Beavah

Gave a call to a fellow from a strong patrol-method troop in da area. Younger fellow, mid-30s, troop of about 50. Here are his responses: Do Patrols in your troop stay together for a long time, or are the members moving around a bit more? Two patrols have been around for at least twenty years, probably longer. You'd have to ask John (former SM). The other patrols like 10-12 years, except the Mountain Rangers, which was created when we grew 2 years ago. Boys are mostly in their patrol from da moment they join until da moment they leave. There was a period where numbers dropped, and a patrol was decommissioned, and then later restarted. Do you feel like this is a good thing for your troop or not? We tried briefly to do the NSP / same age thing. The boys didn't like it. The older boys liked to be leaders, and they felt the little kids on the PLC were disruptive, and didn't need POR for rank anyways. It made patrol outings almost impossible for the younger boys unless it was adult run. Older boys' participation tended to drift away, because they weren't needed and didn't feel responsible. So they'd hang out, or just show up for high adventure. Patrol competitions became a complete joke, so patrol spirit fell off. You didn't see as many kids being proud of their patrol, and patrol yells became an adult-run exercise rather than something the boys did on their own. What does your troop do with an inactive or disfunctional patrol? Who does it? The SPL and PLC or the Scoutmasters? What's an inactive or dysfunctional patrol? A couple of patrols are sort of weird, but they're OK. Dysfunctional patrols happen when the patrol leader isn't ready to lead, or doesn't have enough support. That happens most frequently in younger same-age patrols, because boys don't like peers "bossing" them. If you have older scout patrol leaders who they look up to, and other skilled scouts in the patrol, dysfunctional mostly doesn't happen. If it does, it means the SM isn't doing his job of training and mentoring the SPL and PLs. Occasionally PLs struggle a bit with new scouts in their patrol. They work that out with help from the SPL/ASPL, but the adults offer support and advice too. Particularly for stuff like ADHD or other behavioral issues. When the troop got smaller, the PLC decided to voluntarily merge the two smallest patrols, after a couple of campouts where they felt the patrols were too small to work well. When the troop got bigger, more experienced boys stepped up to be PL/APL of a startup patrol, and worked with the PLC to recruit other boys from other patrols. That's rare. We mostly stay the same number of patrols every year (5). A few times we've had individual boys switch between patrols. Call it one a year. Biggest reason is leadership. Sometimes one patrol has several strong leaders and another is struggling a bit. That happens like when we got a big recruiting group and had a startup patrol. Or the time we had a group of sort of hyper young guys in the Seals. Usually the SPL/ASPL fill in, but occasionally it's helpful to have another strong hand move over. PLC works that out. Second reason is parents. Sometimes boys come in saying they wanted to be with their best friend from 5th grade, and by 6th grade they hate each other [side talk about one boy last year]. Then parents get involved and it's easier just to move one of the boys. That's adults and youth leaders together. We prefer to make them stay together and work it out, same as you would with a family, but sometimes it's not worth the grief. Respectfully submitted, B

Given that the men (and women) in uniform can't be in all places at all times, a well-regulated (in the historical sense of the term) militia made up of armed citizens is a wise and timeless practice that does indeed protect the security of a free state and its inhabitants. What yeh have to face up to with arguments like that, Brewmeister, is two things. First, there are a heck of a lot of free states and their inhabitants around the world who are doin' just fine without militias of armed citizens. In fact, most of da rest of da free world! They live in stable, free, democratic societies and apparently they do so without da worry that they have to arm themselves against their fellow citizens (or any other boogeymen). Second, a well-regulated militia in the historical sense of the term was a fairly specific thing, eh? It didn't mean individuals stocking up with weapons and ammo on their own, or carrying around town for "defense" except when an imminent threat was about. A colonial militia was expected to muster and train together on a regular basis, usually monthly. They did not act independently in defense, but were "called up" as a group when needed, often for tours of duty for a period of three months. By the time of da Revolution, they mostly did not actually fight or use weapons (and when they did they typically did very poorly; George Washington found them to be nearly useless). Instead, when called up they were used as an auxiliary for the regular army. Guarding food or prisoners, schlepping supplies, ditch-digging, that sort of thing. In some cases, they were used on da frontier as a defense against Indians so that da regular soldiers could be freed up, or in other relatively safe defensive establishments to free up regular soldiers. Their other role in da revolution was to harass and suppress da loyalists among da population, and particularly in da south to serve as tax collectors, takin' supplies from da well-to-do and redistributiin' it to support da revolutionaries and the poor. So yeh see there were some defining characteristics which are not present now, eh? Militia trained regularly, and they trained together. Militia had a local chain of command. Militia were called up for service, and stood to posts assigned to them by military and civilian superiors. Militia were compensated, and could draw a military pension. Most importantly, there was a filter on who was allowed to be a militiaman, based on da evaluation of their fellow citizens as to their character and reliability. Even then, folks like Nathaniel Greene still mostly felt they were cowards, who if they were ever confronted with a real fight were likely to run or behave foolishly. So yah, I reckon if some state like Utah wants to construct a civil militia as a police auxiliary in order to guard schools, that would be typical of da use at the time of the founders. They would have to be trained, and train regularly. They would have to have a chain of command, with a sense for military discipline. They'd be called up for a term of service to which they were obliged. Not everybody could be one; they'd be evaluated for fitness and reliability. Da work would be mostly that of REMFs - scut work for da school under the direction of da school and police authorities. Da police would probably consider 'em to be a bunch of ninnies who would be mostly unreliable in an actual confrontation, but fine to stick in low-risk support positions so real cops could do their jobs and not waste their time defending schools that are fundamentally safe. Intimidating fellow citizens they disagreed with or assisting in redistributing wealth would, I suppose, be optional. Beavah

