Beavah

Sorry, pchadbo, but that's training, eh? Not active duty. Yeh have to view da ruling in context with other rulings and laws. Da National Guard is what it has always been, the reserve forces for national defense headquartered in the states, and da front-line forces under the command of the state governor for local defense. Yah, I think we almost all agree that we should say "no" to feel-good measures like da assault weapons ban or armed guards in schools. They're a waste of everyone's time and money. Both of those proposals by President Obama should be declined. Universal background checks and vigorous enforcement against straw sales/trafficking seem to have pretty broad support (except for vol_scouter ). Problem is that's not enough to solve da problem, any more than BSA background checks solve da problem of child molesters. So what should be the components of our Gun Protection rules, and our Guide to Safe Gun Ownership? Da things like Youth Protection and G2SS that we put in place in addition to background checks? Basementdweller, Twocubdad and others are just takin' their shot at "working together to find an intelligent, well reasoned plan". For that matter, so is President Obama, who today chastised some of da liberals:Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time. Not the girls, but oftentime guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. [The experience with guns in rural America differs dramatically from that in urban America]. If you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became a part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that. So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes. -President Obama. B

Yah, RichardB, I get where you're comin' from. Folks 'round these forums yell at me too when I suggest that da primary mission of da National organization is to develop and publish program materials. Some seem particularly fond of McDonald's hamburgers (a truly awful culinary experience, IMHO). I'd say 90% of that is da fault of yellow-tab and grey-tab volunteers. Da pros get blamed for it, and merit some blame, but there is a truly odd thing that happens in da volunteer ranks because of da structure of da BSA. Yeh see, the best youth workers want to spend time with da youth. Our strongest folks are the long-term unit leaders of successful programs. Our weakest folks are typically da ones who move up into district and council positions. Plus, we both know that at da Council Exec board level, we're mostly driven by "at-large" members brought in for their community and financial contacts, not their knowledge of youth program. Those are da folks who typically are sent off to the national meeting and such. It gets pretty remote from da fellow in da field, eh? What's worse is that those mediocre district and council volunteers (and the execs, for that matter), don't have a service mentality, eh? Far too often we have a "we're in charge" mentality and approach. G2SS is written half in that way; da Advancement materials are written half in that way, and the mediocre folks bluster and sometimes just make stuff up to tell the units what they should be doin'. What's the way forward? It's easy. In da modern world, there's no reason to have layers and layers of middle management in a volunteer association. That stuff's got to go. Second, if you want to convey da message that National is a program materials and service provider, which I think is both honest and the correct message to really garner support from the field, then you need to put in place a bit more professionalism at the Irving office in terms of materials editing. Yeh have to take out all the top-down stuff that creeps in. G2SS would be enormously more effective rewritten as a true safety guide instead of a pseudo-regulatory document. Separate out no more than 2 pages of genuine do-or-die regulation, and turn the rest into somethin' useful. Da Advancement materials would be enormously more effective if rewritten as program support materials, with an accreditation model rather than an appeals-court approach. Dump most of your forms, in favor of optional checklists to be helpful. Third, if yeh want to build service-minded local support, the current BSA council structure and performance expectations have to be jettisoned. Close as I can tell every council in da country just follows da national structure and has lots of people doin' truly meaningless work in committees, which they think is more important than bein' in touch with units and providin' service. This is where most units feel da most mindless bureaucracy. Da places where da Commissioner Corps is actually functioning are rare, and happen only because renegade Beavahs ignore da structure and just make it work. Most places instead are just goin' through da motions of filling positions with untrained warm bodies. Folks who do focus on paperwork, eh? Because they're not good at much else. So that's my Rx. Improve da focus of your materials by eliminatin' all of the top-down regulatory stuff from da language because it gets all confused and muddled by da middle management. Then eliminate most of da middle management and its structure, volunteer and pro. Where yeh keep any, make all evaluations and metrics based strictly, solely, and entirely on service, and accountable to those in the field. Beavah

If a Scout has earned a rank and or merit badge but as the Scoutmaster (who is in charge of the advancement program on the troop) you feel the Scout is rusty or worse with that skill - simply assign him to teach that skill to younger Scouts in the troop. That will be a big motivation for him to get proficient real quick. Or, alternately, yeh will end up with a whole bunch of younger scouts who have been signed off but don't know da skill either. Most true proficiency doesn't come "real quick". I reckon that's the more likely outcome, eh? Being as it is da path of least resistance. Yeh see it in a lot of troops, and in a lot of youthful instructors at many scout camps. And, to be honest, yeh see it in a lot of adults who aren't themselves proficient and so who sign off on rank for the lads to mask their own lack of confidence. Somewhere along da way there has to be a hard check. That can happen in many ways. The lad can be told that even though he has Swimming and Canoeing MB, he doesn't have da skills to come on the Boundary Waters canoe trip, based on the skill check / "retest" before da trip. He wants to be part of a higher skill set group that gets to do more. The lad can be put in front of adults or peers in other situations where he has to perform da skill on demand, and (potentially) be embarrassed. He wants to be recognized for his skills. The lad can be put in situations where the skill is needed, and his failure to do the skill (potentially) results in discomfort or fear. He wants to feel confident and secure. Yah, all those and more will work, eh? But da whole point of da Advancement Method is to get a lad to that place without that sort of higher-stakes approach! Advancement creates an artificial system that taps into the fact that boys want to be part of a higher-skill group (rank!) that gets to do more. Advancement provides an artificial system to tap into the need for boys to be recognized for their skills in a positive way, rather than riskin' embarrassment for failure. Advancement provides an artificial means to help boys work toward confidence and security in skills before they are needed, thus avoidin' that discomfort and fear. In other words, da point of Advancement is to help the lad get to the point where he will be a proficient, confident performer, eh? And after a bit of experience performing, where he'll be ready to be trusted as an instructor and want to step up. "Here kid, instruct this because you don't know it!" to my mind is just a cruel thing that sets the boy up for embarrassment and failure. Better to fix your advancement program so da badge means proficiency, and so being asked to be an instructor is a High Compliment, not a punishment. Beavah

