LongHaul

IMO Trevorum said it perfectly Lying is always wrong. Lying is defined as To present false information with the intention of deceiving. Wrong is defined as Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. So by definition Lying is always wrong. We lie to the Nazis, we spare our loved ones the harsh truths, we lie when telling the truth will do more damage than the lie but we can not loose sight of the fact that it is still a lie. When we strip away all the transient things in our lives, social or economic position, family, people die after all, houses, cars, even our names can be taken away. There was a joke in basic training that the DI could take away your birthday, which was about all you had left. When we strip all those things away we are left with those things which are truly our own, things which can never be taken away, not by force or through deception. There is a saying that You cant take it with you. well these things you can take with you. They are your faith and your honor and both were absolutely free of charge. One day you decide I will not do this thing because it is wrong, or, I will do this thing even though I really dont want to I will because I said that I would. You have claimed your honor. Some of us realized at some point that we believe, we truly believe and thus we claimed our faith. Both of these are akin to being pregnant, you are or you are not. You have faith or you dont, you are a person of honor or you are not, you cant switch back and forth for convenience. When we allow the line between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong to become blurred we start to loose our honor and for some of us whether we still have faith is a question. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it right, even if it is acceptable (slavery), it doesnt make it right. Just because some of us choose to not follow every policy National adopts does not make our choice right. BW might go as far as to say that signing the adult app and giving our word that we would follow the dictates of National and then ignoring them divests us of our honor. When we say On my Honor at the beginning of a meeting what does that mean if we cant actually be taken at our word? You can trust me..unless I decide to break my word? You can trust me to do the right thing, what constitutes right to me is how you assess my character and decide for yourself if I can be taken at my word or not. Does Ignoring Policy make it OK? Define OK. Are we breaking the rules? Yes Are we acting without Honor? Not usually. When we error in a BOR unless we are doing it deliberately to harm a scout or to show favoritism it isnt dishonorable. When we say National has said female youth under 14 are not allowed in BSA programs but I enrolled my daughter anyway even though I know it is wrong. Are we dishonorable? Maybe. When we say National has said females youth under 14 are not allowed but I disagree so Ill enroll any girl who comes to me because I think it is the right thing to do. We have crossed the line. Like them or not we have agreed to follow the R&R of the National Council and if we can not in good conscience do that we should decide. In or Out. LongHaul

AvidSM, What do you do with your PLs after they have fulfilled their POR req.? If they can't do the "scouty" stuff what use are they to their patrol? How do they carry out the plan of the new PL if they cant do the scouty stuff. How can they lead patrol members that can't do the "scouty" stuff? They can't teach(properly),can't do (effectively), how can they lead except where the patrol really doesn't need them. If the patrol can do it all with out the PL's hands on help then all the Pl is is a messenger. He can assign tasks to those who can do them, he can delegate authority to those who can execute it, he can until he has to do for himself then he comes up short. The basic skills acquired in reaching First Class are indispensable in leading your patrol when doing the "scouty" stuff. Teach the "scouty" stuff first and reserve the "Leadership" training for when the boy is ready to assume a leadership role. Program success, retention and developing good leaders are much more important than having a troop full of good cooks and map readers. Just what kind of program are you trying to succeed with if cooking and map reading aren't a big part of it? You think you can retain more boys because meetings run smooth and the PL knows how to relay information and delegate? What happens when you get to the scOUT parts? As to the changes in Woodbadge being because BSA saw the value of leadership to the unit, I'd have to ask "How long have you been involved in Scouting?" LongHaul

What gives me pause is that all the candidates are jurists! A very good friend of mine is a lawyer, when you ask him what some passage says he will often joke "What do you want it to say?" He says that his job is to make the law say what ever the client wants it to say. As we have seen in the discussion on the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has failed to interperate the law as written and then apply that finding. The court has gone into the diliberation with a decision already made and sought justification through their interpretation of the Constitution. What we need are honest candidates, I don't remember what those look like though. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

I've been trying to find a second reference to a BSA definition of Winter/Cold Weather camping. I know it's in the Okpik book #34040 but couldn't find another "quote" as back up. BSA defines Cold weather camping as "camping in weather where the average daily temperature is below 50 degrees Fahrenheit and conditions are cold, wet, or windy." It has nothing to do with Calendars or Latitudes.

