packsaddle

HICO_Eagle, to be precise I quit the NRA in 1975 when they established the Institute for Legislative Action. I joined long before because I had been interested in making modified bolt actions and prior to that I had been unaware of any political action. Then later when, for the first time ever, they endorsed a candidate for President, that really iced it for me. NRA had moved away from technical aspects and the art and engineering, to the world of suits and politics. Basementdweller, did you expect them to give up anything? Really? Just be satisfied that if your unit and this unit ever happen to meet up out in the woods someplace, we'll probably just have a great time doing scouting stuff and none of this conversation will matter at all.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, I'm not going to mention anything about tangled placques...yet. But that exchange occurred back in fall 2011 when you wrote about the Tea Party: "It's very clear that both da Tea Party and da OWS people are frustrated, and for some good reasons, but neither has da education or training to actually understand what's goin' on and how things work. So they don't have any idea how to focus their frustration into productive action. Instead they latch onto favorite media soundbites or a single facet of da issue and become a tool for some of the very things they would oppose if they had a clue." And to the above comment I responded: "...your description of the TPers approach tends to support my contention that their plan (witness how unlikely the NEW debt commission is to decide anything whatsoever) IS not to have a plan..." Source: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=329023#id_329078 Not that it matters, really, in a couple of days.

Eagle732, if you will reread my post, you'll see that I wrote that the question is IN the thread title. Same comment to you. If you're so ready to push back on any new restrictions, why are you so complacent about the ones already in place? You just stated your belief that the effect is neutral either way. If so why do you run away from pushing back on those restrictions as well?

So why are you just chewing your cud in acceptance of the ban on fully automatic weapons? Why not rise up in outrage at the loss of freedom?

Thanks, that's the line I remember and ADCinNC looked it up. One more 'guideline' to ignore any ol' time we want to I guess.

Eagle732, no, the question is in the thread title. What is reasonable? If you maintain that INCREASED controls will not improve safety, then all I did was turn the question around. Do you think that DECREASED controls will improve safety? This is a reasonable question which addresses the thread topic in the other direction. Yes or no. So forget RPGs. You can run from that if you want. Answer the previous question substituting fully automatic weapons for RPGs. Would making them freely available to all law-abiding citizens increase our security and safety? Would it improve the security and safety of society if by some miracle, I could throw a switch and all those legal semi-auto rifles were replaced with fully automatic ones?

I moved this to the 'Program' thread because I was hoping the discussion would stay in that realm. I also do NOT, EVER, take firearms on unit outings. I NEVER take firearms backpacking, even when alone, and so far, even in the backcountry of Yellowstone or similar places. I fear people I meet who DO pack heat, when I'm camping, ESPECIALLY if with the unit.

Then let's apply a logic to RPGs that is often mentioned with regard to other weapons. Do you think that having a greater number of RPGs in the hands of the law-abiding public would make society safer?

Basementdweller, First I'd like to apologize. For a long time I had you placed in Baltimore for some reason, not Ohio. Alternatively, (and OGE will appreciate this) I was thinking Boise. In answer to your question, I really wish I could say that not only do I pack my heat on every backpack trip but I also make sure that the other leaders do too. A really wise person once said, and I made all my students write this down, "better safe than sorry". Sadly, in reality I can't make the above claim. I've never packed a firearm, EVER, on a scout outing. (for some reason I thought there was something in G2SS with regard to this, I must be wrong). On the AT, the trail ethic is one in which fellow backpackers are asked NOT to carry. I honor that ethic. I do understand that others dishonor it. To me the greatest threat on the trail is from a bee sting or a cut, maybe a fall or a burn. 'Be Prepared' has greater relevance to being able to respond with first aid than to an attack by a fellow hiker. I'm beginning to think my world is actually brighter than for some others of us. And that, my friend, is TRULY sad. Edit: referring to the next post...like I said, some dishonor it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, remember when you lamented the lack of a plan by the Tea Party and I said that the plan IS not to have a plan? Remember that? Is it starting to make sense yet?