Also, just nitpicking, but this is hardly a free market solution if the government requires the insurance. That's still government regulation. Nah, it's a form of tax. Except it encourages yeh to pay your tax to a private provider. Regulation is when da government tells yeh how to store your gun or what type ammo to use. Stuff that sometimes da government gets a little silly about. This is simply a proposal that you pay the real cost to society of owning different types of firearms, spread among all firearm owners of that type. Why should other folks have to pay so that we can pursue our hobby? To be honest, it's a solution that may be attractive for other things, eh? Yeh want to smoke? Show that yeh have insurance that covers da real cost of smoking instead of havin' da rest of us subsidize your habit. If that means your health insurance is triple, it's triple (friends in da industry tell me it should be 4x). Want to ride your motorcycle helmetless? No problem, same deal. Beavah

Yah, TwoCubDad, I'm pretty sure da proposition is dependent on establishing a doctrine of strict liability for gun ownership.

It's not honorable to demand that someone else's money be used for the poor, or that he should have to give more because he has more. Jesus said unto the rich man, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Matthew 19:21 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 1 Timothy 6:17-19 or if yeh are not Christian, but from one of da other people of the book, heed ye da command of the Lord of Hosts: For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. - Deuteronomy 15:11 Not honorable? It is divine positive law. Now, I wasn't really talkin' about da poor, eh? I was talkin' about da wealthy just payin' our fair share for all da extra services we get. In America we are a community that chooses to voluntarily tax ourselves, not a bunch of isolated individuals dug into bunkers who look only to take benefits without contributin', or grouse because our neighbors believe in supportin' schools when we don't have school-aged kids anymore. We do things together. When it comes to helpin' fellow Americans in need, it is right and proper and honorable to call on ourselves and our neighbors to live righteously. Because we know that we can't always be there individually to help; that it's worthwhile to have a professional social worker, a firefighter, da FEMA response team, or unemployment insurance so a proud man who lost his job doesn't have to beg. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya Sentinel, If yeh feel up to it, why don't yeh start a new thread (or continue on this one) about your troop and share your perspective and let folks comment a bit about da patrol stuff. Maybe you or others will get some new ideas. Concrete examples are better than these theoretical discussions. Up to you. If you're up for it, try to be concrete. How many patrols, what are they like member-wise, what's da structure during campouts and meetings, how much patrol competition is there, any patrol outings, etc.? I'm not like Kudu, I think Patrol Method is just a method, but one of da most important ones. It's perfectly possible, though, to have a fine troop without a full-throated patrol method, just as yeh can have a fine troop without any high adventure programming on da Outdoor Method. Beavah

Well Beavah may be pro-gun control Yah, I don't reckon Beavah is in favor of gun control. I know him pretty well. Beavah is just a proponent of citizenship and a bit adverse to extremism. To my mind, da Second Amendment and its history is fairly clear, eh? Yeh can't ignore either clause of da amendment. It protects a personal right to keep and bear arms; it also envisions that when keeping and bearing arms for defense it will be done within da level of training and structure of a well-regulated militia, not lone wolf vigilantes or wannabe cops. Beavah