The guideline (as opposed to a bold type rule) advising that Webelos should not camp at Camporees was not (according to the information I was able to find when the guideline was first changed) a safety issue, National didnt want Webelos competing with Boy Scouts at Camporee events. The guideline about age appropriate activities concerning Webelos not participating in Winter Camping is a safety concern. Call it a Klondike or a Troop event if its Winter Camping, National feels there could be a safety concern. It all comes down to insurance, will your accident /liability insurance cover claims involving a Webelos on a Winter Campout? AwHeck mentioned that his troop had a five hour course to prepare for Winter Camping. If a Boy Scout attended the five hour training but didnt attend any other camping events should he be allowed to camp in Jan/Feb at 10degrees? Experience, IMO, is the key to the decision. If a Webelos2 crossed over on Feb 1 and the Klondike was Feb 10 and the temp was forecast for 10 degrees would any of us allow that scout to attend? Webelos dont camp once a month from September to January as preparation. They have not tested their winter sleep systems. IMO the are not Prepared. Class room/ Troop meeting preparation is great but until you have tested your theories they are still theories. Winter Camping can be very unforgiving if you are not prepared, what works for one person may not work for another. Klondike/ Winter Campouts are not the place to start. LongHaul

Hunt, Look at Region 7 Voyageurs proposal, we started talking about a no adult trip from the camping thread, R7Vs plan allows adults but places all the responsibility on the youth in charge. I know this as white line camping you draw a white line down the center of the campsite and the adults are on one side and the boys on the other, no fraternizing across lines. The new req. could take it a step further and limit the adults (if they are even needed) to two and only allowed to intervene in emergency situations. Being and Eagle req. this would make it more common in troops and therefore more younger boys would be exposed to it so when their turn came they would have learned from experience. Do no work while in command this can really be a tough thing. How many troops have leaders that want to do rather than instruct or supervise? I had a practice for a while of making the adult helpers at our Pancake Breakfast wear white dress gloves with the instruction Dont get these dirty! Getting this started is the hard part. Once the younger boys have the example to learn from then the practice becomes just that a set practice. The parents that are so afraid of letting their child be unsupervised may be very surprised at just how well the youth do alone and how mature they become when they have to in order to accomplish a task they find important. As was suggested in the Camping thread I would advise doing this at a council camp where outside access could be controlled. Possibly, the troop in one site and the all youth patrol in another site, far enough away as to require the leader of that patrol to actually lead. LongHaul

Packsaddle, The licensing I was referring to was license to own not licenses to use in public. If you intend to hunt with this firearm then yes I would be in favor of mandatory safety class requirements. If the state didnt already require such testing the argument would be that the firearm was going to by used in a public place and there is a reasonable concern that without safety training the public could be at risk. This is not the same as ownership. I can own a motor vehicle without having a valid operators license, I cant get plates or city sticker without a valid operators license( for a private vehicle) but I can take title ownership of one. As a company I can own, plate and sticker a vehicle and not have a valid operators license. I can, in some states, even get insurance as a blanket policy. Where would one use a firearm they couldnt use in public legally? I used mine at a private gun range for relaxation. You pretty much have to relax and clear your mind if you are going to do more than bust caps and shred paper. When they were in my home where my sons lived they were in pieces and the pieces were scattered. The ammo was under double lock and key. My wife once laughed as I collected parts and assembled guns to go to the range that if I ever wanted to use one of them against an intruder Id be SOL. As a younger man I did hunt in Wisconsin to help put dear meat on my relatives table and never had to take a safety course to get an out of state license. That was 35+ years ago though, if things have changed and safety courses are now mandatory I approve. LongHaul

I really like the concept presented here. Region 7 Voyageur presents a very good approach. I would definately be onboard any effort to present this to National. My worry is that National will reword things like they did with Personal Management when many of us wanted Req. 2 reworded to stipulate that record keeping begin after the counselor had approved the budget. A change was indeed made now it clearly states "When complete, present the results to your Merit Badge Counselor." Not what was hoped for.

