Beavah

Society has changed for the worst in the years since Actually, da crime and violent crime rates have fallen dramatically in da years since, despite poor economic times that would traditionally increase crime. Society has in fact changed for the better, not worse. I don't really sleep well on campouts or overnights because I worry about the kids. Yah, hmmmmm.... So I have spent several thousands of days in da wilderness on 5 continents without havin' had da slightest worry or need to carry unless I was actually huntin'. If yeh are genuinely so worried that yeh can't get a good night's sleep while out in da woods then it's time to seek professional help. Seriously. It might be that yeh just don't have enough experience so your imagination is runnin' wild, or it might be a more serious mental health condition. Either way, for your own health and da safety of da kids and family, yeh should talk to someone. I personally wouldn't let yeh near a campout with kids, and would be da first to terminate your BSA registration if yeh insisted. Now, are there a few places in da world where I wouldn't take kids campin'? Yah, sure. Da mountains around Kashmir are beautiful, but that's not a spot for American kids. There are a few spots in domestic ranges like da Siskiyous where there's been enough meth or other drug traffic that perhaps yeh should be thoughtful. What's one fellow with a pistol goin' to do with a bunch of rifle-armed meth manufacturers? Bein' thoughtful means not takin' children into those areas if yeh honestly feel that's da risk, not pretendin' it will be safe because you are bringin' one pistol to an automatic rifles fight. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, let's try to be a bit careful about da conditions in the early U.S. Most of da population was livin' on da frontier, or was only a generation or two removed from livin' on da frontier. Arms were necessary for protection, and quite frequently for defense from hostile natives that didn't care for disease-ridden trespassers. Those militias of citizens trained for mutual defense. They had an organizational structure, a chain of command, and a system of ranks. They could be "raised" or called up by da civilian leadership. So if we're goin' to properly equate then with now, da expectation would be that all those who keep and bear arms should expect to train regularly with others for mutual defense as part of an organized civilian volunteer response team within a chain of command. They should expect to be called up when needed by civilian authorities, report to those authorities, and be subject to da regulation of those authorities. In a lot of ways, I'm not always hearin' that sense of responsibility and personal commitment on da part of many folks who only focus on da last words of da Second Amendment. They tend to express a desire to defend themselves from the state and their fellow citizens, where da clear intent of da Constitution was to allow citizens to bear arms in organized support of da state and their fellow citizens. That's a big difference, eh? It's a difference that crosses da line between good, responsible citizen and paranoid nutter. Beavah

Beav, so first my quotes were from "nutters" and now you say they're "out of context" but offer no proof. Yah, Eagle732, I'm not sure a forum is da proper place to go through a line-by-line refutation. But if yeh copy your whole quote set into Google yeh immediately pop up with a whole mess of this excerpted quote stuff written by savvy lobbying groups to motivate da gullible. I presume that's where yeh got da stuff, rather than actually listenin' to da speeches themselves. I've sadly known a fair number of folks in da special interest lobbyin' world, and this is da sort of pablum they put out for a living. They do focus groups to test which quotes and which order make people da most emotional and alarmed. Often enough they "tweak" individual quotes for better effect. It's a deliberate effort to manipulate people. So da question yeh have to ask yourself for any stuff like this is "Who wrote it, and for what likely purpose?" Then, if yeh don't want to be one of those folks who is easily manipulated by lobbyist hacks, yeh have to do your own research. Go pull the actual full speeches the quote came from, and consider da audience da person was speaking to. Then pull some other stuff from that person speakin' to different audiences. Then consider da stated positions of the group, because within each group some people are always tasked to keep the "base" (meaning da extreme nutters) happy and energized, but it doesn't mean that da group has any interest in goin' there. Or just apply a healthy amount of skepticism to all lobbyist rubbish. If yeh really want to believe that George W. Bush is stupid, yeh can certainly find stuff that takes a whole mess of out of context fumbling and bumbling and makes it look like he was da dumbest fellow to ever hold office. That's exactly what somebody is doin' to yeh here with this bunch of quotes. They're playin' you. It's not the rifle, it was the mentally disturbed person wielding it. Yah, HICO_Eagle, I agree with yeh. Da primary focus here should be on what is goin' on with our young male youth and da inability of our education and mental health systems to identify and support kids and families like this one. We have in many states been dismantlin' da mental health infrastructure for reasons that haven't made a lot of sense to me, but mostly seem to turn on da issue that da folks most in need of mental health services are those that have limited economic means. At da same time, we have to also be honest and admit that weapons of da sort used in Sandy Hook are a substantial force multiplier, eh? That's what they were designed for, after all. They can help an octogenarian fight off a young, strong mugger and so it's no surprise that they enable a gangly 20 year old to wreak far more havoc than he could have with most other tools. Comin' in with a baseball bat he could have been tackled by da several staff people who tried to intervene, instead of bein' able to snap 4-5 high energy frangible rounds into each without slowin' down. We do regulate other force-multiplier tools, eh? We mandate seat belts and airbags and a whole mess of other safety features in cars, and we require licensure to use which must be renewed on a regular basis. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles like trucks require additional licensure levels and more regulation and monitoring. We mandate safety features in all varieties of power tools. Oh, yah, and by da way, the right to use da public roads is in fact a right. Da state can't confine yeh to your own property by denyin' yeh the right to access da public arteries which would allow yeh to go anywhere else. That's just nonsense. But like any right, da right to use da public roadways can be subject to reasonable limits in da public interest. Beavah