Yah, vol_scouter, da actual Constitution says that da right to keep and bear arms is in support of a well regulated and trained militia. That right should not be broken, but da Congress in Article I is given full powers to regulate. That's just not da same as some of da other unqualified rights. Haven't we had enough of judicial activism readin' stuff into da Constitution that just isn't there? If yeh want a truly unregulated right to bear arms as an individual, then amend the Constitution instead of tryin' to have da judiciary create new law out of the penumbra of the 2nd Amendment. But then yeh have to explain to me why some arms like military assault rifles are OK, but other arms like mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, shipboard cannon and cluster bombs dropped from my Beech Bonanza are not. Sometimes yeh just have to clear da deer off da runway, eh? All of 'em are arms, eh? The Amendment says arms, not guns. Why should it be restricted to guns? Private individuals and colonial militia had artillery and shipboard cannon at da time of the Founders. Private individuals had easy, unregistered access to dynamite until it was used to blow up an elementary school in Michigan and other crimes. Da Syrians are makin' grenade launchers out of modified shotguns, so why prohibit grenade launchers? If we're worried about tyranny or mob riots in suburban Tennessee, we might need 'em! We also had a right to code duello as part of our personal right to bear arms back in the day. But da evil government took away our freedom to participate in duels. That might make for a more civil society, eh? Yah, yah, I think some of that is just funny, eh? And I'm proposin' it as a joke, not an argument. But when yeh do public policy, yeh have to be mindful of unintended consequences, eh? What yeh seem to be proposing is truly an unlimited, unregulated right to bear arms. I've yet to hear anyone explain to me why under such a "right" high explosives, grenades, and the like are restricted. We'd need those arms to fend off federal tyranny, and it says "shall not be infringed!!" after all. Just as an aside, da federal background check system blocks tens of thousands of firearm purchases a year, eh? So at least it seems to be doin' somethin'. If only we had some research instead of opinion on effectiveness. I agree, right now it doesn't stop all "criminals", because most of da recent criminals or folks who allowed their guns to be used by criminal relatives would have passed the background check. Da rest seem to be buyin' through straw sales or da gun show loophole. We're not seein' lots of imports and da theft rates aren't that high, eh? So they have to be comin' from somewhere. So da federal background check system is doin' at least as well as the BSA background checks, probably better. Are yeh opposed to BSA background checks? An infringement on our liberty? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I was mostly tryin' to give some broad-brush cultural context for Cambridgeskip livin' over there in Great Britain. Broad brush it was, and no offense intended, DeanRx. It just takes some explanation to try to clarify why Americans fear their government but no Brits do, even though we have far more protections and checks and balances than they do. Yah, I agree that some stuff in the Patriot Act, and DMCA / Copyright law, and some other stuff have swung too far. Those things merit opposition. But they're not tyranny, and they're not Hitler of the 1930s, and we should have the courage and intelligence and honesty and honor to admit that they're not, rather than playin' Chicken Little. Sometimes softdrinks are just softdrinks, eh? Just buy two. What I really don't like is when summer camps use those really small glasses so yeh can't seem to ever get enough to drink. I don't reckon it's tyranny, though. Curiously, most of da urban high-crime areas don't reckon it's tyranny either. In fact, they tend to prefer a bit more government intervention. So I'll stick by my broad-brush overview in a qualified way. Now I know I'm probably pissin' into a northern gale, but let me suggest a few other things. * Gun control does not come down to one simple question. How silly! Appropriate regulation of firearms is a complimicated thing with lots of questions, eh? Balancing different interest, accommodatin' different stakeholders, researchin' different approaches. * Registering my guns would not erode my personal freedom a lick. No more than registering my car does. * Homeland Security just consolidated agencies and streamlined reporting, eh? Outside of TSA, it wasn't a huge expansion. * I trust myself, my neighbors, and my government with safety and lots of other things. My government is just da stuff I and my neighbors decided to work on together instead of separately. I reckon I learned that in Citizenship in da Nation MB back in the day. * Nobody here dismissed da "pro-gun side" as unintelligent. I'll stick by my critique of those believin' in da imminent national apocalypse as bein' silly, though. Now that we've got that straight, DeanRx, I think da multiple threads on da Scouter.Com forums have found quite a bit of common ground, eh? A lot of it goes substantially beyond any of da proposals that President Obama made, and some of it rejects his proposals. I think most of us agree that da "assault weapons" ban on sales is silly, and da magazine size thing won't really work unless we get draconian like Basementdweller suggests. I think most of us agree that encouraging research is a good thing. I think most of us agree that da time for universal background checks has come. I think almost all of us agree that mental health screening of some sort should be part of that universal background check system. I think most of us are in favor of some form of education and proficiency stuff, tailored to da intended use. Most of us believe unattended guns should be secured, especially if we have kids around. Some of those things are infringements on personal freedom, eh? That's what we do a bit in order to be a part of a community. We give up some of our personal freedom in order to serve and strengthen and be a good citizen of that community. I gave up quite a bit of personal freedom when I married Mrs. Beavah, eh? So gettin' all hot and bothered about personal freedom to use drum mags in an AR15 seems a bit over da top. Doesn't compare at all to dealin' with in-laws. Da problem as I see it is that what we've agreed on above ain't enough to stop the carnage of innocents, or even put much of a dent in it. It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, and I know none of us ever want to see that on our screens again. So we have to keep workin' da problem. Guards in schools are goin' to be about as effective as an assault weapons ban, and more expensive. Da real issue with Sandy Hook is the kid gettin' access to mental health services, and the kid gettin' access to the weapons, and both mom and the kid seemin' to have low psychological barriers to usin' guns on people. So how would yeh address those things, DeanRx? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