So let's turn the question the other direction. Why not have fully automatic weapons just as available as the ones we have now? Let market forces determine availability. Why not have weapons even larger than 50 cal? Let the market determine what can or cannot be available to the public? If people can afford RPGs, why not allow them? My point is that these are things that are restricted now. And the absence of noise about it in these threads seems to indicate that all of you, even the gun enthusiasts, are OK with those restrictions. It seems inconsistent, though, the quiet acceptance of restrictions against vomiting out rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger compared to no restriction if one has to squeeze it each round. Why not allow fully automatic? Where's the outrage? Where's the fear of not being able to defend oneself and one's family without that capability?

"So what in the world is everyone afraid of????" Answer: the rest of us. And I'm criticized for my dark view of things? No apologies here. At least I'm honest enough to admit it.

"When fightin' fires, yeh pour water on da fire, not da lake." Dousing the fire is what I'm all about. How is it in your world, that the drunk driver is NOT the fire? If you think prosecuting a drunk driver who kills someone makes that drunk driver a victim, you need to think hard before you use the phrase 'rational thought'. The victims are being attacked by drunk drivers. And your response?....compassion towards drunk drivers.

Like I said, it's personal. "We do recognize alcoholism as a disease, eh? And alcohol is often enough a self-medication for depression. I'm not entirely convinced that da response to da byproduct of a disease should be criminal in every case." Then treat the disease. But if they get behind the wheel, prosecute them. Their choice. There's nothing about alcoholism that requires driving to qualify. I'm not after them in every case. Only those cases where they do harm to others. I don't understand why you want to treat the perp with compassion and haven't said a damn thing on behalf of the real victims. And yes, I would apply the same standard to anyone who knew they were unsafe to operate a vehicle and did it anyway. If a stroke takes a driver out, completely unexpectedly, that's one thing. But if someone knows they are at high risk of it, they shouldn't be pushing tons of metal at high velocity through society. If they hurt someone because they were that thoughtless about the welfare of others, you bet, I'm ready to reciprocate. Take them off the highway permanently. Put them in jail as the criminal they are. Take their wealth to attempt to compensate the victim's family. I will never serve on a jury because on the questionnaire I respond honestly: that I have a permanent prejudice against drunk drivers and a permanent contempt for attorneys who defend them. You've provided me with no reason to reconsider.

Oops, must have touched a nerve there...do I sense a tipsy furry fellow at the wheel sometime in the past? Yes, I have no tolerance for drunk driving. It's a personal thing. Getting behind the wheel drunk is no accident. The driver hasn't tripped on the sidewalk and accidentally imbibed excess alcohol. If he kills someone as a result, the dead person and their family will be little consoled by the 'intentions' of the driver. I am absolutely intolerant. The driver should do serious jail time at the least. With permanent termination of driving privileges once he's served the time. The victim's family should take his wealth as well as that of his family.

OGE, I'd say that a first offense causing a death while driving under the influence should be treated as a homicide, manslaughter at the very least. There should never be a second offense. EVER

I also was a member of the NRA. I quit because they became a political organization. I also own a small arsenal of a variety of gauges and calibers and styles and a few antiques. I also carry (but not on campus). My wife is OK with this, long story. A long time ago I was an avid hunter. I'd probably still be but I just don't have time. Plus I don't want to be associated with some of the idiots I see practicing the 'sport' these days (even worse than Dick Cheney). So I frequent the range. I do own semi-auto weapons of different kinds. For pistols, I prefer them to revolvers, mostly because I think they are better capable of the kinds of the things that people should never want to do but are the reason that I carry. But for long guns, I see no compelling need for any semi-automatic versions outside the military or law enforcement. When I'm at the range and I watch my mates vomiting out brass, I have to wonder what their goal is? They can barely hit the target, much less show accuracy. And they don't seem to care. What they seem to want to do is make a really loud noise as often as possible. This seems to apply to some motorcycle owners as well but that's another thread. I'd be happy with a really accurate bolt action and a clip that held no more than 5-10 rounds. I'd also be happy with a hefty tax, say 100%, on ammunition and firearms on ALL sales, including private. But that's just me and I recognize that I'm in a tiny minority on most things. The NRA is not going to change and they are going to continue to hold their position, at least for the foreseeable future. And more people will die. (I also completely agree with OGE with regard to driving under the influence) I AM a pretty good shot though. My wife is too.

