perdidochas

Our SM uses the POR for this purpose. If a Scout doesn't perform at his POR he isn't counted for that time.

Is Scouting having trouble everywhere? My sons' troop is looking better than ever before.

Try to find a local troop to volunteer with. My sons' troop has several leaders that aren't fathers.

As long as they allow local option, I'm fine with it. It won't change my troop.

That is why I think we need to have BSA concentrate on the outdoors. We have that down pretty well. No need to branch into high tech and STEM.

Very tyrannical proposal. 1. Unnecessary. Why not just confiscate the guns of anybody that is convicted of an offense that would take away their right to bear arms. What you are suggesting is that people prove their innocence every year at their own cost. 2. As above. 3. Basically you are banning guns in that case. Every family has somebody that is mentally ill if you go back far enough. 4. Silly, it won't do much to stop any crime. While the mentally ill who go on rampages are very visible, their true effect on gun violence statistics is almost nil. If you really want to reduce gun violence, let's lock up all violent criminals for life. 5. The first step to confiscation is registration. The only way to confiscate guns is to have a list of all the gun owners. Most mentally ill people are of no danger to anyone. Your proposals will drive mentally ill people to avoid psychiatric care if at all possible. If your proposal was modest, Jonathan Swift you are not.

Both. I would imagine that if you look at countries that have had civil wars and have had Scouts, that some Scouts end up on the side of the rebels, others remain on the side of the existing government.

WasE61, Most of the legal weapons available today are of "military grade." I own a Remington 870 pump shotgun. That same gun is used by the U.S. military (as well as millions of hunters). My father owns a 35 yr old revolver. A version of that gun (different finish) was used by the military. It is military grade. Nobody is suggesting that the current M4 be allowed for civilian use. "Military grade" is a silly term. General McChrystal is a disgraced general who has problems with shooting off his mouth. Not sure I'd take his words as meaning much.

Twocub, Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop suicides. It's virtually impossible to own a gun in Japan, and they have a suicide rate that is higher than our combined murder and suicide rate. I do agree that it is common sense to keep your guns and ammunition secured. That said, a gun owner shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes committed by another using his stolen guns. It's blaming the victim, which I believe we all should agree is wrong. Those biometric pistol safes you tout won't stop a determined person from stealing your gun. Yes, it will slow them down, but it won't stop it. A few blows with a sledge hammer will destroy them to the point of being able to get out the gun. The NRA once concerned itself primarily with gun safety and marksmanship. Most of it's money still goes towards those two goals. (admittedly, splitting hairs, but the NRA is a non-profit, and to keep it's tax free status, it has to be careful with politics. The NRA does have a separate PAC that does the lobbying, etc. The money of the NRA is separate from the money of the PAC). The NRA was forced into it's political advocacy by folks like Dianne Feinstein who publicly proclaimed in 1995 that she would ban all guns in the country if she could get the votes to do it in the Senate. Extremism by either side breeds extremism in the other side.

I think insurance companies are the reason for the pool fence requirements. They were also behind seat belt laws (they, and car manufacturers who wanted seat belt laws instead of being required to put in airbags). Semiautomatic rifle toting madmen are a minor part of the murder statistics in the U.S. The big problem is the illegal drug industry and their various distributors and customers who shoot each other up at a high rate. Most of these folks are already not allowed to own guns legally, and nothing will stop them from having guns. Gun control laws only stop law abiding citizens from owning guns.

Funny, the CDC did studies of the effectiveness of gun control during the GW Bush administration. They found no proof of effectiveness. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm Also, isn't that more of a Department of Justice job. Why should the CDC be involved in matters of violence and public policy? I thought they were supposed to be involved in disease control and prevention, not crime control and prevention.