GernBlansten, I don't know if I read your last post correctly or not but if your intent is to obtain a tour permit for a Troop Campout and use it to cover a Patrol Campout I would advise against it. Make it clear on the tour permit that this is a patrol outing and no adult supervision will be accompanying. Your Council should not have a problem with this as it is a bonifide activity referenced in the Scoutmasters handbook,& GTSS. LongHaul

Hunt, Is there a state that right now requires safety training as a condition for gun ownership? Licensing yes but safety training? Why do we have to win an argument to keep what we have? Shouldnt the opposition have to win the argument to justify taking these freedoms away? Im not asking what can be done Im talking about what seems fair. As for the GPS in cell phones being an FCC thing and not a Patriot Act thing read the laws carefully and you will find that the FCC got its right to impose that restriction on the general public without review or further permission of Congress under the Patriot Act. The law that requires the boat slips to close came under the office of inland waterways or something but it was the result of the Patriot Act. The current inflated use (I was going to say misuse) of the National Security Letters is another by product of the Patriot Act. These are documents, written by an FBI supervisor stating that an investigation pertains to a matter of National Security. This gives them the right to subpoena information, which would normally require a warrant, without a warrant and with a broader scope( Ill get to this in a minute) and to top it all off they can order the person they are requesting this information from not to tell anyone about the request not even their own lawyer or local law enforcement. This last part was challenged and a court has ruled that the FBI can not stop people from seeking counsel when requested for information under the National Security Letter provisions of the Patriot act. That ruling is being appealed by the Justice Department. These letters are not overseen by anyone other than the FBI itself. Who thought that in America the Police could write themselves a letter giving them the power to seek any information they wanted from anyone that thought might have that information and then stop everyone from telling anybody about the fact that the request had been made. Before everyone jumps up and points out that this broadening of the powers of the FBI is the result of HR. 2417 the Intelligence Authorization Act remember its a broadening of rights granted them under the Patriot Act, which was passed virtually unchallenged in response to 9-11. As to the broader scope thing, If the FBI thought that this forum was being used by a terrorist in some way they could demand all information the forum creators have about anyone who has ever posted anything. They can then go to any financial institution and get all the records they have on anyone who has ever posted anything on this forum and keep there efforts secret. These records could however be shared with any law enforcement agency in the country, under the Patriot Act, and when used in court could not be challenged as having been obtained with out a warrant because of the for the National Security provision. When you try and define financial institution there are so many modifications to the original definition in US Code title 31 that for this discussion it covers any person or business that cashes checks, buys goods from the public, or sells goods on time payments made to that same business, along with credit card companies and everything you would normally think of as a financial institution. Its the got a toe in the door now were are moving in mentality that concerns me. The term Secret Police has always had a negative connotation in this country. We associate that with Stalin, Mao and the dictatorships around the world, not with America. Yet that is exactly what many are advocating be formed within the FBI as an anti terrorist, organized crime, counter intelligence gathering force. We can only hope the ruling against the gag restrictions holds up under review. How did that type of provision even make it through Congress? LongHaul