No, pchadbo, it's really not. Da national guard is da organized militia. It's commander-in-chief is da governor of the state in which it is located, not the President. Da Constitution only empowers the federal government to call up the state militia / national guard in time of war or national emergency. In preparation for such a need, the equipage and command structure is integrated with da U.S. military, so we're not fumbling and bumbling around when a national emergency occurs. That does not make them a federal body, eh? It makes them da well-regulated and organized militia necessary to the security of a free state. B

Bravo, TwoCubDad! Yah, there is no need whatsoever for an imposed federal/national regulatory system. We're talkin' about mentoring kids here, not makin' hamburgers. Kids are different. They need different approaches and different programs. Adult volunteers and COs are different. They, too, need different approaches and different programs to meet their goals and needs and styles. Let's celebrate freedom, diversity, and federalism! There's a basic rule which is exemplified by BSA advancement. Standardization of human outputs will almost always trend toward least-common-denominator mediocrity. The only way to make it easy for kids to transfer hither and yon between troops is to set the standard to the lowest possible. That way no matter where yeh come from or where yeh go you'll never be "behind." Standardization of human outputs has da exact opposite effect as engineering standards or hamburger standards, eh? It's da worst form of union work-rules. Every worker has to do the same, and do the minimum, for da same reward. So rather than havin' da BSA national Department of Education wastin' time and money, I see nuthin' at all wrong with trusting the local folks. We're trusting them to take our children into the wilderness, surely we can trust 'em to handle badges. Yah, yah, folks will point out that some will set standards so low as to be ridiculous. Like they're not now? Remember "active=registered"? That's fine, then. Set some minimum national expectations. No subtracting from da requirements or yeh lose accreditation. But let the local folks then set any requirements for advancement above that that they wish, the same way local school boards can set higher expectations than the state. Publish those requirements broadly, and let parents and boys choose where it's best to spend their time. Let college admissions officers and military recruiters and employers look up whether Eagle was earned in a de minimis program or one that set higher standards locally. Yah, I know, that's all old-school conservative notions. But yeh didn't expect anything else from me, right? Beavah

Maybe instead of spending billions each month and American lives to insure the security of Afghanistan school children, we did it first here with our own. Yah, this quote from RememberSchiff puts me in mind of da current debate over da nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary. Former Senator Hagel in many ways is one of da Beavah's Republicans, eh? An old school, honorable conservative pragmatist. A fellow who served his country with distinction and is able to be straight about principles and reality. I was impressed that President Obama would cross party lines in favor of choosin' such a fellow for SecDef. To my mind it shows how far da current Republican Party has wandered away from true conservative values to see them actively opposing one of their own former colleagues and caucus members. Yeh would think that havin' a fellow conservative Republican as Defense Secretary in a Democratic administration would sail through confirmation with a sigh of relief. I've been watchin' da media blitz against Senator Hagel by these neo-con ninnies in confused horror. As close as I can tell, the objections run somethin' like this: 1) He's talked about "bloat" in the Pentagon budget and believes it should be streamlined. Well, back in the day, we used to call this fiscal responsibility. 2) He voted initially for da war in Iraq, but then became increasingly opposed to the way it was managed. Yah, well, chalk him up as bein' in sync with most of America 3) Along with John McCain, he opposes torture of prisoners. Yah, well, give him points for honor and bein' willing to uphold da law. 4) He's an advocate of continued gradual drawdown of da global nuclear arsenal. Seems pretty prudent, since it will decrease da likelihood of random belligerent groups gettin' their hands on a nuke. 5) He's a realist and old-school conservative on da Middle East This seems to be da biggest thing that sticks in their craw. Da neo-con crowd seems determined to want to follow the barely-re-elected PM of Israel into starting a war with Iran, despite da fact that even da military believes such an endeavor is foolish. Am I gettin' that wrong? Am I missing somethin'? Can someone please explain to me what these folks are thinkin'? Is it just that they are so in da pockets of da gun/defense industry lobby that they forgot their conservative values? For me, it cements how far da modern Republican party has abandoned da rest of us. Guns-and-butter overseas intervention and nation-building used to be da foolishness of the spendthrift Democrats like LBJ, which was opposed by us pragmatic conservatives who did not wish to squander our nation's wealth or young men in pie-in-da-sky adventurism. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Well, I certainly share packsaddle's split thinkin', eh? In my day-to-day life, I very much enjoy da company of friends, family, and colleagues. I appreciate and respect and value all of the various folks who have more talent than I do in all kinds of areas, because we can accomplish good things together. As I've grown older, I'm more willing to pay for expertise or support from others so that I have more time to do what I'm best at. Unless it's a hobby that I just enjoy tinkering with myself, for fun. When I'm in da woods, I prefer solitude. It's my break from da press of regular life, and I like to be on my own. Oh, yah, sure, I also enjoy sharin' my woods with the boys (and girls) in scoutin', but that's a hobby. Otherwise, I'm content to be alone with God's wilderness. In fact, I find I need it. That's more a spiritual and enjoyment thing than a need for risk-takin', but like packsaddle I'm perfectly comfortable with da risks I take and I prefer to have no one fret about my fate when I'm in da woods. For me I think that's da second half of community though, eh? That time recharges me and let's me shake out da silly stuff, so that I come back as a better community member. In fact, Mrs. Beavah sometimes tells me to go, because I start gettin' grumpy if I'm too long away from da forests and streams. While packsaddle's view resonates with me, JMHawkins' view just didn't. I get where he's comin' from, and I sometimes see that subtext. In his worldview I'd be one of da adventuresome ones. I just don't think it's the main story. As I consider it, I guess I think he put two things together that I think are independent. One thing is da continuum between adventurous and cautious. That's real, eh? Some folks are more risk-adverse than others, and as we get older we tend to become more cautious and less open to learning. I'd be one of da adventurous ones. Probably most of us scouters are. My experience is that far from distrusting us adventurous folks, the less adventurous often delight in us. They love the stories and tales, and they support our adventure in scouting and out in many ways. I've never seen anybody look at me with hate or fear. There's a reason why almost every marketing campaign shows adventurous folks, eh? It's attractive even to the non-adventurous. For my part, far from bein' dismissive of cautious folks, I enjoy them. We work with more cautious kids and parents in Scouting all the time, eh? It tests our skill as leaders and teachers. Yah, yah, every now and again folks who are hyper-cautious and unwilling to learn frustrate me a bit, but I'd never, ever call 'em "sheeple" or any such derogatory term. Far from it, they tend to consistent, hardworkin', reliable folks. I think there's a second, independent thing that tracks more along da lines of what JMHawkins is talkin' about, and that's a split between community-minded and selfish. I think it's better described as a separate scale. When I'm in da backcountry, I might be solitary and adventurous, but I never stop bein' community-minded. I practice LNT to a fault; when I hunt, I'm very capable and responsible. When I come across others, I give 'em space to enjoy the woods in peace, but am always willing to help if they are in need. Bein' community-minded doesn't stop when we're alone. When you're an adventurous sort, folks will support you and even admire you if yeh stay community-minded, but they do want and expect to see competence and a sense of intelligent responsibility. They expect us to be good citizens, not selfish. And they're apt to get tetchy when folks bein' adventurous comes at their expense. Be a risk-takin' investor or businessman who is responsible, you'll be respected. I think that's all perfectly reasonable on their part, eh? I'd be ashamed if I didn't show that sort of sense of responsibility. Sadly, we see selfish adventurous folks all the time, eh? Those hack-and-slash campers who must have a bonfire in the deep woods, with their music at full volume. Those first-up-Everest climbers who leave fellow climbers to die rather than gettin' in the way of their own PR climb. Those hunters who bait where it's not allowed, or trespass, or take over their limit, or can't hit their prey without a 30-round mag. Da bankers who gamble and expect da rest of us to bail 'em out. I see selfish cautious folks too, eh? Da folks who feel they are entitled to aid and assistance while they sit on their duff or underperform, who want to pave all the trails, or get advancement for sittin' about. Who won't spend da effort to learn new things, and then expect others to give 'em employment when their old job goes away. So for me that's the real split, eh? Between community-minded and selfish. Lots of adventurous folks and lots of cautious folks are community-minded and decent citizens. But yeh see some few who are selfish. It just manifests in slightly different ways. Beavah