Well, vol_scouter, if da risk is really as low as for speaking, or as low as yeh claim for other reasons, then insurance should be very cheap and easily available on da free market, and no burden to rights or freedoms at all. I reckon there's no problem with someone not buyin' insurance, provided they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources to be able to cover any claims. Dick Cheney gets a bye. Da issue is we don't want anyone who may incur liability but then be judgment-proof because of inability to cover da actual cost of the harm done. If yeh want da freedom, yeh should demonstrate that yeh can meet da responsibilities. Not much different than scouts, eh? Scouting is reasonably safe, but when we accidentally burn down a forest or harm a kid, we have insurance to cover da harm done. Just seems responsible. Beavah.

Patrols dieing is normal and natural. It should not be feared. If you do patrol reorganization with each election, the boys in "dieing" patrols will simply jump to a new one. Yah, hmmm... Missed this in Sentinel947's post, but it's a good comment to get us back on topic until chaoman45 comes back. In Patrol Method scouting, it is NOT normal and natural for patrols to die, and a patrol reorganization with each election would be considered a complete and utter failure. Da point of patrols is to be a home within scouting, a gang, a team, a family. All that stuff about flags and yells and patrol pride and spirit takes time to develop and grow. It's strongest when it becomes tradition, a long-term sense of pride and structure. Da successful urban gangs don't "reorganize" every 6 months, nor do successful homes and families. If yeh have set up a situation where patrols dying and reorganizing is normal, then yeh should rethink that. That's a patrol in name only, eh? An administrative unit, rather than a central program feature for youth development. Go take WoodBadge, send your youth to NYLT, and consider doin' something different to make patrols stronger and more permanent in your troop. It's been a few decades, but I used to be a Beaver and a good 'ol Beavah too. . There's a reason why WB has permanent patrols to which folks stay loyal for decades, eh? That's the model for Scouting. An alumnus should say "Yeah, I was in scouting. I was in Troop 123. I was a Flaming Bobcat, and we were the best!" Beavah

Beavah - How quick you are to infer ignorance or lack of experience by someone else! Yah, but apparently da inference was right, based on what yeh report above. Yeh have zero experience with troops that don't run NSP, and zero experience with troops that run mixed age, stable patrols. That's what I expected, given your comments. No need to take that observation personally or to start with da ad hominem stuff. Lack of experience is nuthin' to be ashamed of. It also isn't made up for by quotin' isolated guidebook sentences, separated from da hundred years of scouting literature and experience which supports 'em. Especially if yeh have ever been involved in writing any of that literature, and realize that after Green Bar Bill BSA literature has been written by committee (well, really by multiple and at time contradictory committees ) Read some of da older literature. Read a greater breadth of da modern literature. Your notions, for example, contradict some of what da current BSA literature and training says in terms of Ages and Stages. Go visit some other troops that run differently from yours, at camp and other places. Look for their good points, since it's always too easy to see da bad stuff in others and only da good stuff in your own program. Invite others to visit your troop and offer critique. Build up your experience with kids and programs, not just book quotes. Yeh might not change how your troop runs (nor should yeh), but da effort will still make yeh a better scouter. Beavah

Some very authoritative statements are made that are opposite of my experience. Yah, fred8033, here's a question for yeh. I'm just curious. Have yeh ever had any real experience with a mixed-age patrol troop? Nuthin' in anything you've ever written has suggested that. I think what's happening is you're comparin' your experience with what you're currently doin' with your imagination of what a mixed-age structure must look like. Both Eagledad and I and a number of other commenters have worked in and with units that run mixed-age and same-age and open-signup patrols in a number of different permutations. We've been around when da BSA program was mixed-age patrols and when it became same-age for larger troops. For some of us, that also has involved helpin' people set up a structure that would help 'em achieve da particular goals they want for kids, and choosin' da structure that would work best for that goal. Mileage does vary in three ways in my experience. First, people have different visions and goals, so da structure has to change dependin' on what they want to accomplish. Each structure has strengths and weaknesses; things it does well and not as well. Second, some people don't have da personal skills or vision to pull off some kinds of structure. They either need a lot of very gradual learning and change to develop their skills or they need a structure that will fit their skills even though it's not da best one for their goals. Third, da population matters. Scout troops go up and down in terms of recruiting, and different troops serve different populations. Yeh have to adjust any structure to da circumstances. Eagledad talks about what happens when yeh get an unusually big recruiting group, for example (I actually disagree with him here, as I've never seen a real issue with admitting more than 2 new lads to a patrol. There are other, better ways to address such things than messin' with da patrol method). Da point, though, is that makin' those decisions about methods and mileage relies on experience with those structures, eh? Beavah