Yah, OK. I think you're not readin' me right, or drawin' da wrong conclusion or somethin'. That entire quote was a statement about ignorance, eh? Just about not havin' the ability to come up with a plan. Da notion of planning not to have a plan does not imply ignorance, it implies intent. Yeh see some folks in da media accusin' da Republicans and Tea Partiers of that, eh? Just oppose everything and obstruct until things break, deliberately havin' no plan because a plan would invite critique and criticism. That might be true of intelligent operatives like da Romney campaign (which despite toutin' business credentials couldn't seem to come up with even da outline of a real budget). As da quote yeh gave above shows, I don't think it's true of da Tea Party movement. I think they're driven by da angst of economic and social disruption, and by a sense of powerlessness and lack of understandin' of da causes. That's why yeh get da almost clinically paranoid stuff about needin' weapons around town or stockpilin' weapons for da imminent socioeconomic collapse. I think that fear is genuine, not calculated. So da inability to come up with a rational plan instead of digging bunkers is genuine, not a calculated ploy. There is no plan not to have a plan, eh? There's just no ability to rationally plan. When you're driven by fear, any outsider becomes da enemy, rather than just the opposition. Yeh must fight da enemy, where yeh can negotiate with da opposition. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, remember when you lamented the lack of a plan by the Tea Party and I said that the plan IS not to have a plan? Remember that? Is it starting to make sense yet? I think yeh have me mixed up with somebody else, eh? I'm an old-school conservative, back when it was principled and rational. I'm not a Tea Party fellow, and while I perhaps have occasionally lamented what some of those folks have done to a party I once supported, I can't say as I've ever lamented da fact they don't have a coherent plan. Thank goodness they don't! Beavah