So Beavah, You want to give private citizens the ability to do background checks on people at no cost/requiring no approval from the person? So when my son turns 18, you think it is a good idea that I be required to give him a background check before giving him the shotgun that my great grandfather gave to my grandfather who gave it to my father who gave it to me? It is already against the law to sell a gun to a felon. That is why I would never privately sell a gun to somebody that I don't know. Let's just hold people responsible for selling guns to criminals. The Korean shopkeepers of south Central LA were happy to have 30 rd clips in their AR-15s when facing down mobs intent on burning down their shops/houses.

Beavah, Based on discussions I've heard on different media outlets, the anti-gunners (and most journalists) are pretty ignorant and dumb about modern gun technology. I think the AWB ban of 1994 was written by somebody with little knowledge of guns who looked through a gun catalog (something like the Shooter's Bible), and passed by others with less knowledge about guns. The thing is, despite the horrific mass shootings that do happen using assault rifles, the murder rate by rifles (assault and otherwise) is lower than the murder rate by hammers. Silly to base our legislation on such rare incidents.

Beavah, The problem isn't with executive orders which are designed to enforce the laws and actions that Congress has approved. Those are necessary. The problem is with executive orders which explicitly deal with issues in a way counter to the way Congress has voted. The recent immigration executive orders are examples of that. The Congress rejected the DREAM act that the President brought forward. The President then went ahead and ordered very similar actions to those that Congress rejected.

WasE61, There aren't enough healthy American babies that are up for adoption. Most of the babies that would have been adopted at one time are now being aborted. That is why many resort to foreign adoptions.

Moose, Your fantasy idea that legitimate CCW permit holders shooting at criminals will get shot and/or charged by the police hasn't been found to be true. It just doesn't happen in real life. In the Clackamak (sp?) mall shooting, a CCW permit holder confronted the attempted mass shooter. That shooter then turned his gun on himself. Most CCW permit holders I know are cautious, serious people. They are not playing "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Native Americans." They are serious people that care a lot about their own personal safety. Beavah, In the 1990s, Germany (which had (and has) extremely restrictive gun control) had a per capita mass murder rate in schools that was higher than ours during that time. IMHO, there is no way to stop crazy shooters from obtaining guns and killing without being much more restrictive than what anybody (outside of Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer) would find reasonable.

Not sure where Beavah got his info about Texas Concealed Carry Permit holders, but the url below is to the official Texas Department of Public Safety statistics. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

Executive orders that avoid Congress are scary precedents (especially if they are laws that Congress purposefully chooses not to enact). I wish that when they had first been issued, some civil liberties minded group had objected. The point of the Constitution was to limit the powers of government. We have been slowly forgetting that for over 100 yrs now.

The roots of gun control are racist. They come from the Jim Crow south.

Sentinel, Exactly. My son has ADD, and is among the most adventurous eaters in the troop. Now, autistic spectrum kids do tend to be picky eaters. We have one that requires ketchup on everything.

There is no Diversity merit badge listed on Scouting.org, which is the official BSA website. There is a Peace Corps diversity meritbadge.

Also, just nitpicking, but this is hardly a free market solution if the government requires the insurance. That's still government regulation. Free market would be if we did it out of fear of lawsuits, not out of fear of government.

The only reason we need auto insurance legally is to drive on the public roads (yes, most lenders require it, but that's a different issue). To use that same analogy with guns, you would require insurance for carrying the gun in public or off of your own property. (Auto insurance (or driver's license or registration) is not required to drive on one's own property).

John, I think the point about the single shot .22 vs. other guns, is that basically, the single shot .22 rifle is about as lame a gun as a 13-17 yr old boy can imagine. I see both sides of the issue. I understand that if you can shoot a single shot .22 well, all other guns will be easy. On the other hand, back when I did shoot recreationally, I never used a single shot .22 when given a choice of any other gun to shoot.

Moose, It's history. Google Korean shopkeepers AR15. You will find several examples. The point is that you or I cannot anticipate all the reasons a 30-rd magazine might be useful. They have uses beyond shooting up schools.