I too was born and raised in Chicago. We (the members of my neighborhood) used to hunt rabbit in the prairie during the winter with 22 cal rifles. We younger kids hunted in packs using golf clubs. You could order a gun through the mail from the back of the Boy Scout Handbook. Sex offenders and child molesters didnt fair to well in prison, I could walk to and from school with out worry, and if I did something wrong the nearest Mom that saw it would be free to whop you as she saw fit. You always hoped (had lots of experience with this) that she got it out of her system and didnt call your Mom cuz youd get it again. Moms didnt know from double jeopardy. Same neighborhood 12 years later gang fights were in your face and personal, nobody used guns or knives and all of us have the scars to show just how moronically stupid teen age kids can be at times. Same neighborhood 20 years later my parents and I are lying on the floor of our living room while two kids are shooting at each other from different sides of the street from behind parked cars. Four bullets where dug out of our wall and the kid that put them there got 2 years probation. Twenty years after that the Cops were being sued for discrimination, profiling, and whatnot for trying to do gun sweeps, crack down on gangs using the loitering clause, and stop the drug trafficking. So many youth were in gangs and carried weapons that if you arrested them all the schools would be half empty. How do you get elected to political office if you tell your constituents If I get elected I promise to put you or one of your family in jail You stand a far better chance by saying you'll fight for more gun control and banning of hand guns because everyone knows it wont effect them! I still say if you eliminate the statistics involving illegally obtained guns, guns used in the commission of a crime, or crimes involving possession of a firearm only(no other offense) there would not be enough left to generate the desire to impose more restrictions on legal gun ownership. The problem is the criminals the solution is in dealing with the criminals. LongHaul

John-in-KC, Thank you John, I did indeed want the long version. The concern I had with your original post was the line First, I never tell a Scout he's failed his BOR. . I wondered why you would, Ill say shield, a boy from this decision. I guess it was the word never that I focused on. Something I saw in your second post, While I believe in individual responsibility, the LEADER is responsible for all which happens or fails to happen. Took me back to my beginnings as a Scoutmaster. My philosophy was If it went right it is because the people I delegated tasks to did their job, if it went wrong its my fault. It took me a long time and my committee and assistant leaders a long time to break me of that. I had a real hard time separating responsibility and fault. Am I responsible to see that every boy is properly taught the skills he will need to advance? Yes! Is it my fault if he doesnt acquire those skills? No! Should I continue to try different approaches and methods to teach those skills until he does acquire them. ABSOLUTELY. Watching a patrol making macaroni and cheese from scratch using a home receipt which was very involved, and knowing that they had missed the part where it says Boil the macaroni, then letting them dump the uncooked macaroni into their prize winning cheese sauce may show questionable leadership. Though I will say I have never missed a cooking instruction after that. (I was helping with the sauce, the macaroni, biscuits and salad were somebody elses job!) Where as watching a boys teeth chatter or him limp because of blisters and NOT interceding is IMO grounds for being removed as a leader. LongHaul

Hunt, I think some of the misunderstandings we are having are my doing. One of the first things I was taught about discussions of this type is that one must first define terms. I failed to do that and now we are going around over what is a right and what is not. Especially in light of the fact that we are talking about Constitutional guarantees and liberties these terms need clarification. You are looking at rights as being things specifically granted by the written law. I am looking at rights as being those things the founding fathers said we were born with but that were not granted them under the law or by the King who ruled them. IMO and I know the courts see this different but Im trying to explain how I was using the term right(s), the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to bear arms and that right is being denied me by the State and the courts. I still have the right I just cant exercise it. The 2nd amendment clearly refers to free State which the well regulated militia was required to insure. Again semantics, unfortunately Jefferson, Madison and the boys couldnt foresee todays society or they might have worded things different. I may not do any better with this line of discussion but Ill try. I feel I should be able to have a reasonable expectation, looking at our government in the as it was designed light not the how it really is light, that the law makers will not infringe on my right(?) without just cause. That is to say if they are going to pass a law limiting or infringing on me they should be expected to show how that limitation or infringement will accomplish the end they are trying to achieve by enforcing it. Telling me I cant build a hog processing plant on my land but allowing my neighbor to continue operating his hog processing plant on his is wrong. Telling me I must submit to a test to own a firearm, or pay higher taxes on ammunition, or register my weapons, has no impact on gun violence or crime. We have a problem in this country. Too many criminals are not being made to take responsibility for their actions. Guns are being used to commit crime but its not politically desirable to propose tougher treatment of the actual offender so we will get tougher on the law abiding citizenry. Why? Because the law abiding citizenry by definition will comply and I can, as a politician say that I am doing something on crime/gun violence etc. Prairie Scouter, You said you grew up in the inner city of Chicago. What do you remember of the community reaction every time the Chicago Police, County Sheriffs, State Police, or whoever tried to do a gun sweep, a drug crack down, a gang curtailment loitering enforcement campaign? Was the community behind the police and law enforcement in trying to make things safer? How about when the little girl sitting on her porch got shot by the drive by, who did that community want to go after gang members, criminals that use guns, or gun owners? I know how I remember growing up in Chicago, how do you remember it? LongHaul

