either. When all is said and done, I hope that my legacy will be one of building, helping, and constructing rather than destroying. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Humans were created with free will, i.e. the ability to freely love God. However, there's a dark side to that characteristic of humanity. We can all choose to abuse that character trait. When people blame God for human's bad behavior, they have made a grave mistake. John 3:16 - probably the most quoted piece of Scripture in the Christian Bible, is totally ignored at times like these. God's desire for humanity is to be saved, not destroyed. There are those in this world who seek peace, i.e. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God. But there are those who choose to go against the will of God and are often referred to as those who are anti-Christ. We have been falsely led to believe there is but one anti-Christ, but it is my contention that there is a whole world in league with the anti-Christ movement. It is God's will that the world will be healed, cured, blessed, peaceful, etc. Anyone who works against this Will is in league with the anti-Christ. Now I'm not a particularly preachy person, but when I see such destruction being promoted in this world, the LAST "person" I blame is God. It is the dark hearts of humans that cause the pain and grief we see in this world. The only mistake I see God as ever making is allowing his creatures the freedom to love and/or hate. But then the world would not be as blessed as it is today when we have people who choose to love instead of hate. Okay, I'll quit preaching now, it's kinda out of character for me. Stosh

Assisting is just that assisting. A Wolf DC could be helping the boy understand Boy Scouts long before he's eligible. He can also assist by having the Boy Scouts come to a den meeting and showing interest in the boys so that by the time they reach Webelos I they already have a strong connection with the older boys. Assisting could also be construed as having his troop assist with a cub event where Boy Scouts are asked to help out. Maybe camp near them, interact with them, invite them to the evening campfire and sit with them, etc. All this could be organized by the DC and fall under the umbrella of assisting. Simply showing up to help with the Tiger Cubs in full uniform would be an inspiration and subtly giving assistance to the young boys who aspire to be Boy Scouts some day. Stosh

How can they auction off a trailer that doesn't have a VIN number? How do they know it's the troop's trailer without a VIN number? If it doesn't have a VIN number, submit a claim for it being stolen and get a new one and let the city have it. Without a positive ID, i.e. VIN number, they can't come back on the troop for the money. Government bureaucracy at it's best! Stosh

I live in a "depressed" area of town. Property values are lower than other part of the city. The home right across the street from me is abandoned. Vandalism is all around with gang symbols, and windows broken, cars egged, and the list goes on. On the the other hand, no one has ever bothered me or my house. I don't accept the situation that I live in and I spend a lot of time sitting on my front step saying hi and being pleasant to the kids walking by. I pick up their garbage and have a bench for them to sit on in my front yard. I have never complained about them to anyone or said a negative word about them. I show respect and I get respect. What goes around comes around. Stosh

Pursuing happiness is a given right. Having it is not. Try reading what's written, not what one thinks is written. Stosh

Gotta love all these tug-of-WAR politics going on in our country. Where is the freedom on a place wracked by constant war/battles. Just a couple of thoughts: For those who are "Christian" - "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God." For those who like old music - "Listen people to a story, that was written long ago.... When they rolled the stone away, 'Peace on Earth' is all it said." "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?" How can we be viewed by others as people interested in Peace when we have so little to offer with our war-mongering ways? In war one is in bondage to winning. In peace, everyone has freedom. So they say, I've not seen much of it in my lifetime. Stosh Stosh

The PL running a single patrol troop is in fact running the troop. The PLC of a single patrol troop has but one member. Unless the boy wants to talk to himself, there's no need for a PLC. Quit trying to fit a small peg into a huge structure when there is no need to. Train the PL to take care of his boys in the patrol/troop. It's all the same thing. The SPL is to help the PL's do their job. If they do, they are in fact leading the troop, but only if there are multiple patrols. Professional teachers cannot handle much more than 20-25 students at one time and that is after having 4 years of high level training. Why anyone in their right mind would think that a single boy with minimal experience and training could handle a troop of that size simply amazes me. NOBODY should be responsible for more than 8 people at anyone time. BP felt that was a decent size for boys to learn the art of leadership. Any troop of 64 or less there's no problem. Once one goes beyond 64, then multiple ASPL's are necessary. If the troop has need for more than SPL with 8 ASPL's all taking care of 8 PL's, it's time to split up the troop. Until that time, one could have up to 512 boys in a troop and NO ONE would be responsible for more than 8 people. Keep it simple and easy enough for the boys to actually have a chance at success. Don't overwhelm a 14 year old SPL into thinking he's in charge of 30-40 people. That's why one has the patrol method, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. Stosh