Moosetracker, I do wish them well. Who is it with a loving heart that could NOT empathize and wish them well? Did I not use the pronoun 'we'? It didn't take Beavah long to pounce, eh? Quick on that ad hominem trigger, eh? In case anyone is concerned, I am not inclined to load up with my private arsenal and take as many of you with me as possible. Nor, I feel the need to add, have I ever harbored such thoughts, even back in the days of my Presbyterian (read: nihilistic) youth. I grieve the loss of these lives, same as anyone else with a heart. I grieve others too, who have not captured the news front. ...and for whom, NONE of you have offered a single word or 'wish' for their survivors to be 'well'. That's ok, though. In this nihilistic world, the survivors are as ignorant of our 'wishes' as you are of them. And the outcome, either way, is the same: illusions for us, painful anguish for them. Edit to add: Tampa Turtle, if you don't KNOW the depth of that hurt, you CAN'T imagine it. I hope you never know it. Be happy that you don't.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Because, Moosetracker, peace and comfort are things that are not going to come to those families for a very long time, if ever. Peace and comfort are the kinds of things the rest of us wish for them while we speak in platitudes and sing cumbayah and shrug at the hopelessness of ever doing anything to stop or prevent this kind of stuff because (I'll borrow from the Doxology now) it's God from whom all blessings flow. It MUST be his will. We will say these things to each other and nod in approval and then we will soon enough turn away from those grieving families, thankful that it wasn't US, and get on with our lives. And those grieving families will understand, profoundly, how alone they are and how empty and dark and indifferent life really is. And the rest of us can turn back to our illusions, stuff our faces while conspicuously consuming in a national ritual, and then fall into a mindless stupor while a television displays adult males grappling over a ball. Merry Christmas to all.

OGE, you're just a little scary at times. OK, the only question mark I see is "what if?" So what if? It's not my car, my bed, or my house. I can speculate about what I would do if I was in this situation but I really don't KNOW what I'd do until that became my reality. So short of that, I'd rely on you and the surgeon to make the best decision. How can I, a person who has less knowledge about this than either you or the surgeon, make a better decision than the two of you? Do you think I, a person with no responsibility whatsoever in this situation, should be able to force you to act one way or the other?

OGE, I'm glad you have the right to anguish over these hard questions, secure in the fact that you personally will never have to make the decision. I can pose a huge number of conundrums which will just add to your anguish, situations of intense moral indecision. You are unlikely to solve them. But you don't have to. In real life a woman does have the ability to make that decision regardless of what you and the state think. Her ability is merely limited by her economic and knowledge resources. If she has sufficient resources, in this society you have no control whatsoever over what she decides to do. That is the simple reality. If you do want to take that kind of control over her and the responsibility that ought to go with it, then the best way to do that is to limit her resources. Good luck with applying that level of poverty. Alternatively, why not give her the benefit of the wisdom and clarity of your thoughts and vision so that she will decide on her own (her 'choice') to take the action you think is best? If your reasoning is correct and if you can successfully convince others of it, there will be no need for legislation or government coercion one way or the other. If you try and fail, you just need to try harder. To me this is the one best way for the 'pro-life' approach to achieve the greatest success - to make people understand with such clarity that they 'choose' the correct decision on their own. This approach preserves everything you want AND everyone's individual freedom to make the choice in the first place. What is wrong with this?

OGE, you are relying on the concept of 'viability'. A fertilized egg, by itself, also will not become a human.

Basementdweller, as others have implied, we all lost some freedoms with passage of the Patriot Act, things like that. But long before that, I always wanted to just visit Cuba and see the sights...without having to justify it on some cockamamie deception to get past the State Department ban. Hopefully that is close to being over and I may yet live to freely travel to that country. Just saying. Also, there was a time when there was nothing whatsoever illegal about marijuana. But that's never been a big issue with me, just another example. Edit: I almost missed this. Perdidochas, security is and always has been..an illusion.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'll write it again since it seems I need to: Those gametes may be haploid but they are alive and, I would argue, just as human as their diploid product. Life does not BEGIN at conception. It is a continuum that began billions of years ago. Edit: Nike, societies have adopted all sorts of practices to try to control that. In our society, the woman usually has that control. Some of us would like government to limit her ability to exercise that control but that just makes it a question of money and resources. If she has sufficient quantities of both she will have complete control of her uterus regardless of what the state tries to force on her.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Wouldn't an atheist making a promise of duty to God be lying?" Peregrinator, are Buddhist scouts liars?