Nah, I don't buy da fiction. In a democracy or republic, government is just how we people come together to build a community instead of a bunch of isolated homesteads. We strive to form a more perfect union; we establish common justice, we work together for tranquility and da welfare of the whole community, we provide for a common defense. Government ensures da blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity because da alternative is mob rule, which becomes warlord rule and tyranny. There's a reason why various whacko cults in da U.S. stockpile weapons and fear da evil guvmint. Whether it's Jim Jones or The Way or whatnot, those sorts of petty tyrants live off of isolation and fear of common enterprise. They reject real science or real history, oppose research, and try to create their own reality, precisely because the open collaboration and exchange and common enterprise of democracy inevitably undermines such individual tyranny. Yah, and typically, like bankers, they want all of da protections and benefits of da public polity, while rejecting da financial obligations and duties of citizenship that come with those benefits. In the real world, we specialize, eh? Most folks can't set up their own phone system, repair their own computer or refrigerator, etc. So we pay professionals to do those things. That's one of da things that makes communities stronger, and advances civilization - relying on each other. Same with contributing to a common, professional police force, and a common, professional military. That way we don't have to all spend one day a week in militia drills. We get both a more effective common defense, and more personal freedom. Beavah

Yah, SR540, we're not ignorin' yeh. Lest yeh missed it before, let me reiterate that MAPS is not a valid example. Da reason for that is that MAPS is funding capital projects, not operating costs. An operating cost like payin' for guards in schools is fundamentally different. Yeh don't "buy" it just once and stretch da payments over time to keep 'em small. Yeh are purchasing that service every year in training and salaries and insurance. On a dollar basis, puttin' your guards in da schools in your area would have wiped out the entire MAPS for kids fund, and when it expired yeh would have to lay off all those guards (and see your unemployment insurance costs go up). Da second issue is that OKC is a relatively well-off community, eh? To achieve da same thing in more rural parts of your state would require a much larger sales tax, because there is less dollar value of commerce goin' on. And because they aren't as well off, they could less afford that larger sales tax. So what yeh propose won't work for everybody everywhere. So we're still waitin' for you to propose a tax to fund all those school guards, eh? $270M for the state of Oklahoma, per year. Yeh can do it as a 6% sales tax or an 8% increase of da state income tax. Keep in mind, based on da NRA ad which started this thread, if your local community or state doesn't agree to provide armed guards all over da place through a hefty taxpayer expense, it means you don't value your children. Beavah

