RobK

Money laundering doesn't explain the past several centuries of Swiss freedom from invasion. In fact, I would think the banks would make it a very desirable possesion. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all important" to 10 being "really reall really important" [h]ow big a part does the US military (including National Guard and Reserves) play in "being prepared"? Bob, you're implying a false dichotomy. On a scale of one to ten, how important is the front wheel of a motorcycle to being able to ride it? How long would a beseiged city stand if no one inside were armed and all it had to protect it were it's walls? Which is safer from attack, an unwalled encampment with everyone well armed and ready to fight, or a walled city with no arms inside?

I think you've taken my examples of the Afghans and the VC backward. No Bob, I'm saying that the Soviet Union was never able to subdue the Afghans, and the US did not defeat the VC in Vietnam in spite of all our might. I'm saying that an armed populace held off and eventually drove out an overwhelmingly superior foreign occupying power. Bob, why did Hitler not take Switzerland? He took Poland, he took Czechoslovakia, he took France and their Maginot Line! But not Switzerland. That was only 60 years ago. Machiavelli addresses this subject quite thoroughly in The Prince ("http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm"). Yes, I do think that having the most powerful, most advanced, military force in the world is PART of "being prepared", but again, saying that we are that, doesn't make it so. Actually working to be that and stay that makes it so. Check out our ammo situation ("http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36465"). It's not the first time in recent years I've heard of us being short.

Bob, the point was not that one of those powers in particular would in the future, but that it has been thought about and done before. Just because we are mighty, doesn't prevent another nation from becoming mightier, and it doesn't keep us mighty. It's not as if our military is going to be dismantled, or our ability to detect invading forces approaching removed. How do you know? Just saying it will never happen won't prevent it from happening. The only way to ensure that it doesn't happen is to actively prevent it from happening. I'm sure many of the citizens of Rome felt as you do now. Who can defeat the might of Rome? And yet Rome fell. History is littered with once great nations fallen and vanquished. The United States, mightiest military in the world, didn't hold South Vietnam. We got kicked in the face in Mogadishu, and we turned tail and ran. He who will not learn from history... But to think that you need it to protect your neighborhood from an invading military force is the stuff of comic books, not real life. Really? Tell that to the Afghans. Tell that to the Viet Cong. Didn't someone once say be prepared for anything? Sound familiar? I find it hard to have sympathy for those who accidently shoot themselves. Rule number one: All guns are always loaded. The rules of gun safety, as articulated by Jeff Cooper: * All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded." * Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy. - If you would not want to see a bullet hole in it do not allow a firearm's muzzle to point at it. * Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. - Danger abounds if you keep your finger on the trigger when you are not about to shoot. Speed is not gained by prematurely placing your finger on the trigger as bringing a firearm to bear on a target takes more time than it takes to move your finger to the trigger. * Be sure of your target and what is behind it. - Never shoot at sounds or a target you cannot positively identify. Know what is in line with the target and what is behind it (bullets are designed to go through things). Be aware of your surroundings whether on a range, in the woods, or in a potentially lethal conflict. Remember, safety is a state of mind, not mechanics! Take nothing for granted! BTW, gun accidents are at all time lows.

Here's another article of interest from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p02s01-ussc.html From the article: But carrying weapons has its own set of concerns. For example, gun-owning seniors, like any age group, are at risk for having their weapons used against them. Byers notes, however, that researchers haven't been able to compile the exact number of incidents in which this has happened.

We find Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" in two places, Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. Read them in the context of the whole chapter. Here's a link: "turn the other cheek" in the Gospels. The slap on the cheek Jesus means is not a real physical assault, it's an insult meant to provoke a fight. He's saying, don't let yourself be provoked into fighting and don't seek revenge. The idea is not "don't defend yourself ever", it is to not seek vengance and to be forgiving of those who wrong you. Especially consider the "Love your enemy" section (begining at Matthew 5:43) which immediately follows and amplifies this passage. Look also at Romans 12:14-20 paying special attention to verses 18 and 19. When you read all these things in context, you get a better idea of what he meant. Now I ask you this: how is it showing love to your fellow man to not stop a mugger? Is it really showing love to allow a man to commit a crime? If he mugs you, you can be reasonably certain that he'll mug others. Is allowing him to continue in this sin, hurting others, showing love to him or those other people?