Nah, that's just bureaucracy, Brewmeister. Responsibility would be that yeh actually have done da research on da candidates and ballot issues before yeh enter the polling place. Or maybe that yeh can pass da citizenship/naturalization test, so yeh at least understand how your voting fits within da system. Beavah

Well we pretty much have. There is more talking than shooting. How many rounds will a scout shoot at camp in a week - 50? I doubt it's that many. Yah, I gotta agree with RememberSchiff and perdidochas, eh? Da BSA shooting sports program is pretty anemic. It's gone da way most other badge work has gone. I'm not convinced it accomplishes our goals at all. Da BSA should be one of da lead groups in terms of responsible gun use and training. Boys should develop genuine skill and a lifelong sense of responsible and safe handling. It's perfectly proper to start with small-caliber, single-shot rifles. But that's just where yeh start, eh? As skill and safety sense develop, they should move up to da use of regular equipment. No different than anything else, eh? Boys should be taught to handle real wood tools, and real canoes, and real kayaks, and real backpacks, and real skis. Beavah

Well, I don't reckon it's possible for your kid to get a hold of your tornado shelter and use it to kill all da kindergarteners in his elementary school, eh? So we can't ignore da negative risk side the way everyone keeps tryin' to with these "preparedness" ideas. As yeh said, SR540, yeh live in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is second only to Texas in numbers of tornadoes and number of killer tornadoes. So despite da risk being low, being prepared is not irrational. My state is much farther north, and at much lower risk for tornadoes. Buildin' a tornado shelter up here would raise all kinds of eyebrows, and be considered a bit nuts. It wouldn't make practical or economic sense, given da risk. Livin' in states west of da Rockies, or northern New England, tornadoes are rare to virtually non-existent. Buildin' a tornado storm shelter there would not be rational. Similarly, buyin' an AR-15 to defend your shop against a race riot in suburban Oklahoma would not be rational. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I posted it just to stir up some discussion, NealOnWheels. Da point in some of da proposals is that da legal owner of the firearm is responsible, no matter who he loans it to (same as for cars), or who has acquired it illegally (a novel notion which creates new law). So in other words, da risk of theft or loss is factored into da insurance cost. Keep your gun well secured, your cost will be lower. Be a gun show merchant who routinely allows guns to fall off da back of the truck and into other people's hands, your insurance cost might be prohibitive. Now, as I mention da notion of holdin' folks responsible for theft of a stolen item is novel, and new law. Typically, that sort of risk is borne by da population and addressed through regulation and/or taxation. But folks seem adverse to both regulation and taxation, so this provides da free market alternative. Sorry our rights don't require liability insurance, not even freedom of speech. But we teach all of our scouts that every right comes with responsibility, eh? So yeh have to meet da responsibility in some way. With freedom of speech, if yeh misuse it by slandering someone, you are personally liable. If yeh misuse it in other ways that cause harm, yeh may be criminally liable. Our tax dollars fund ACLU attorneys who successfully defend our free speech rights. Where's da responsibility part that goes with Amendment 2? Yeh don't want tax, yeh don't want regulation, yeh don't want training and a chain of command like a real militia, yeh don't want to keep your arms secured. Rights are not free, eh? They demand responsibility. As enthusiasts or hobbyists, we can't foib off da cost of our hobby on da rest of society. Beavah advocatus diaboli (This message has been edited by Beavah)