The cowards in BSA leadership and backwards religious groups that jerk their chains today haven't the backbone to acknowledge that we are all God's children, regardless of how He decided to make us. Or perhaps they just lack the capability of independent thought. Yah, hmmm.... Well, some folks seem to lack da capacity for independent research before makin' sweeping condemnations. I think all of us members of backwards religious groups believe completely that we are all God's children, regardless of either how he decided to make us or what our background and upbringing was that got us to where we are. What we don't believe is that our nature or nurture means that we don't have a responsibility to make good choices. I'm sure that there are some folks with higher genetic predisposition to multi-partner or aggressive sex, or background and upbringing that makes 'em more likely to be abusive in their relationships, or some combination of da two that makes 'em attracted to adolescent boys. All of those are God's children, and we care about 'em. The only difference is that we backward religious types still feel there is an element of personal choice and responsibility, eh? We still feel it's appropriate to promote, as a moral matter, monogamy and faithfulness. We still feel it's OK to suggest that not every natural attraction is one to be pursued, either in or out of the closet. Indeed, some pursuit of natural attraction should be punished, and some should be discouraged, and some extolled. God is a mystery, eh? Some folks get born well-off in liberal America; others get born to starvation in war-torn sub-Saharan Africa. We love 'em all as God's children, but help each to make moral choices despite da challenges or luxury into which they were born. Beavah

the firearm used at Newtown was legally registered, and owned by a probably sane person. The shooter stole it. I suspect most street crime guns are not registered to the person carying them Yah, that's a theory, eh? Too bad there's no research to test it. Here's da thing, though. If yeh have lots and lots of legally owned firearms around, then it becomes very easy for a criminal or not sane person to get a hold of 'em. Just rob a house where all these forum members keep loaded guns lyin' around. Or snatch da purse of any of da inexperienced ladies who some folks have described as new carriers. The point is that through easy access and private sales, we are supplying da criminals. And then our fear of criminals makes us want to buy more guns, further increasin' da supply! In the mean time, we pay for cops to arrest da criminals and seize and destroy guns. It's a great racket for da gun manufacturers, eh? Can yeh imagine a better business?? No wonder they have such a well-financed lobby! Can't blame 'em. With 300 million guns out there in a nation of 300 million people, we already have one firearm for every man, woman and child who isn't in nursing care. That's a pretty saturated market, eh? Yeh have to do something to increase demand! As to Columbine, Aurora, VA Tech, if there had been proper militia citizens there, they would have been able to return fire. Yah, you've been watchin' way too many Hollywood movies, eh? "Shootout at Central High School!" Do everyone a favor. Spend some bucks, and go take a full law-enforcement shooting course, with real practice and real scenarios in crowded, confused situations. Learn a bit about what you're talkin' about before yeh propose this stuff. And for da record, da National Guard is not federal. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It is a bit of a stretch isn't it to think that the Government might become so tyranical as to do things like tell you what sort of toliet or lightbulbs you could have in your own home, or to create so many laws that several legal scholars would estimate the average citizen violates three or more per day purely by accident. Or to have the highest incarceration rate in the world (beating #2 Russia by nearly 50% and being about 5 times that of our Canadian neighbors). Yah, this is like watchin' a comedy show. I think yeh need to check in on da definition of "tyranny". Toilets and lightbulbs? Really? Why da guvmint even makes it illegal to water your lawn in a drought or to have a fire in a time of high fire risk! Here's da thing. I'm all for liberty, but yeh can't behave like a banker. Yeh can't claim da freedom to do whatever you want, and then shove the cost and the risk off on the general public while you take only the benefit. Now, I'd prefer yeh behaved like a scout and took into account service to the whole community in your actions, the way I would hope an honorable banker would be focused on citizenship and service rather than how much he can make by unrestricted gamblin' "rights". But at a baseline, leavin' honor and service aside, yeh should pay for your own habits. So you can have whatever toilet you want, so long as you and you alone pay for all of da upgrades to sewers and treatment facilities required. Yeh can have whatever lightbulb yeh want so long as you and you alone pay for da new power plants and grid upgrades and whatnot. Now the best, most conservative way of handlin' this stuff is simply to set fees and taxes equal to the full cost for those services, eh? The cost of electricity from a coal plant equals the full cost of everything from health care for the miners for life to compensation payments for the downwind impacts of acid rain. Perhaps there should even be a bit of a progressive component; if all of your neighbors are conserving and you are profligate just to be a jerk, perhaps yeh should pay a bit more. Yeh can water your lawn in da midst of the drought so long as you pay the full cost of it, plus a jerk premium. Either way, then yeh let da market decide. Yeh can have your 20-gallon flush toilet so long as you're not gettin' any subsidy from da rest of us. Da problem is, 47% of da nation believes in private gain at public risk, eh? Or private liberty at public cost. Da NRA believes in personal liberty to own firearms, but wants da public to bear the risk and costs of that right. Just like da bankers. Because 47% of da nation believes in this neo-conservative nonsense, no responsible free-market liability/insurance, fee, or tax structure can get passed. So instead da fall-back is stupid regulation, eh? Regulate what lightbulb or toilet can be sold, regulate CAFE standards for auto fleets, regulate limits on "assault weapons", etc. We can't rightly complain about such regulation until yeh adopt the honorable banker rule, and put citizenship, service, and fairness first, eh? We all need to pay da full societal cost for our free choices, and commit ourselves to be good citizens and not jerks. Then we have earned our freedom. Beavah

There is no target in America today. That's just crazy talk. What yeh said was that "Hitler was the first government to have all guns registered in Germany." That is simply false. Gun registration in Germany was somethin' done under the Weimar Republic, well before da rise of National Socialism. The Nazi party, as CalicoPenn points out, substantially loosened gun laws, and encouraged gun training and ownership. With it came what normally comes with private armaments, eh? Mob violence and pogroms. By the time of the dates that yeh mention gun registration wasn't a big deal, they were busy registering Jews. Da confiscation of weapons was only incidental to da other depredations. Besides, do yeh really think that a bunch of Jews in the ghetto with a few guns were goin' to thwart the rise of tyranny in Germany? Yeh have to be jokin'! Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, and Russia couldn't stop 'em, and I'm pretty sure they were armed. Beavah