If people really knew what Fascism was, they wouldn't constantly equate it with the right wing. Let's remember again the full name of Hitler's Nazi party: National Socialist German Worker's Party! Sound right wing to you? Read for yourself what Mussolini said fascism was: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

A couple of points: 1) The Biblical case for armed self defense: Luke 22:36 -- Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22:38 -- So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Jesus told his disciples, If you don't already have a sword, sell your garment and buy one. And some of the disciples already had swords! If Jesus didn't want us to be armed, 1) would He have told His disciples to buy swords, and 2) would any of the disciples already have had swords? Achilleez, read the book of Revelation. When Jesus returns, it will be with a sword, and it won't be for show. People pick out one verse like "turn the other cheek" and take it to mean "never defend yourself", but they never bother to read the rest of the book, say for instance Ecclesiastes 3 (there is a time for everything, including killing and war). 2) Good guys vs. bad guys Achilleez, it's easy to tell the difference. Good guys leave other people in peace, bad guys knock over the corner Qwik-E Mart. 3) The possibility of an invasion Bob White writes: "But Trail Pounder, just what country's army do you feel has the capacity to try and land sufficient enemy forces in the USA that our military structure is incapable of stopping?" The Japanese had plans for invading the US mainland. The Soviets had thoughts about it too. Britain actually did it. Just because no country could do it right now doesn't mean it will always be that way. Sun-Tzu writes in the Art of War (chapter 8, paragraph 11): The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. This is the essense of self-defense, both national and personal. Our position will not remain unassailable if we don't work to keep it so. One of the factors that makes our position unassailable is an armed populace. Machiavelli writes in The Prince that the people should be armed for just this reason and points to the Swiss as the perfect example: every man armed, and never occupied.

FBI crime statistics are that fewer than 0.2% of all guns in America have ever been used in any crime. Guns kept for self-protection are almost never used against their owners. As a simple test, think back to the last time you heard of it happening. If it happened, you'd hear about it on the news. I personally can't recall a single instance in my 30+ years. Moreover, the statistics show that you are LESS likely to be injured as a crime victim if you resist, with a gun or without. Also, gun related accidents are at all time lows. One thing you won't hear on the news is that almost all gun crime is committed in the inner city and is black-on-black. Regarding the Second Amendment, "well regulated", in 1789, meant well trained. As to home defense, a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 Buck is probably the best for someone who isn't really serious about his shooting. A long gun is easier to hit with than a handgun. Wall penetration shouldn't be a problem because you're not going to fire unless you're in imminent danger, and if you're in imminent danger you better be able to hit him! If you're really worried about it though, use #4 Buckshot. Also, you have a much higher probability of a one shot kill than with a pistol. Jeff Cooper (retired Marine Colonel, shooting teacher, and founder of the IPSC) has a good piece on this in his book "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth". Bob's point about when burglars strike is a good one. In the UK, so-called "hot" burglaries, which take place when the house is occupied, are on a dramitic rise. Why? Because the government, in the form of it's near universal gun ban, has given the crooks a guarentee that they won't get shot by the householder. If you know the householder won't have a gun, why not rob the place while he's there to show you where all the good stuff is? On the other hand Bob, when I have problems with `coons, I trap them, shoot them, and sell them to the fur buyer. Much simpler way of solving the problem...

I was in no way attempting to excuse the actions of past Republican administrations. I was attempting to illustrate the left's hypocrisy and the absurdity of attempting to make moral equivalence between Prescott Bush and John Walker Lindh. We hear from the left a constant clamor about Reagan/Bush having dealt with Hussein and how evil they were for it, but no mention EVER of the French or Germans dealing with them. I don't know all the facts about Prescott Bush's dealings through that company with the Nazi's but I will certainly not condemn his grandson for anything Prescott might have done. I do however know that John Walker Lindh actively participated with the sworn enemies of the US. Pointing out where person A was not punished for doing wrong bears no relevance on person B having done wrong and deserving punishment anyway. Please, le Voyageur, give me a history lesson. This ought to be good!

So, le Voyageur, this company was founded in 1924, 17 years before the US entered WWII, 9 years before the Nazi party (let's remember its full name: National Socialist German Workers' Party) took power in Germany. And this company managed a number of German/American buisnesses. Having a stake in this company is equivalent in your eyes to taking up arms in common cause with a self-avowed mortal enemy of the US? You're probably one of those who say we ought to "internationalize" the rebuilding of Iraq and let France and Germany take part, `cause you know, even though the UK, Poland, Italy, and many other nations are taking an active part, it ain't international without the French and Germans! Really, who cares if they were actively trading with Iraq (for nasty oil money which is OK to have if you're a socialist) despite all those UN sanctions? It's OK to trade with a dictator who runs living people through a chipper/shredder as long as it's for the people! Am I wrong?