No, no it's not. It's an extreme position. If we replaced the word "wealthy" with Jew or black, I don't think the Democrats would be so hep on singling them out for special treatment. Taking something away from someone simply because they have more than someone else is immoral and unethical. Yes, yes, in fact it is a conservative position. Sorry that yeh never learned that. It maintains a very low-tax regime, especially on investments. If you're against da graduated income tax as a whole, then your argument is not with President Obama. Your argument is with President Teddy Roosevelt. Even in Roosevelt's time his position wasn't considered extreme, eh? But now, after 100 years, to claim that da progressive income tax is an "extreme" position is just ludicrous. It lends credence to da notion that da Tea Party Republicans just want to repeal the 20th century. But let me address your moral argument, eh? The fellow who is in the top 2% has a lot of wealth. Hopefully he earned it, but perhaps he inherited it, or maybe even stole it through financial manipulation. Whatever. He has a lot of stuff to defend, eh? If da terrorists were to come, his business would be a target, where Joe Schmoe's $70K house would not. His property requires more police protection and fire protection. His family is far more likely to be subject to kidnapping here or abroad for ransom. He's goin' to travel a lot more for business, usin' more FAA resources dedicated to keeping his flying safe. Da entire State Department is there to serve his overseas travel and business needs, while Joe Schmoe probably doesn't even have a passport. His business is runnin' trucks over da federal highways which require more repair than for Joe Schmoe's used Ford. He's tradin' stocks in the market, so he benefits from all of da market regulation and oversight that Joe Schmoe does not. With a bigger bank balance, he benefits more from FDIC and SIPC insurance. His business makes use of GPS and so he has hundreds of GPS units on da road benefitting 100 times more than Joe Schmoe and da TomTom he got for Christmas. And to top everything off, when Mr. 2% would have lost everything in da market crash in 2008, Joe Schmoe bailed him out. He and his kids never served in da military, where Joe Schmoe and his kids have all served in order to defend da wealth of Mr. 2% against enemies, foreign and domestic. Now, talk to me again about what's morally fair? In Scouting, I'd like to believe that we teach good citizenship which entails that those to whom much is given, much is expected. Taxation is not taking things away from people, it's people contributing to da nation they love accordin' to the benefits they have received. It is a duty, and an honor, to contribute accordin' to da benefits we receive from this great country. In fact, it's honorable to contribute more than our fair share, just as we teach Scouts that service and generosity are honorable. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so one of da new proposals makin' da rounds, which I caught over at The Economist, is to address gun regulation by simply requiring liability insurance. That's a fairly conservative, free-market approach, eh? No excess government regulation. Just a requirement that gun owners/users have insurance to cover da costs that would otherwise be borne by society for da exercise of that liberty. Then da private actuarial market can decide who to insure. A responsible hunter with a hunting rifle could get cheap rates. An out-of-work fellow prepping for da end of civilization who wanted a cache of assault weapons would have to pay substantially more. Keep your gun secure, your rates would be lower than if yeh needed to sleep with it loaded or carried it around in your purse that yeh leave unattended regularly. If CCW permit holders really are safe, then da insurance rates would be low. States could enact such a thing easily; quite a few do so for auto insurance. Da feds would have to show compelling public interest, but that's a hurdle that may well pass muster. Seems like all of us who use firearms on a hobbyist basis would be fine havin' insurance as just a matter of personal responsibility. In this context a buyback program makes more sense, eh? Don't want insurance or can't afford it, da government will be a buyer of last resort if yeh can't sell your gun to anybody else. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, Callooh Callay, I agree with yeh that there are lots of guns I'd prefer to da AR-15 knockoffs, includin' da plastic-parts types like da Bushmaster. I'll definitely agree that da assault weapons ban was a silly thing, the same way the recent financial reform act was a silly thing. But both were a silly thing full of technicalities because that's what lobbyists do when they can't stop a bill, eh? They turn it into a confetti of goofy regulation. Da assault weapons ban was neutered by da gun lobby by makin' it a gibberish of technicalities. Good tactics on their part, eh? But bad strategy, because da response to that sort of lack of responsibility over time is bigger-hammer regulation or restrictions. As in "we just had 20 little kids gunned down by that technically legal gun so that didn't work. We should buyback all rifles." It'd be much more effective strategy to represent responsible gun owners and help write good, effective regulation in some areas. Beavah