Yah, yeh folks are pretty hilarious, eh? Here it is, I'm a responsible gun owner and user. NRA member. I'm not particularly concerned about stable, law-abidin' citizens carrying. I've said that there was no likelihood any gun control law would have changed da outcome of da tragedy in CT. I'm even a supporter of "must issue" laws. But if I disagree on a point I must have some liberal political agenda, eh? Look up some of da diagnostic signs of paranoia. All I suggested was that it was over da top to believe that yeh had to carry for safety or preparedness purposes, especially on a Scout outing when yeh aren't supposed to be, and where securin' your weapon from curious but untrained kids poses more risk than a homicidal maniac who happens to be wanderin' da woods lookin' to eat a boy scout. Carry because it's a hobby; carry because yeh like dressin' like a cowboy, carry as a political statement, whatever. It's OK. I'm not concerned about yeh if you're responsible. Let's just not pretend it's a safety issue when it ain't. Like I said, your chance of death or serious injury from so many other things is so much greater, yet yeh choose not to "be prepared" for those because da chance is so low. If you're goin' to "be prepared" or yeh are genuinely interested in acceptin' some responsibility for da safety of those around you, then perhaps buyin' and carryin' an AED might be an OK choice, eh? Because your chance of havin' someone in da group dyin' from a heart attack or other cardiac arrest is small but real. But if you're packin' a weapon but not an AED to "be prepared" for bad things happenin', then you're just nuts. You're in wannabe cop land, or somethin' more serious. You calling the quotes I site as just those from "nutters" belittles the legitimacy of my post Not sure about "belittles" but if by that yeh mean "disagrees", then it sure does! Yeh selected out-of-context quotes from a set of folks on da extreme end of da issue, eh? Yeh could do da same with folks with political "power" on da other end of da issue, too (which would have been more balanced, but equally invalid). There are always folks to be found on da fringes of any issue to "point with alarm" at. And yeh can always pull an out-of-context quote from even da best folks that will sound extreme, and point with alarm at that, too. It's a PR tactic used on da naive and gullible, not a rational argument. I suspect yeh got it out of some literature concocted for that very purpose. To my mind it should be recognized for what it is. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Eagle732, anybody can point to nutters on da other side. Doesn't mean squat. Ever watch Sarah Palin's Alaska and da quality of firearm handlin' they demonstrated? We all have our nutters. As a fellow who grew up with firearms, I confess I find da obsession with carryin' everywhere to border on mental illness. Firearms are a tool. I enjoy carpentry, but I don't find a need to carry a battery powered jigsaw everywhere I go just to "be prepared". A PFD is a useful piece of safety gear but yeh don't wear one walkin' around town just in case Noah's Flood recurs. Even though yeh can no doubt fire up Google and point to some odd cases where a sudden sinkhole opened up where it might actually have been helpful for someone to have been wearin' a PFD on top of their sportcoat, eh? Feelin' a need to wear a PFD everywhere to my mind is a sign of mental illness. Not sure what da difference is, to be honest. I've never had a firearm with me in da woods, with scouts or without, except when huntin'. Be a bit like carryin' a boat anchor on a backpackin' trip. I think we need to make some decisions, eh? If we really want to maintain our broad right to bear arms, especially in da face of tragedies like what happened in Newtown, then that broad right has to be accompanied by broad responsibility. That means not bein' so clinically paranoid that we feel we have to carry every time we go to da grocer, or we're stockpiling weapons to prepare for U.S. economic collapse, Mayan catastrophe, or Zombie Apocalypse. That probably means safety education and trainin', and recurrent proficiency testin', with perhaps a psych and finance review. Da folks I know are all pretty responsible, but we've all met da occasional fellow whose firearm handlin' and attitude made us cringe, haven't we? Just watch YouTube. It also means that da community of responsible firearm owners has to develop some real ethics, reinforced by law or policy, like havin' all guns and ammunition secured in da presence of children or mentally unfit adults, and folks who own or collect things like assault rifles must keep da ammunition secured separately and perhaps carry additional insurance. Beavah

I do not understand when people think their experience trumps others. Yah, OGE, right back at yeh. I submit to yeh that da false dichotomy you're settin' up is da same one we see all the time. If you're not in favor of Zero Tolerance policies about "weapons" in schools then yeh must be indifferent to school violence. If you're not in favor of banning all handguns then yeh must be "givin' a pass" to criminals. If yeh express compassion for da young, troubled man with Aspergers who was lost then yeh must not care about da victims. No difference between those and da claim that if you're not in favor of Zero Tolerance for DUI then yeh must be indifferent to the victims, or "giving a pass" to da worst perpetrators. I don't believe that has to be the way of things. I think it's possible to have compassion for da victim and to be rational and thoughtful about public policy rather than espousing zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing. I reckon that da teachings of most major religious faiths suggest that our care and sadness for da victims of crimes does not require that we express no thoughtful compassion alongside da justice due da perpetrators. In fact, I believe our faith requires both da justice and da compassion. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I don't understand why you want to treat the perp with compassion and haven't said a damn thing on behalf of the real victims. Because you're not attackin' da victims, eh? When fightin' fires, yeh pour water on da fire, not da lake. I reckon I've pulled more injured or deceased folks out of cars than most posters here, and that I have had more family members murdered by knife or gun violence than most as well. Yeh do go through shock and righteous fury and depression, in some sort of form or order with these things. I hope and pray that most folks eventually make it to sadness and back to da land of the living, where there is faith, and hope, and compassion, and some sense of rationality in thoughtfulness and selection of responses. At least, that's what I'd suggest as da best course. Beavah