Yah, I've had my home burglarized. Dumb-ass teenager from a couple of houses down hit several houses in da neighborhood. I think he took a bunch of Halloween candy, an old camera, and about $30 in loose change. I happened to come home mid-afternoon one day and saw him scoutin' another neighbor's place by dumb luck a couple weeks later. Didn't run and grab a gun or any silly nonsense, just called da cops and kept him in sight. They found a fair bit of the stolen stuff at his place, and it was dealt with. Had a former residence "invaded" one evening while asleep. Didn't go runnin' for a gun then, either. Turned out it was a buddy who had realized he had had too much to be drivin', so opted to come to my place and crash on da couch rather than try to make it home drivin' drunk. Didn't bother to ring da doorbell, figurin' we were asleep and wouldn't mind. We didn't really. Can't imagine ever bein' so fearful as to be aimin' at a friend with a loaded weapon in da dark. Yet I'm thinking what is even more scarier than a zombie attack from the NRA is when some governmental official sits me down as asks: "Are you or have you ever been a member of the NRA?" McCarthism all over again! If I give the truthful, "NO" answer I'm guaranteeing that the very next question will be: "Do you own or have you ever owned a firearm?" Now either I lie or hold my hands out for the cuffs... But I don't think the NRA scares me half as much as a government bent on disarming me, my neighbors and friends leaving the only guns on the street in the hands of criminals because it is easier to disarm law-abiding citizens than it is to disarm criminals. Yah, this stuff just makes me laugh. "I'm not afraid of a zombie attack, I'm just afraid of somethin' about as likely as a zombie attack!" Government officials huntin' people down to ask 'em if they are NRA members? Really? Don't yeh think at that point they'd just go grab the NRA's membership roster? Da problem we have to face as gun owners and enthusiasts in da U.S. is that most of the criminals get guns as or from law-abiding citizens, eh? We're not seein' shootings with illegally imported AK-47s. So perhaps yeh would worry less about all those criminals with guns if all of your relatively inexperienced friends who are buyin' guns wouldn't be leavin' 'em around to be stolen or private-sale passing 'em along to other less reputable folks when they get bored with 'em in a year or two. I think it's just a liberty thing, eh? I don't mind at all if a firearm hobbyist wants to have guns. Those folks are mostly experienced and fairly safe. But when yeh start havin' lots of inexperienced folks gettin' firearms for "protection" at a time when da U.S. is da safest its ever been, I start to worry about mass psychosis. Actually, what I really worry about is a lot of inexperienced folks bein' stupid with firearms, like da dingleberries at the gun shows last week. That, and suicides, and poorly secured weapons gettin' into the hands of kids or criminals. I will agree that Senator Feinstein's bill is a relatively useless, feel-good piece of legislation. Beavah

I don't think that's what BD said, Papadaddy. I think he was OK with semi-autos with fixed magazines, like a pump-action shotgun. Just no removable clips for fast reloading, like da Glock he owns. If yeh can't deal with da home invasion with a bunch of rounds from your shotgun yeh probably shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, eh?

Yah, "stand your ground" laws are yet another example of well-intentioned legislation that stupidly ignores da unintended consequences of too much legislating. It's not like we haven't had robust, fair, and well-tested legal doctrines on self defense in place for hundreds of years. Now we needed a new law? These things are nightmares. One of da worst consequences is that yeh can have any number of situations where both sides of a dispute are covered by "stand your ground". That was da case in Florida with the Trayvon Martin thing, eh? Trayvon would have been perfectly within his rights to "stand his ground" against Zimmerman, a creepy guy with a gun followin' him around and harassin' him on his way to the store. So what these "stand your ground" laws do is in fact give state sanction to shootouts between people who disagree with each other or don't like each other's looks. It's nonsense. Beavah