John-in-KC, Is it really that.Im stuck for the right word here, do I use bad, traumatic, unproductive, discouraging? Why are so many leaders troubled by telling a youth they failed at something? It happens in our school systems with the pass/fail concept. No grades making one student better than the next. I see it on Troop committees when they approve (A whole nuther problem) a PLCs proposed yearly calendar. We dont want they boys to get in over their heads and fail. Leaders will jump in and do it for them rather than sit back and watch a project just fall apart, then use it as a learning experience. Why use circuitous measures to avoid telling a boy he is not ready to advance? Building character includes preparing him for the real world , doesnt it? LongHaul

AggieScouter, This is how the age with relation to recruiting was explained to me. In order to be covered by insurance the youth must be able to join if they wanted to at the time of the activity in question. Specifically boys who have been graduated from Kindergarten but are not yet in first grade are not covered while being recruited for Tiger Scouts, because you must be in first grade to join. Boys who don't have the AOL, are not 11 years old or have not graduated 5th. grade are not covered while being recruited to join unless they are registered Cub Scouts in a Webelos den. Being registered covers them under the pack. The boys who are Boy Scouts would be covered but because firearms were a part of the activity insurance claims might be challenged, but a female less than 14 can not join if she wanted a therefore would not be covered. Also involved here is the liability coverage for adults which could become more important than the accident insurance if something goes wrong. You asked if this was proper not if it was covered by insurance. IMO If the boys are mature enough to function with the group and insurance is not the issue then where is the problem? If the young boys are making the program less fun or effective for the older ones and we are talking about canoeing which is OK, insurance wise if they are currently registered Boy Scouts, then its wrong to involve the little kids in a program set aside for older youth. Having relatives that own and operate a farm in Wisconsin, Ive seen children of alarmingly young ages using firearms. By 13 not a few were deer hunting, some alone. Farming does not generate a lot of cash and deer meat is an important staple in the freezer. Its the maturity level and what these youth bring or take away from the program that should be considered. Again this does not address the liability or accident insurance concern. LongHaul

Clarification Where it says "Take 'Squiggly Man's' right arm and put it over his left shoulder " it should say "Take 'Squiggly Man's' right arm and bring it under his chin and then over his left shoulder." Learned this from my son after he was on staff at our Summer camp. It's easy to remember and fun for the boys when you teach it. LongHaul

Eamonn, In tying the crown knot try this. Hold the unwrapped rope so that the center strand is to the back of the rope as you are looking at it. Take the center rope and fold it over toward you so that a loop about of an inch in diameter is created. Looking at the rope now you should see Squiggly Man. His arms are wavy because of the previous coil of the rope. Take Squiggly mans right arm and put it over his left shoulder. Now take his left arm and shove it right through his head and out the other side. Gently tighten the knot down tight. Color coding the three strands is a great idea because it makes it easier to see errors and correct them. Then its just practice. LongHaul