A training session on servant leadership for the PL would be in order. Obviously leading for the sake of others is not on the horizon for this young lad. It would also apply to the older boys who haven't the time or desire to help out the younger lads as well. The "R" in POR is Responsibility. If these leaders are unable to respond to the needs of their followers, then they are UN-RESPONCE-ABLE and need to be replaced by those who are. Stosh

When one is seeking justification for any act they may wish to do, if they turn over enough rocks, they'll eventually find an answer to allow them to sleep at night. People do it all the time, and abortion is but a small sub-category of a larger issue of the value of life.

Science goes a long way to explain a lot of things. Yes the fetus of mammals at a very early age are all remarkably similar. So are 5' 6", blonde, blue-eyed, 120# women, unless one of them happens to be your daughter. Scientific empirical similarities carry a certain amount of weight, but so does subjective psychology (also scientific). It's what makes us human. I think the key to abortion is not really a scientific data debate, but more of a subjective debate of what one does with that data. Couple that with the propaganda that surrounds the whole issue and one ends up with nothing more than a can of worms. We are not judged as a society, only as individuals within that society. We all have a choice to make and for some they find it acceptable to promote their choice on others. And even with that all said, the jury's still out on what is really right/wrong, moral/immoral about the issue. I used to think it terrible that other societies throughout history found it quite easy to abandon newborns to die because of acceptable societal norms. They didn't have the luxury of knowing prior to birth the sex of the child. In certain societies of today the sex of the child is quite important on a number of different levels and abortion becomes a useful tool to make sure these societal issues are addressed. What's right/wrong there is quite different than what's right/wrong in other places of the world. After all, one sleeps better at night having satisfied one's own issues than those of someone else. That someone else might be me or it might be a fetus. In the long run, it's not my or the fetus' concern that matters for these people. Convincing them otherwise is a useless effort.

quazse, you can tick off the homosexuals, racial minorities, and "other" not-for-real Christians, but once you tick off the entire female segment of society, you'll be eating supper cold forever. There's no political future in discussing abortion in the same dialog as murder, war, capital punishment and self-defense. I'm no Hebrew scholar but I have been told that a literal translation of the commandment is "Thou shall not be a murderer." That kinda takes capital punishment, self-defense and war off the table. Abortion? Jury is still out on that one and I for one ain't gonna touch it even with a long stick. Stosh

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:8-10 Can't be any simpler than that. Kinda makes one wonder with all the "conflict" going on between those that think they are God's children. As for the Rapture/Armagedon stuff, it's all myth/heresy created by John Dauby back in the mid 1800's. No scriptural basis for it, just a lot of cut/paste quoting from various writers trying to prove a point. It did suck up a lot of cult followers as it does with any individual that thinks they know more than God. As far as pick/choosing random Bible verses to emphasize a point.... I like to do that too. "Judas hung himself" "Go, ye, therefore and do likewise..." "Whatever thou doest, doest quickly." (This message has been edited by jblake47)

For the three years I was SM, only the SM and one ASM went with the boys. If we needed extra drivers, they drove, dropped off and returned at the end of the event. Two adults were required, otherwise only registered Boy Scouts attended the activity. Worked out very well and never had any other problems associated with "family". There was never more than 2 adults present at any given time even when someone needed to tag-team a longer event, i.e. Summer camp: one adult could only stay half the week, tag-teamed off to another adult for the remainder of the week. Stosh