Yah, yeh gotta love da media with its metaphors straight from da lobbyists, like "Fiscal Cliff". Somehow returnin' to da tax rates when we were runnin' budget surpluses and had strong economic growth doesn't sound like much of a cliff. Da sudden cut in spending from sequestration would yield a jump in unemployment through cuts in da military and defense contractors, as well as in da government-funded and private sectors. But it would be temporary, eh? Six months to more stability, with business reinvesting because finally the not-sufficiently-dammed uncertainty of this nutter Congress would be over. All that's required in addition is an automatic raise of da debt ceiling every time Congress approves an unbalanced budget or continuin' resolution. So let's take the leap instead of listenin' to goofs refuse both Medicare cost controls and a rational tax rate. My biggest worry in da next week is that President Obama will once again preemptively surrender to da nutters of both parties. Beavah

Yah, gsdad, da clip yeh linked to is a good case in point, eh? Da fellow with the knife approached the scouter from behind and stabbed him in the neck. Even da best-trained person who is carryin' isn't goin' to prevent that sort of completely random violence. So da notion that carryin' amounts to bein' prepared or some form of critical safety is just silly. Yeh are more likely to be killed or injured by lightning or a tree fallin' over than by that sort of random attack. Are yeh packin' a lightning rod and grounding wire and a concealed chainsaw? Shootin' is a fine sport/hobby/recreational activity. Folks put in time and get pretty good at it da way they can with any recreational activity. Let's just be honest about it bein' just a recreational activity, eh? Not wannabe law enforcement or citizen militia or whatnot. I like to think I'm a good pilot, but I'm not parkin' my plane in da driveway ready to escape da end of da world in three days, or fend off da airborne terrorists. It can stay at the airport where it'll wait patiently 'til whenever I have time to go enjoy that hobby again. Added bonus in that it keeps da kids in da neighborhood and others from messin' with it. Beavah

I have a license to carry, I carry wherever legal. That includes den meetings, pack meetings, and outings. I noticed one other parent that does. Yah, hmmm.... Good heavens, gsdad. Why? I'm a hunter, more waterfowl than deer, and I'm OK with semi-auto pistol. But those things are just hobbies, eh? Pastimes. Like Scoutin'. I don't need to wear my scout uniform to da office under my suit. Don't feel da need to carry my fishin' rod strapped to my back just in case a trout wanders by either. Not sure why I'd want to walk around with a firearm all day long, especially in Scoutin' where da community norms and G2SS are not to. Besides, too many restricted zones in my line of work. Intelligent, competent law-abidin' folks carrying doesn't bother me, either, especially if they don't have kids around who might gain access. We trust our fellow citizens with all kinds of dangerous things, most notably automobiles. I think there is some small measure of safety gained by allowin' some folks to carry, particularly retired or off-duty law enforcement or military (though both also have their cases of mental illness that have led to multiple shooting deaths as well, eh?). Da odds of such folks bein' present and able to react with a clear line of fire in such sudden incidents are pretty darn low, though, so it's hardly more than a marginal chance for improvin' outcomes. It's not da panacea that some suggest. Beavah