We have recently had this issue come up in Chicago Area Council where many of the CORs are trying to retake control from the current Executive Committee. National has told us that the CO appoints a COR and that person is the COR for all units that CO charters. Our CO charters five units so we were trying to get 5 votes at the confirmation meeting. I bet that your council wouldn't care or notice unless it came to conflict like we are having in CAC. If having a different COR for each unit makes things easier or provideds a better program for the youth do it that way and let your council tell you to change it. LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Rooster7, Clarify a few things for me. You say you dont consider insurgents as being innocent. Insurgent being anyone who is fighting against the government in their own country. Which would have made ALL the rebels we supported in Afghanistan when we trying to free them from the Russians, insurgents. Which would mean the Russians would have been perfectly justified, by your standards, to torture any and all of these people. I wonder if you would have been on the Russians side were we now discussing them torturing Afgan insurgents. The current Iraqi insurgents are fighting against a government not of their choosing but one we put in power after toppling the established government, also not of their choosing. Agree with us and what we are doing or its strike one, three and we torture you? The only way you can be considered innocent if you accept our military occupation. How is that what we are supposed to be about? You ended with this; My contempt is for a false, self-serving portrayal of our nation, which defames our history, our military, and our current and past presidents. This is what I find disgusting. This really baffles me because until this topic hit I always sided with most of your beliefs if not always with your approach. You seemed true to your convictions and consistent in your positions. If we were camped side by side at a Jamboree wed probably get along just fine as long as politics or religion never came up. You declare what your in contempt of as being false, yet offer (in your previous posts in this thread) only that they are false because you believe them to be. I didnt see any thing which portrayed our Nation, the American people and the concepts upon which this country stands and was founded, in a negative light. What I read were criticisms of governmental policy and positions. Our History is our History we as a Nation have done what we have done and allowed our elected leaders to do what they have done. Deformation implies untruth, historical reference is accurate or inaccurate, I cant figure out how one would defame our history. Again I see no instance where anyone has said even the slightest thing negative about our men and women in uniform. Unlike the Viet Nam era when returning vets were met with Baby Burner and physical assault in airports(red paint), todays vets are not blamed for what they have been assigned to do. In fact I think they are supported better by the general public than by the National Military which requires each state National Guard unit to supply and equip their respective units in the field. Those military personnel, some are so ready to commit torture on behalf of, cant get the equipment and supplies they need to do the job or protect themselves because Uncle Sam is saying Its not my job! If anyone is showing disregard and disrespect for those in uniform today its the President who sent them there without figuring out how to supply them and the Pentagon who should have more regard for combat personnel. You finish the sentence with and our current and past presidents. I seem to remember you being, well, less than supportive of Clinton. Isnt he a past President? Or doesnt he count? LongHaul

Hunt, I dont know what distinction your looking for, I was using autos as an example. Raising the minimum for liability insurance wouldnt have any effect on uninsured drivers. You want to raise the requirements for those who follow the law because of things those who break the law do. Yes this is about freedoms and rights. I am not trying to convince you to allow me to do anything I cant do today, its you (collectively not Hunt personally) that are trying to convince me that everyone would be better off if I agreed to give up a freedom I now have. I am now free to own a gun with out having to take a test and I have the right to retain that freedom. The gun control/gun ban group are trying to sway people into voting their way using convoluted arguments. As long as guns exist criminals will have them. I dont have to convince anyone to allow me to own a gun, what I have to do is keep the gun control/gun ban faction from scarring enough politicians into fearing re-election that they will take away my rights and freedoms in order to keep their jobs. Taking away my gun, taking away rights I currently enjoy, requiring actions on my part what ever they may be is not going to have any effect on gun related crime. As to your comment about my referring to some secret beginnings to take my rights away, just look very closely at the Patriots Act. I live by a waterway we used to be able to launch and dock boats as long as we could convince the slip owner to stay open. Now the slips must close at a specified time for National Security. Read the act closely and you tell me that it isnt intended to give the Federal Government more control over private citizens. I went to get a cell phone, which I already owned and had upgraded, reactivated because my son got pushed in a pool with his on his belt. I was told that the Federal Government now requires all cell phones to have GPS locating capabilities. My old one didnt so I couldnt get it re activated. The reasoning was so that they could find me incase I called 911 and could not talk. Guess where the provision can be found? Yeah the Patriot Act, what has this got to do with finding me if I call 911, nothing, its so they can locate my phone if they want to find me. The attitude seems to be that it is perfectly alright for those in power to do anything we as citizens cant stop them from doing. That is not the America I learned about in school, and not the ideals I teach my scouts. LongHaul