If 3 of 5 consistently show on a random differentiation, yes, you do have a attendance problem. One cannot build group cohesiveness when people arbitrarily come and go. This group dynamic is always a problem and it runs with different hats at different times. I.e., group building is harmed with the mixing of patrols at major activities. Group dynamics of team building/trust require everyone to be there and participate. Does everyone in the group have a responsibility. And NO I'm not talking about wearing POR patches on their shirt. Does everyone feel they have something to contribute to the group or are they just hanging out? If someone feels indispensable, they are less likely to randomly skip meetings. "If I'm not needed this week, why show up?" Is something expected from each person each week? If I'm expected to come ready to teach something to the group, I'm less likely to skip. Is my contribution worthwhile? I have to come up with a new game for everyone to play, should be fun and involve everyone. It's my turn to do flags. etc. All of which lets me know it's important for me to be there. Do I get along with everyone else in the group? Am I the new guy, and what do I have to offer and what do they expect of me? Who's really running the show? Do we do our own thing or are we doing things the adults want us to do? Nobody really wants to go to the camporee this month, but the SM said we had to. Nothing worse than a non-member dictating to the group. On the other hand, if Mr. SM is doing all the deciding, maybe he should be doing all the planning and maybe, just maybe we will show up to see how it works out for him. If I'm busy that weekend, no problem, we'll hear about it at the next meeting. The way adults arbitrarily mix and match, direct, etc. go a long way to deter group dynamics of a patrol. The boys know better what's going on than either the SM or the parents. Let them have at it. Watch, listen, monitor, and if asked offer a suggestion as to an opportunity they might want to consider. If all you are looking for is a team building gimmick/game, that's an over simplistic approach to a complex problem. Once the game's over, so is the need for a team. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Spend extra effort on making it nice for the boys when they do show up. If they have a productive good time, they will come back more often and might even invite their friends if it's a really good time. Once the boys figure out that not showing up is not a good idea, things will turn around. Jeff

When I had a troop and crew they weren't even in the same district. Stosh

I am not an Eagle scout, nor is my son. I made it to Second Class and my son made it to Star. My daughter (GSA - Silver) has more interest in the outdoors than my son. My wife was a (GSA - Daisy) and is even more involved in outdoor activities than I am.

BSA is a great political target for those wishing to promote an agenda. BSA = Anti-gay, but so are many Christian organizations. But to politically take them on will offend more people, so BSA is a better target. BSA = Anti-religious, again the Atheists are the only ones really jumping on this. BSA = Anti-female, but GSA is anti-male, but one doesn't want to upset the female segment of society. What has always amazed me is why there are so many people out there that are anti-scouting when they have no real interest in joining a group that doesn't meet their needs or interests. I don't want to be part of an all-female group, but I don't go out and say things against them. I don't want to be part of a gay group because my goals in life don't match up with theirs. Although atheists are defined in non-believers in God, they in fact believe there is no God which makes them believers in many respects. They really don't have any groups to join, so it becomes a moot point in the long run. When all is said and done, I respect and tolerate the beliefs and agendas of others. Their situation in life is of no concern of mine. I only ask that they allow me the same courtesy. In many respects, courtesy is not much of a dynamic in the American society of today. With all the zero-tolerance policies out there and the promotion of such for our children, I don't see it changing any time soon. Stosh

I'm not totally convinced that it is the perception of non-scouts who think scouting is uncool. Just watch the boys coming into the meetings, most put their uniform shirts on after they arrive and remove them before they leave. While they might think it's cool once they get there, they do not want to deal with the peer pressure that seems to be stacked against them in the "real world". One hears a lot of negative comments about scouting out in the world and yet there are an occasional positive comments here and there, but not enough to counter the negative ones. So, the boys invite their friend to come to a meeting to check things out and what do they find when they get there? Citizenship in the Nation? Not going to cut it with one's buddies. On the home front, there's a lot of resistance from parents. Most dads do not camp themselves and therefore do not encourage their sons to become involved in scouting, even if the boy wants to. So, one has their parents, their peers, and competition from other activities with far more exciting rewards, like sports, etc. and when it all adds up, it concludes that scouting is uncool. That's the society we are dealt with in today's world. How one recognizes that and adjusts determines whether or not a scout program is successful in that particular area of the world. Most scouts start out all fired up (Tigers) and by the time they reach the 2nd or 3rd year of Boy Scouting have a tough time hanging in there. Only a small fraction ever make it to Eagle and/or their 18th birthday. Even if they do, their scouting career is pretty much over. Why would they then subject their sons to such a process? In today's world it continually amazes me the number of Eagle scouts that are no longer involved in scouting on any level. Maybe scouting really is uncool. Stosh