Oops, must have touched a nerve there...do I sense a tipsy furry fellow at the wheel sometime in the past? Nah, your spidey sense gets a Fail. Da Beavah is a light aircraft pilot. Twelve hours from bottle to throttle for me at a minimum, no matter what da throttle is. Yah, maybe an exception when stayin' on da ground for a small mug of beer, given enough time, but nuthin' more. As someone with some experience with such things, though, I'm suggestin' that a measure of wisdom and compassion is preferable to a lust for vengeance. We do recognize alcoholism as a disease, eh? And alcohol is often enough a self-medication for depression. I'm not entirely convinced that da response to da byproduct of a disease should be criminal in every case. Other pilots will tell yeh that there are similar prohibitions to gettin' in da pilot's seat if yeh are takin' cold medication, because that impairs reaction time and judgment too, eh? In fact, takin' a dose of Benadryl impairs driving performance more than blowin' a 0.1% I wonder how many folks have been killed by drivers on other meds besides alcohol; I suspect it's quite a few. We just don't have any mechanism to track it, because in da U.S. our Puritanical roots focus so much on alcohol. Then we get into da number of people killed or seriously injured every year by elderly drivers, and da enormous lobbying effort to prevent restrictions or tighter standards on them. If we feel an alcoholic should be severely punished for not havin' da judgment to refrain from driving while impaired, shouldn't da same severe punishment apply to da senior citizen who didn't have da judgment to refrain from driving when no longer fully capable? Or the fellow with da cold who took an OTC prescription ignorin' da caution label? Or the mom runnin' a bit of a fever that morning but who needed to get her kids to school? Plus with all da current "research" on distractions bein' da equivalent of drivin' drunk, shouldn't da same apply to the scouter who gets distracted by kids in the back seat? Yah, yah, we tend to find da most fault and demand da most severe punishment when we're talkin' about other people's difficulties, eh? When it comes to applyin' da same standard to our own hobbies and foibles, not so much. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... On da one side, I think we long since passed the point where personal firearm ownership is anything resembling a credible check on da power of the state. Yeh do realize that da state has mortars and howitzers and tanks and fighter-bombers, and spends more on da military than the next dozen or so nations combined - some of which have no trouble keepin' their larger populations under da thumb. Yeh really think your Bushmaster is goin' hold up to a mess of cluster munitions? That's just certifiably nutty. Yeh preserve da union by raisin' and educatin' kids right, and insisting on a professional military that has the balls to say "no" to some orders, like torturin' captives or firin' on civilians. On da other side, the problem is not with da presence of firearms, eh? Da problem to my mind is a much deeper one in terms of how our schools and our family structure is creatin' these young, lonely, disaffected young men. Yah, sure, and how aspects of our culture enable and glorify use of firearms for violence, so that becomes a natural thing for some young, lonely, disaffected young men to turn toward. Yeh could ban assault weapons and the lad would have done as much damage with handguns and a shotgun. Yeh could take da guns away entirely and the lad would have done as much damage drivin' a truck through the kids gettin' off da school buses in da morning. Yeh could make everyone ride bicycles and he could do the damage with fertilizer and fuel oil. On and on. Da worst slaughter of school children in da U.S. happened in Michigan when a fellow laid explosives and blew up a whole school. Back in da 1920s. He was mad about taxes. Beavah

OGE, I'd say that a first offense causing a death while driving under the influence should be treated as a homicide, manslaughter at the very least. There should never be a second offense. EVER Yah, that always sounds so nice, until yeh actually come face to face with da real live humans and circumstances, eh? The family man who was drivin' home from da retirement party for a colleague. He's a smaller fellow, so in drinkin' along with his colleagues he blows a bigger blood alcohol content. On his way home, a teenager wearin' a dark hoody on a skateboard cuts across da road. Now what? He's at a BAC that used to be legal but no longer is. He's a hard worker, good dad, and if yeh treat this as a homicide yeh impoverish his family. Most jury members can remember havin' done somethin' similar in terms of choices, without that consequence. Was da death because of da teenager's choices or because da driver's reaction time was slowed? Anger is natural, but hopefully it's tempered by wisdom and compassion. Zero-tolerance, mandatory sentencing stuff does more harm than good. Beavah