Prairie_Scouter My reasoning is this; The issue isnt gun safety it is gun control. The gun safety angle comes into play trying to establish gun control. To me gun control is all in the X ring, we are discussing rights restrictions not control. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to go free before we execute one innocent person carries through to all aspects of freedom. This is about governmental control and how said government implements that control. I have harmed no one, leave me alone. Seek restraints on the ones doing harm. If Tom Dick or Harry misuse a firearm bust them, leave me alone. Do I agree that before you buy a gun you should take a course in how to safely use, store, clean, and maintain that item, certainly, just dont make it mandatory. Again the issue isnt about making my family safer from me its about you making you and your family safer from somebody else entirely. If the debate was limited to only those cases of accidental discharge of a weapon, harm caused by discharge of a weapon in error (I thought my son was a burglar so I shot him), discharge of a weapon in anger (LongHaul is such a moron I had to shot him) I doubt there would be a debate at all. Its the little kid playing with her doll that gets hit because some gangbanger cant hit what they are aiming at, its that poor cashier thats working the extra job to put shoes on their kid that gets shot during the robbery, that are the issue and the people responsible for these acts are not going to be buying the gun from a licensed dealer and fulfilling the waiting period, and obtaining a gun owners ID first, or be required to pass a test. How would making me take a test solve the problem?You ask if it wouldn't be better to allow testing to appease the gun ban people. Am I willing to give up my freedom to appease someone who is so bias that they lump all gun owners, users, and criminals in one group? No, doesnt seem practical to me. I must resist any and all attacks on my freedoms from which ever front they come or however they are cloacked. We love scenarios so much how about this one. I doubt that anyone of us would disagree that consuming alcohol while pregnant posses a risk to the fetus. So in the interest of child safety lets make every female of child bearing age take a pregnancy test before they are allowed to purchase, be served, or consume any amount or type of alcohol. Any takers? I doubt it. Infringement of basic freedom. I see the gun issue in the same light. LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Praire_Scouter why are you so focused on curtailing my right or freedom with respect to fire arms instead of those that misuse them? Many states have a law requiring liability issuance for auto mobiles. Requiring those with insurance to have their policy number tattooed on their forehead will not solve the uninsured motorist problem. Making me pass a test to drive a car does not stop unlicensed drivers. It does not stop misuse of automobiles. Why would putting more restrictions on gun owners impact gun misuse? The problem does not lie with the gun or the gun owner it lies with the judicial system which will not protect society from those who break the law. Its easier to take away rights and freedoms from the law abiding than to control the criminals. The 2nd. Amendment does not prevent local governments from denying the right to bare arms, as I said I live in a no hand gun city. I wonder why it is that every time someone wants to put up a local Christmas display the separation of church and state clause is hauled out? If they can ignore the 2nd. Why not the 1st? LongHaul As to carrying on BSA outings, we are a private organization and can and do set rules. If you are a Venture Crew Leader in a right to carry state......