I don't know how old you are, but I vividly remember the LA riots of 1992. From seein' 'em on TV, I suppose. There's da second half to that statement, though, perdidochas. Is it really rational for a woman in well-off, racially homogeneous suburban/rural CT to be fearful of an urban race riot in a slum? Yeh should go back farther, mate. All of us suburbanites on da plains could be admonished there's a need for weapons to defend us from da Indians! It's history! I saw them on TV too! Also, if massacres are the only reason for these guns, why did most of the police responders to Sandy Hook have them? Because if crazed or nutty members of da public have 'em and are out massacring folks, then law enforcement has to have them to respond effectively. It does not follow that Mildred Peabody also has to have one, eh? And it might well be that if da general public had fewer so that criminals and nutters had fewer, then da police could have fewer. In fact, I'm old enough to remember when da police never carried that kind of equipment, eh? On regulation, the problem with them is that there are so many of them that they are becoming useless and almost to the point of paralyzing us. That's probably overstatin' it, but there is a genuine point there that I agree with. Bigger firms can afford to deal with regulation in ways that smaller ones cannot. Da worst offenders right now are copyright, trademark, and patent law, so squalkin' about other things and leavin' those unaddressed seems pretty silly. But now here's da thing. There's a reason for most of da regulation out there, eh? Small restaurants often dislike all da food safety regulations, and they truly are a morass in some ways. But they're all there because someone at some point killed or injured folks by not bein' careful. So which would yeh eliminate? We eliminated a bunch of banking regulation, and we came within a few hairs of Great Depression II in less than 10 years. So yeh can't just complain about regulation, eh? It's like complainin' about government spending. Yeh have to actually identify what yeh would be willing to eliminate and suffer da consequences of. Beavah

Yah, I was goin' to respond to SR540, but I'll leave that to Twocubdad. SR540 did make me go back and re-read Twocubdad's post, though, which I found to be quite a muddle compared to his usual well-reasoned self. Two things he just got wrong, IMHO: da notion of "fundamental" rights, and da notion of "privileges". When we look at notions of rights, there are really two different ways we can look at 'em. One is from a philosophical/religious perspective. That is how Jefferson framed da argument about rights in the Declaration of Independence, eh? That rights are things endowed by the Creator, which are inalienable. They cannot be abrogated by individuals or by states without committing grave sin against the Creator - sin which justifies a vigorous response by us mere mortals in da cause of Justice. In this perspective, it makes sense to call rights "Fundamental", eh? The right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness, etc. But there's no genuine moral system on da planet that would maintain the "right" to bear arms is a God-given one endowed by the Creator, eh? Certainly not Christendom. Maybe some of da fringe sects of Islam, or the Branch Davidians or other wackos. So to talk of bearing arms as a "fundamental" right in this context doesn't make any sense. Da second perspective is da legal / constitutional law perspective in da U.S. Rights in this context are limitations on da scope or authority of government. Congress shall make no law... etc. From this legal perspective, there's no real notion of "fundamental" rights, and that term makes no sense in this context, except as flowery speech by a political lobbyist. There's no "fundamental" limitation of government; all of da constitutional limitations are themselves da subject of limitations, or of amendment. Enumerated rights don't necessarily take precedence over unenumerated ones. Enumerated rights are in fact often dependent on unenumerated ones. Yeh can't exercise your enumerated right of freedom of assembly and worship without also bein' able to exercise an unenumerated right to travel across public lands and jurisdictional boundaries unhindered. Yeh can't exercise an enumerated right to keep and bear arms without bein' able to exercise an unenumerated right to manufacture, transport, or purchase arms. So in neither a philosophical/religious context nor a legal context is da "fundamental" rights notion supported. Da notion of "privileges" is also a bit off. While it has crept into modern parlance from poor use by da public schools ("that's a privilege, not a right"), it's a pretty newfangled and muddle-headed notion. American law and philosophy both presuppose liberty, eh? There's no notion of da government granting privileges to certain select groups of people. That's what a monarchical system proposes, sure. Da king has been granted privileges by divine right, and da king grants privileges to his subjects. Da American notion is very different, eh? It's that individuals are free to do as they please. Buy what yeh want, have da hobbies yeh want, pursue the opportunities yeh want. Philosophically I suppose that pursuit of happiness is a Creator-endowed right, not somethin' that government grants. If you're Wilbur and Orville Wright and yeh want to build a flyin' machine, you don't need to petition for a grant of privilege from da government. Yeh just build somethin' in your shed and go try it out at Kitty Hawk. However, pursuit of happiness is subject to not messin' with others too much, and allowin' them to pursue their own happiness. So at da point when the invention of Wilbur and Orville has become commonplace and everybody is flyin' hither and yon and runnin' into each other and carryin' other people for hire and such, then folks come together to set up some regulation so things run more smoothly. Da unenumerated right of usin' da public airspace for pleasure gets restricted a bit so that others can use da public airspace for commercial transit or defense; or we all decide that some level of training and proficiency is a good idea before anybody jumps into a cockpit and flies over town, because an airplane can hurt folks if mishandled. So da airplane enthusiasts partnerin' with other interested citizens set up reasonable regulation for everybody's well being, instead of being jerks and insistin' that yeh can take away my aileron controls when yeh pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers! Responsible enthusiasts partnerin' with others to ensure safety and liberty, and acceptin' reasonable restrictions on their right to the use the air to achieve those ends. Almost reminds yeh of good citizenship. Beavah