We will say these things to each other and nod in approval and then we will soon enough turn away from those grieving families, thankful that it wasn't US, and get on with our lives. And those grieving families will understand, profoundly, how alone they are and how empty and dark and indifferent life really is. And the rest of us can turn back to our illusions, stuff our faces while conspicuously consuming in a national ritual, and then fall into a mindless stupor while a television displays adult males grappling over a ball. Yah, I reckon that's as good a description of da inherent despair of atheism, and da deep depression and lack of connection that da young man felt when he decided to arm himself to slaughter children as I've ever read. Yeh want to know why young men do these things? They feel da way packsaddle does, and along da way it becomes a desire to do somethin' "big" to try to escape that lonely sense of indifference. It's a choice, though, eh? It's a choice to view da world in such a way, and our choices in so many ways create da world we live in and experience. How we perceive da world becomes da world, at least for many folks. Da reality is different. What we saw was people run toward the gunfire, and give their lives to save others. For every one person so lost in godless despair and lack of connection and evil, there were many so filled with love and hope and purpose as to lay down their lives in service. Even as we speak, hundreds of friends and professionals are givin' up most of their own holiday tryin' to bring closure, tryin' to place da remaining kids in schools and with counseling resources, tryin' to offer what support they can. People are even reachin' out to da family members of da perpetrator, recognizin' that they are some of da worst victims of this act. Yah, yah, this was partly da story of a lost young man, disconnected and nihilistic. We can adopt his worldview, and recreate that world in our lives if we choose. But da true story here is far brighter than that, eh? It's the story of profound goodness in da face of darkness, of love and sacrifice by ordinary folks so deep that it makes da angels sing. Why does God allow these things? Because without da free will to choose despair, there cannot be da free will that chooses hope. Without da ability to destroy, there is no ability to create. Without the capacity to harm, there is no capacity to love and hope so deep as to stare down a gunman and give your life in defense of the innocent. God allows free will for the same reason we in scouts allow youth independence and leadership. Because while an adult-directed troop might be perceived as preventing inconvenience and harm, in the end it is just an empty shell of a program that accomplishes nothing of substance. It is an act of selfish control rather than an act of trust and love. So we allow boys freedom knowing they may fail, because we also know that is the only way they will grow to goodness and manhood. It is an act of love. Beavah

Yah, for as long as people have free will they will be free to use it for great good or great evil, or for more general mediocrity. There's nothin' anybody can do to stop it. The fellow stole da firearms from his mother whom he killed. No waitin' periods or mental health checks could have stopped that. The fellow did almost all of da killing with a rifle, apparently. No ban on handguns could have stopped that. The fellow apparently shot out and smashed through da glass around the entrance instead of usin' the door. No amount of locked doors and security cameras would prevent that. The fellow went from classroom to classroom shootin' kids and teachers. No amount of silly school "lockdown" protocols would prevent that. Da fellow was in high-traffic areas with lots of kids and teachers, and apparently wearin' protective gear. It's unlikely that armed teachers would ever have anything resemblin' a clear shot. For as long as people have free will, they will retain da capacity for doin' great evil. For my part, though, the real story is not the tale of the wicked gunman. The story is the teary-eyed tale of the love and sacrifice of heroes. It's the story of the Scout Salute owed to those who dedicated their lives to our children and gave the last full measure of that devotion in defense of their charges, and the many others who would have, and who now support the families of the fallen. To the principal and school psychologist who ran toward the fire in a desperate effort to stop the intruder. To the assistant principle who barred the door and took several rounds in holdin' it fast to save da folks within. To the young teacher who hid her kids in a closet and then was gunned down alone while tellin' the man they were all at gym. To the two teachers who perished in the effort to defend their kids against the madman in their midst. To the many men and women emergency responders who responded with all their spirit and now support each other and the families in their grief. To the citizens of the town, young and old, who have set aside their own concerns to come together in support of those in pain. As long as people have free will, they have the capacity for great good. We can never stop evil, for it resides in the will of humans which is forever free. We can, however, by our own example of love and heroism, by our lives of service, by our coming together as community, by our willingness to spend our precious time with young people, make the good stronger and greater than the evil. We can reach the young, shy boy before he becomes the disaffected loner of a young man. We can teach proper handling of firearms so they are neither glorified nor feared. We can be responsible with our private and public dollars, so that young people have hope and opportunities and necessary support. We can prepare those who will in the future be the responders of skill and spirit first to arrive on the scene, and by our examples of citizenship prepare the citizens who will support their communities in future hard times. And when sadness or tragedy or evil come, as they may into every life, perhaps too our example will inspire the future heroes who run toward the gun fire, who bar the door, who stand face to face with humanity's worst evil and save the children sheltering in their shadow. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, da notion that any time a Scoutmaster talks to a lad means he gets a signoff for Scoutmaster Conference strains credulity. Scoutmasters should always be talkin' with kids about da stuff qwazse mentions, eh? It's part and parcel with every meeting and campout and just bein' a Scoutmaster. So da Scoutmaster Conference as required for rank is somethin' different. It's somethin' specific that has a special meaning in that context. Yeh can have a talk with a lad (especially with da SPL and another ASM present) about joining the troop and attendance expectations and what's goin' on in his life, his past troop, his scouting progress and whatnot without havin' it be da "Scoutmaster Conference" associated with rank. Beavah