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. Benjamin Franklin Telling me that I must relinquish a freedom I now posses, whether I choose to avail myself of it or not, so that those who choose to misuse that freedom may be hindered is unacceptable. Enforce the laws already on the books. Make misuse of a firearm so unprofitable those that would do it wont, at least not twice. The city I live in has a ban on hand guns of all forms. So QED only criminals have guns here. We still have break-ins, we still have abductions, we still have car jackings. What we dont have is a level playing field between criminal and victim. With all the statistics being offered up in this debate how about someone finding out how many second time gun offenders there are. When our judicial system cracks down on the people using guns to perpetrate a crime, when they enforce the laws already in place, when using a firearm in the commission of a felony results in life in prison no parole, then come talk to me about giving up one of my rights. Until then Id back Bushs war before Bradys. LongHaul

I just finished posting a reply to another thread in which I said that I felt we shouldnt allow semantics, wording, or punctuation interfere with delivering the Scouting Program. Now Im about to get back into something Ive struggled with since I first became a Merit Badge Counselor in 1970. Can a boy begin working on a merit badge BOFORE he meets (talks to) an approved merit badge counselor for that badge? We all have our personal positions but what is the BW (no offense intended Bob) answer to this question? Ive called, written , emailed (first two back in the 70s the latter just recently) National for some black and white, down on paper so I can hand it to who ever it is Im dealing with this time, answer to this question. The official Requirements book #33215A, page 22, below the header, in italics to set it off, has the following; "On the following pages, in alphabetical order, are the requirements for all the current merit badge subjects". Further down the page in the section titled Call the Counselor it says( out of context) "The counselor may ask you to come see him so he can explain what he expects and start helping you meet the requirements. (Paragraph) When you know what is expected, start to learn and do the things required." Seems clear to me that this says the boy must contact a counselor before working on the badge. Now we get into the semantics, wording, punctuation, intent, letter of the law part. From everything Ive been able to pry out of National, the things written on page 22 with the exception of the italicized first paragraph are only suggestions and not intended as additional requirements to those listed On the following pages as it where. We cannot add to, take away from, nor change the requirements as written. No where under any merit badge heading does it say the boy has to contact a merit badge counselor before he starts work. Refusing work already done solely because the boy didnt speak to you first is improper. What Ive been told is that if the work presented would have been acceptable had the boy spoken with you first then not having spoken with you doesnt change the quality of that work it should still count. Of all the loop holes, and things left to interpretation this is the ONE thing I was National would once and for all state in clear bold face type so there could be no possible doubt or interpretation of Nationals position. LongHaul

Here I agree with FScouter. When a boy comes to me to have to me and asks to have his Tenderfoot req. 2 (...sleep in a tent you helped pitch) and says "I picked the site and pitched the tent myself so will you sign off Second Class req. 2b.?" (...select your patrol site and sleep in a tent that you pitched) I say NO. Some will say you can't use the same "action" to qualify for two separate requirements but say a boy come to you and says "I just earned Swimming Merit Badge, will you sign off my First Class swimming requirements?" Do we make him do them again? Do the five activities used for Second Class req. 2a. count for First Class req 3? I say yes and point to the Merit Badge requirements for upper ranks. The wording says earn X more merit badges(so that you now have A+X in all). If National didn't intend for the second class 5 to count in the First Class ten they would have worded it different. Though as FScouter points out National could clear it all up with a word or two and sometimes just punctuation. In my last post I was trying to fuel the discussion, personally I look at the merit badge already earned as a deliberate act on the boys part to acquire a skill or receive recognition for his efforts. The boy actively worked toward an advancement goal. If a boy brought in his class mate last year it wasn't with the intent of fulfilling rank advancement. His goal was to offer the boy the Scouting experience. Now he needs to offer that experience to another friend for the duel purpose of rank advancement. That all said how would we SMs feel if the requirement change was to First Class req 3 so now the boy needed 15 activities would activities attended before the implementation date not count? As FScouter pointed out our aim is to build character and encourage ethical and moral ideals, I feel we shouldn't allow semantics, wording, or punctuation to get in the way. We ask ourselves if the act being offered fulfills the intent of the requirement and act accordingly. LongHaul