Yah, sorry HICO and MikeAZ. I'm an old Reagan Republican and President Obama would be right at home with da gipper. Both would think you are nuts. He ran on a platform of mild tax increases on top earners. In other words, raisin' taxes by a tiny amount on a tiny group of people, to a level that's still da lowest in the last 80 years when yeh figure in da capital gains rate reductions. That's not an extreme position. It's really quite a conservative one. And then he was willing to negotiate even on that. Most of us genuine fiscal conservatives were opposed to da entire set of Bush tax cuts at the time, and would be happy to see 'em all expire (albeit gradually, timed to economic improvement rather than droppin' an unanticipated shock into a weak economy). Elections do have consequences. He won, get over it. But I have a bit of homework for yeh. Name any "significant reductions in spending" specified by either da House Republicans or da Romney campaign that is consistent with conservative principles and arithmetic. Remember, in da Constitution it's da Congress and especially the House that controls da purse strings, not the Executive. Me thinks perhaps yeh missed where da real hyperpartisans are hidin'. Beavah

This was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal and is well referenced. To throw it out would mean that we should throw all studies out not matter the conclusions because they all have similar flaws. Yah, had a few minutes now that da Christmas rush is over to look this up. Da article comes from da Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is not a real journal. It's a student-edited journal affiliated with da Harvard Federalist Society, a small group of conservative and libertarian law school students. Not a reputable journal or an unbiased source. Da science equivalent would be somethin' like da Journal of Creation Science . At best, JLPP would be somethin' like a Fox News affiliate in da legal world. I had never heard of it. By contrast, the Harvard Law Review, while also a student-run publication, has a general audience, a much longer history, and a far more sophisticated pool of authors and reviewers. Despite da students runnin' da editorship and business side, it would be thought of as a real Journal on da academic side of law. Editor of da Harvard Law Review is a prestigious post for a very capable student, someone likely to go far. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, on that stuff we agree, vol_scouter.

Upstate New York, I'd expect 'em to be able to identify a firearm, gsdad. Da Bushmaster .223 of course was one of da low-cost firearms to get around da previous assault weapons ban by careful use of technicalities, so it became quite popular. Current news reports are that da best guess of law enforcement is that da weapons were stolen in some previous home invasions. Criminals get guns when law abiding citizens leave their firearms unsecured. Here's a Scout Salute to da brave volunteer firefighters who came out on Christmas Eve to what they thought was da rescue of a neighbor. God rest ye merry, gentlemen. Beavah

Yah, sorry perdidochas. I see some of da everyday fallout of these policies, and da net effect of havin' law enforcement in da schools is that we see da criminalization of ordinary teenage school stuff. Would yeh like a deputy along on all scout outings in an official capacity, so a fight between two friends became a matter of an arrest rather than of yeh callin' da parents? If yeh don't want law enforcement up your nose about your firearms, or on your property without a warrant, then I can't see why you'd want law enforcement pokin' about your kids' school constantly. What happened to da evil guvmint? Generally speakin' da average cop doesn't have da skills, experience, or trainin' for dealin' with schoolkids, no matter how "nice" they are. So despite anecdotes about nice Deputy Tom, it makes for a poor general public policy. Besides, schools are among da statistically safest places in society, so it's also just plain bad financial management in an era of deficits. You're far better off havin' those officers around town dealin' with da people who sell the kids drugs after school. Gun restriction will work- look at the NY fireman shooter. He was not allowed to own guns legally did not stop him. Yah, well, noname, I reckon we all agree that criminals will find guns. But in da CT case, we're not talkin' about a hardened criminal but about a disturbed young man. It might be reasonable to believe that appropriate restrictions would reduce da risk of stressed or disturbed individuals usin' certain kinds of guns in crimes of opportunity. That's before yeh get into da bit that William Spengler seems to have gotten his firearms by stealin' unsecured firearms and ammunition from law abidin' folks in the area. Perhaps they thought those guns would protect 'em from breakins. Beavah