I would argue that "shall not be infringed" goes further than "Congress shall make no law". Yeh could argue that, but you would be dead wrong. If yeh were to actually read anything da Founding Fathers wrote, yeh would know that in every document there was near universal agreement about da provisions of the first amendment. What you are mistakingly relying on is a modern change in da definition of "infringed" which adds a form of "trespassed upon". That definition did not exist at da time of da founders. It just meant "broken" or "substantially weakened." Da first amendment also doesn't contain da qualifiers about well-regulated militia, which yeh seem to ignore. It's fine to make an argument that da amendment should be treated more broadly, or that we should have a new amendment to protect da right to keep and bear arms more broadly than the 2nd Amendment currently does. But let's not make up nonsense. Cambridgeskip, here are mine: Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech? Personally? No. It's a bit of an anachronism like da prohibition on quartering troops in homes during peacetime, eh? It's still a right of course, we should be opposed to quartering troops in peacetime. But as yeh can see, there is a minority of our population that gets themselves riled up about this sort of thing and starts to talk about da evil federal government movin' troops into your home. That view is most strongly present in da former Confederate States, who are da only ones who ever had federal troops present as an occupying army. Folks in my neck of the woods (an da rest of America) just roll our eyes at that nonsense. However, a majority of Americans believe pretty firmly in a right to personal gun ownership for hunting or protection if need be, and I'd be among that group. Not an unregulated, unrestricted right, but one that is still strongly secured. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question. Constitutional change requires 2/3 vote of both houses of congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the full legislatures of the states. So it's not an easy process. Practically speakin', on this issue, it would be impossible to either weaken or strengthen da 2nd Amendment protections. That's why yeh get some of da folks mentioned in question #1 who try to make ridiculously broad, expansive interpretations of da 2nd Amendment, and some on the other side who try to make far too narrow an interpretation. Da Supreme Court ruling in Heller tried to get to a proper interpretation; it protected a right to gun ownership in the home, but left open reasonable regulation. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? This is a staple of modern American political rhetoric, particularly among less-well-educated rural folk of the former Confederate states. In a lot of cases it's unsophisticated folks being taken advantage of by political operatives who know what works best to generate donations. Yah, some people really do believe it, though I reckon it's more that they get caught up in da emotion and self-righteousness of the argument rather than actually have that as an intellectual belief. That having been said, there is a long tradition of fringe apocalypticism in evangelical Christian groups in America. We have groups predictin' da end of da world or da end of da nation on an ongoing basis. Some apocalyptic literature (like the "Left Behind" series) is quite popular, and an over-emphasis on da Book of Revelation is common in many of da evangelical churches. Again, particularly in da states of da former Confederacy, extending west to "survivalist" types who hide out in da eastern Rockies. Yeh have to add to that long-standin' cultural phenomenon modern economics. Da reality here in America is that small-town rural farm communities are dying. Modern mechanized agriculture means that the demand for farm labor is less than ever, so da population move to urban/suburban areas has accelerated. Even our traditional farm belt states like Nebraska have crossed da threshold where a majority of the population now lives in urban centers. So for older folks in da small-town farm belt, and for others in places like coal mining districts, this really does feel apocalyptic, eh? They feel like da America they knew is being slowly eroded and goin' away. That's leadin' to a lot of fear, and a lot of blaming of centralized "government" (or illegal immigrants, or...) that is takin' their America away. It's nonsense; most of those areas are net recipients of federal dollars, eh? Da rest of America is propping them up with subsidies for farming and roads and electricity and telecommunications and schools. But that's not what it feels like to them. Hence yeh get da core of the Tea Party phenomenon. So yah, there are some folks who genuinely believe it, but it's a combination of culture and economics, with a healthy dose of cynical self-serving politicians and lobbyists exploiting those trends for their own purposes. You're quite right, though, from any objective view from outside it's hysterical. Culturally, we are the most rabidly democratic and disobedient lot on the planet. Da path downward for us isn't federal tyranny, it's social fragmentation. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, to some extent, JMHawkins. At da same time, the right to vote doesn't kill or injure 100,000 Americans a year. More to the point, da Founding Fathers never treated those two as equivalent, eh? Claimin' that they did is just bein' disingenuous. Da right to bear arms was always structured in da context of communal defense, eh? Hence da "well-regulated militia" bit. Also da text of things like da right to free speech is different, eh? Da First Amendment far more strictly limits da power of Congress to make law. "Congress shall make no law..." The Second Amendment does not go so far, eh? It simply says that for da purpose of security of the state through a regulated militia, the individual and collective right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed at da time meant "broken", from da Latin. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, or severely weakened to the point of breaking. So I reckon Heller was correct, eh? Yeh can't effectively prohibit people from keeping arms. That says nuthin' at all about more reasonable regulation, however. Da Second Amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law..." If yeh think there should be stronger protection, then yeh need to pass and ratify an additional amendment to say that. Until then, yeh have to accept that this right is more weakly protected by da Constitution than the others which yeh name. Beavah

It doesn't matter whether it's federal, state, or local, eh? Someone has to pay, and pay a lot. For each police officer with salary, benefits, pension obligations, training, and insurance coverage we're talkin' $75K a year in OKC, probably a bit more. Population of 600,000 so call it 100,000 homes. Eighty three schools, so to put two armed officers in each school is goin' to run you an added $125 in property tax per home per year, on average. That's probably an underestimate, because some of those schools are larger and would need more guards, so say about $200 for an average home. More for bigger homes, of course. Is that what you're suggestin' to pay for this? Are yeh ready to increase da average fellow's property tax by $200 per year (and yours even more) to pay for these guards in schools? Additionally, keep in mind that da schools with da most need for a police presence are invariably in more economically disadvantaged areas, with lower property values. In rural areas, yeh have fewer properties and also lower property values. So to really make this work, yeh have to propose a statewide tax of some sort, where da suburbs are helpin' fund da cities and da rural areas. So perhaps a sales tax, eh? Just over 1,800 schools in your state, $150K each for two guards, $270,000,000 required. Average retail sales per month in Oklahoma of $375M when times are good, so yeh would need a statewide sales tax increase of 6% to pay for this. Yeh ready to vote yourself a 6% state sales tax increase across da board to put those guards in schools? Or yeh could do it with income tax, eh? Total Oklahoma personal income tax receipts came in at $2.8 billion in 2008. So that means it would require a 10% increase in income tax. Yah, yah, OK, revenues are probably up now, so we'll call it 8%. Are yeh ready to propose an 8% increase in Oklahoma individual income tax to pay for these guards in schools? That's what da costs are, eh? 6% sales tax hike, 8% personal income tax hike, or a big hike in property taxes. Which is it? With regard to federal programs, what yeh may not be taking into account is that MANY OF THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN THE NATION ARE PAID BY FEDERAL DOLLARS through various programs. I expect that includes the Oklahoma City and Putnam school resource officers that you mention. Da police departments get money from da federal government under the Community-Oriented Policing, Drug-Free Schools, and other programs. Since OK is a net recipient of federal funds, da rest of us in the nation are subsidizin' yeh a bit on those officers. Now, to my mind as a conservative, that's a stupid waste of money. Crime in schools is negligible; those officers are better off bein' on the street dealing with real crime that they are better trained to handle, and leave da school discipline to school folks. But when yeh get federal money yeh get weirdness and inefficiency, so a bunch of dollars are wasted puttin' cops in schools so that folks like you can believe it was some intelligent local decision, and can then propose even more borrow-tax-and-spend programs to waste more taxpayer money puttin' more cops in schools. Even though there's no evidence that cops in schools are likely to stop one of these shooters. I think da other thing you're mixin' up is capital improvements in infrastructure with operating costs. Da MAPS program was a bond issue, eh? They borrowed money for capital improvements as a one-time expense, and paid for it with a millage over time. That makes da tax rate look small, because you're spreading payments over a long period. Yeh can't do that with paying for police officers in schools. That's not a one-time capital expense, it's a yearly operating expense. Yeh can't pay operating costs with bond issues. It's illegal in almost all states because it's economically stupid. Yeh have to pay for operating expenses with operating revenue, which means you need a tax, not a bond issue. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