Yah, EagerLeader, parents can be special sometimes, eh? I think da real question for yeh is whether the lad is even a member of your troop. Doesn't matter what ScoutNet says or whether da mom dropped an app on the council office without you knowing. Da question is whether you ever signed off on an app and admitted the boy to your troop. That's the conversation I would have, eh? I would treat it like a joining SM conference, not a conference for rank. Yeh talk about what his interests and needs are in a program, yeh talk about what your program is like and how it might or might not be a good fit. Yeh make it clear that joining a troop is a partnership; both sides have to make a commitment, and either side can opt out, you or him. If he agrees that he wants to join and make da commitment that your troop expects of members, then yeh welcome him as a new scout and let him know that you'll introduce him to the troop at the next meeting, and he'll get to find a patrol to be a member of on the next outing. A SM conference to discuss advancement is somethin' to have down the road apace after he gets settled, not now. If the lad or the mom isn't interested after that, that's fine, eh? That's a decision that they don't want to join. Be friendly and polite and point 'em to other troops in da area. Eagle is like an MVP award, eh? Yeh can get one only if yeh agree to play, and play well. Beavah

Yah, Eagle732, like what?

Any date you pick other than conception will be arbitrary. Yah, perhaps. Though as packsaddle says, even conception is somewhat arbitrary, eh? I know several sets of identical twins. Clearly their individual lives didn't start exactly at conception. Angels dancin' on pins philosophical questions aside, I reckon that yeh can define da legal start of life da same way yeh define legal death, eh? By heartbeat or brain activity. Those are relatively straightforward. They'd allow a brief window for abortions, sure, but I reckon that's da period when da proper role of others is to try to convince 'em to choose otherwise. So I reckon what we're really talkin' about is when da state should have an interest in the matter, eh? Da state could have an interest in when it s should pay or force others to pay for da procedure. Da state could also have an interest in when folks feel da mother or da physician should be punished for their actions, as an example for others or to prevent repeated actions. This is why Roe v. Wade was such a phenomenally poor decision. These sorts of questions would have been argued out gradually among da population and da several states. It would have been a long process of people tryin' to convince each other, and comin' to consensus. Some bringin' up important and hard cases like rape and when necessary to save da life of da mother. Others bringin' up other important cases like folks who want to terminate just because they don't like girls or (if homosexuality truly is genetic) they don't want a gay. Da laws would have adjusted gradually and thoughtfully, through discussion and debate. Instead we had 9 old coots try to play Solomon and end da debate before it got started. Da result was that they instantly polarized da nation, and prevented da sort of long, thoughtful dialog and gradual change that would have allowed us as a national group of people to come together on this. It did nuthin' but harm. In da end, though, da proper Christian thing is never to rely on the state to do the work that we are called to do ourselves, eh? Yeh can't rely on da state for charity when we are each called to give alms and help our neighbor. And yeh can't rely on da state to do the work of convincin' promiscuous teens or folks who are scared or da selfish who don't want to change their lifestyle that da life of a child, however inconvenient or "unwanted", is a precious thing. There are lots of unwanted elderly. There are lots of lonely folks who may be unloved. There are lots of people of all ages who are hungry or starving. I wouldn't want to kill any of 'em. Beavah

Scout Salute!

Yah, hmmmm.... I didn't look at da other thread yet. I'm not sure what da apocalyptic tone is all about. Let's leave off abortion for da moment, because like euthanasia or racial apartheid or whatnot that's more a deeply ethical issue for folks. I'm not quite sure what freedoms we've lost either. Yep, I said from da start that da Patriot Act was a dumb-ass thing. So was a lot of da rest of our domestic Security Theater after 9/11. It should be completely repealed. Da problem with repealin' it is all the nutter Republicans. I'd be in favor of goin' further with a constitutional amendment addressin' privacy, and some hard-nosed laws with severe criminal penalties for government and corporate employees who violate it. At da same time, we haven't seen that much encroachment as yet. Yeh can do warrantless stuff until yeh actually have to go pick someone up, eh? At that point your behavior's likely to come out and rebound on you. Yep, da eminent domain decision by SCOTUS was foolish. That happens sometimes. I think at this point more than half of da states have adopted state constitutional amendments to reverse that decision, so to my mind da system is workin' as it should. If your state hasn't yet adopted one, then stop whining about da federal government and you know... use federalism! Some of da worst encroachments have been in da expansion of copyright and patent monopoly grants and powers. Those are really out of control. As close as I can tell, we're up to a point where 10% of da cost of any technology is goin' directly or indirectly into copyright/patent litigation and other nonsense instead of into innovation. Both Democrats and Republicans have been complicit in that, eh? The Dems protectin' Hollywood and da Republicans never saw a rent-seeking corporation that they didn't like. It was interestin' that da youngsters in da Republican caucus came up with a position paper to try to fix that mess last month. It was immediately pulled by da big-shots. That's about it, eh? A stupid act passed after being attacked, and a bunch of corporate welfare stuff. It's stuff that should be fixed, but it ain't the end of the world. Then there's da Catholic Church whining about havin' to behave like every other employer with respect to their non-Catholic employees. Yah, yah, I agree with 'em that it's a bit too much encroachment. They have a long-time, principled religious stance on da matter that everyone knows about, includin' da people who work for 'em. At the same time, tryin' to cast da thing as an all-out attack on religious freedom is just bein' dishonest (not to mention makin' their leadership look like a bunch of Tea Party nutters). It's a minor dispute about technical details of health care coverage, not Armageddon. Besides, they've been among da folks arguin' for government coverage for many years, so "be careful what yeh wish for" comes to mind. So despite a few flaky policy choices, which have been goin' on my whole life, I'm not really seein' any big loss of freedom. Even for da flaky policy choices, it seems like da ones complainin' about loss of freedom are da ones votin' for da fellows makin' the flaky choices! Beavah

By all means, if I missed the theology that explains how some one can ignore a basic precept in the Ten Commandments and call themselves a true Christian, enlighten me Yah, da Ten Commandments of the Torah are from the Hebrew Scriptures, eh? They're not explicitly Christian, and don't define Christendom. The Jews who transcribed those commandments were not fundamentalists in the way you seem to imply. They weren't bound by the literal word, but valued the Oral Tradition as also having been handed down on Mt. Sinai, and preserved in various forms through Midrash, the Mishnah, and later the Talmud. Study and prayerful commentary on the Torah is valued, with volumes of commentary to help clarify and explore all of the meanings and applications of the commandments in different contexts. Da fundamentalist notion that it's all there in the literal text is a rather odd notion that was a byproduct of da Reformation, when sola scriptura became a rallying cry against da Catholic notion of lockin' up all da oral tradition in a priestly class. Until that time, that sort of biblical literalism was never part of Judaism or Christianity. I'm told by Hebraic scholars, BTW, that "murder" is da closer translation for the original text. From a Christian perspective, da whole of da Law and Prophets is summed up in the commandments to love God with your whole heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. There is great debate within da Christian community on da morality of war or fighting of any kind. Which neighbor are we to love? Assad who is killing his own people? Or those people who are being killed? Certainly both, eh? If I were harming others and the only way to stop me was to shoot me, would I want someone to do that? Is my love of self limitless, or limited? If I were among da victims, would I wish to be saved, even at da cost of another's life? These are hard questions, eh? Yeh should not judge others based on superficialities when dealin' with such hard questions. Beavah

Yah, I agree with TwoCubDad, eh? Eamonn's troop would have been close to da ones I've been involved in.