New England? Not da Beavah. Are there any Beavahs in New England? Nah, I'm a northern midwest fellow. Central Region, BSA. I don't think anybody is suggestin' research focused exclusively on rifles, SR540. I think we're suggestin' that research be opened up on gun injuries and fatalities in general. Just as research is done on injuries and fatalities caused by tools, in general. There are over 100,000 injuries and fatalities from firearms per year in da U.S. That number is on par with automobiles. Do yeh think it would be rational to cut all data collection and research on auto and traffic safety? Da number of firearm fatalities per year is on par with da number of breast cancer fatalities per year. Do yeh reckon it would be rational to prohibit all federally funded data collection and research on breast cancer? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Da right to vote and da right to speak are also regulated. All rights are subject to two kinds of limits, eh? Da personal responsibility of each individual in da proper exercise of those rights, and the compelling interest of the state. Now the right to vote or speak generally doesn't cause tens of thousands of fatalities per year, so da state has a much less compelling interest in regulating them. Nonetheless, states may limit da right to vote to those who have not committed felonies, they require registration of people in order to vote, etc. Seems sort of silly that we require registration for voting but we can't require registration for guns, eh? Da Republicans this past election cycle pushed really hard for stricter requirements for ID and background verifications and the like in order to vote. Wouldn't it seem odd that a fellow could buy ammunition with less hassle than exercising his right to vote? Beavah

Again, SR540, how are yeh goin' to pay for it? Here's a recent article from your state, Tulsa area: http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20130115_19_a1_cutlin92581 School funding cuts, as well as tax reductions, have left Oklahoma schools with no specific funds for security and less funding in general There's no state budget for security. Every professional educator says they don't want school staff carrying. Da cost for Tulsa school district security is $3M per year, which comes nowhere near puttin' da number of security guards in place that you are askin' for. Tulsa has 83 schools, da current budget pays for only 43 guards, and quite a few of 'em are nighttime security or other support. One fellow suggests a bond issue for actually payin' for additional security. In other words, a borrow-TAX-and-spend proposal. You'd need to increase taxes in your state substantially, or substantially cut teachers and education program, in order to pay for da security you suggest. So how do yeh pay for it? Cut out all sports and music programs, along with high school electives and extracurriculars, and you'll only get part way there. Increase taxes? Do yeh think a tax on ammo is an appropriate way to pay for security against those usin' ammo, or do yeh think that da general public should subsidize / bail out da gun industry in this way? And here's the thing. Having a bunch of LEOs around doin' nothin' but sitting waiting for the random gunman ain't goin' to happen. Instead, those officers are goin' to do law enforcement work. Schools for kids should be safe, comfortable places like your home. Would yeh welcome stationing a bored cop in your home, who had nuthin' really to do but find violations to cite you for? Lots of communities have laws against such wicked crimes as skateboarding, and there are plenty of school resource officers ticketing skateboarders and such. Is that really helpful? Should a fight between two friends really be a matter of arrests, or should it be a matter of school discipline? What do yeh do when your kids fight at home? There are real, genuine losses of freedom in having officers of a well-armed state hangin' around everywhere. Beavah

If I own a certain rifle legally today and I wake up tomorrow a criminal and I have done nothing but sleep in the mean time, it offends me my Constitutional rights are infringed upon by the whim of some warm-fuzzy seeking politician that doesn't understand and/or refuses to uphold the Constitution which they swore to uphold in the first place. Yah, I understand da sentiment here. But that's true whenever any new law is passed. Somethin' that was legal yesterday is not legal today. When we first decided to register vehicles and require driving licenses, when we raised da drinking age, when we first put in place speed limits - something that was legal one day was not the next. Yeh went to sleep bein' able to flush your toilet into da stream, yeh woke up and you were a criminal if yeh hadn't installed a septic system. We should not pass laws without good reason to, because we should err in favor of freedom. But sometimes it becomes necessary to pass laws. Same thing with arms. Private and commercial merchant vessels in U.S. waters used to be armed. Now they're not. Da rights of boat owners on da Great Lakes were infringed upon by the whim of some warm-fuzzy seeking politician that failed to uphold da Constitution by ratifyin' the treaty to end da War of 1812. Used to be you could purchase dynamite and large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer over da counter. Now there are significant restrictions and tracking on dynamite and fertilizer, because, you know, folks can blow up elementary schools or federal buildings with it. Not all new restrictions are warranted, for sure. Not all new regulation is well thought out or well designed, definitely. Regulation can creep, particularly if there are folks whose livelihood depends on creeping it. All legitimate concerns to be watched out for. But da notion that any new regulation is wrong because it makes a previously law-abiding person into a "criminal" is probably a bit beyond what yeh want to really be suggesting. You're only a criminal if yeh decide to disobey the new law. Beavah