How about making the focus not "growth" (raw numbers of youth served) but "retention" (youth served well through out their youth). And retention should not be seen as "made eagle before he quit", but "actively particpated until he aged out". I think the organization is trying to do too much, trying to be all things to all people and so serve everyone, and so spreading itself too thin. We need to focus on the core competency.

"Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime." 100% of people executed for murder never murdered again. Sounds like an effective deterrent to me. Studies have also shown that most murderers have committed more than one murder. If they're executed after the first murder, they are absolutely prevented from murdering again.

You can learn a lot about laser tag guns here: They are essentially big TV remotes. They use the same technology -- IR. And you can usually pick up the output with night vision scopes. I think the prohibition against paint ball and laser tag is very lame. BP would be disgusted.

Finding woodlots about to be cleared is a good idea for "high impact" skills practice. To find woodlots about to be cleared, you might try contacting land developers and pallet mills. The pallet mills will be able to put you in touch with the loggers who'll do the clearing. And hey, maybe they can get you foresters for the forestry merit badge too!

The neckerchief was meant to be used, not mere vestigal adornment. From 27 Years With Baden-Powell by E K Wade (http://www.pinetreeweb.com/wade12.htm): "The Scout scarf, worn with a triangular piece at the back, was designed for its practical use, and not for any artistic merit that it might possess. To protect the back of the neck against hot sun; the nose and mouth against dust; as an emergency handkerchief; or pad: as a triangular bandage; as ties or straps for a stretcher: there were few uses to which a scarf could not be put. In games it served as a distinguishing mark or "flash"; or in sudden cold weather it could be re-tied to protect the chest. "An extra knot in front was to remind a Scout to do his good turn for the day: when this was done he untied it. "The original Scout scarf was green, like that of the S.A. Constabulary; but as troops sprang up everywhere, distinctive colours were adopted, giving a pleasing variety of rainbow-hue in any large assembly. The "Gilwell scarf", with its patch of Maclaren tartan, is one variety now known in many lands, and was one which the Founder was proud to wear."

In response to several issues raised: Politics are the application of religion/morals/ethics. If your religous beliefs don't determine your political beliefs, then you're a hypocrite. I would also remind those that point out that our president didn't receive a majority of the popular vote, neither did Bill Clinton. Bush got a larger percentage of the popular vote in the 2000 election than Clinton did in either of his elections. Clinton won both elections because the conservative vote was split, not because the majority of Americans wanted him. acco40: But when churches get tax exempt status from the government and then organize highly political efforts to influence legislation I get a little queasy. It's interesting to note that the only churches that get away with this advocate liberal positions. As to this poll, it's rather like asking a woman if she's stopped beating her wife...

kwc57, The question I struggle with is what business is it of ours? ... He is not seeking worldwide domination and he isn't trying to exterminate an entire race from the face of the Earth. Is he ruthless and willing to kill his own people for his own reasons? Yes. Is it the Iraqi people's job to revolt and overthrow him or ours? Remove it from a global perspective. If Saddam were the guy next door and the Iraqi people his wife and children, and he was abusing them, would it be your buisness? Is it only the job of the battered wife and children to revolt and overthrow him? He's not seeking to beat you or your children. Lots of people are quick to unleash child protective services on abusive fathers, why not on "nation beaters"? What's the difference? Does the principle change because of the scale? And we do know he'll beat the neighbor's children. Look what he tried to do to Kuwait. -Rob

That's too bad, le Voyageur. I wish you could agree with the BSA on this. All would be better served if you did. I hope in time...you will someday see, and feel the suffering and humilation being inflicted on others by these polices... And I hope in time you'll see the fallacy of this statement. It's not BSAs policies that cause suffering and humiliation. I look forward to a day when all sinners can see that it's the choice to sin that causes their suffering and humiliation, a time when all may turn from evil, repent, and follow God.

packsaddle, This would also apply if the "religion somewhere" said a thing was immoral. Yes, indeed and we can point to many instances of this in current practice. You can neither specify too narrow a set of moral beliefs nor too broad a set. The line must be drawn to include the largest set of non-conflicting beliefs. Homosexuality being morally acceptable conflicts too strongly with the beliefs of too many others, so it must be excluded. As to there being a religion whose deity is totally ambivalent about murder, I don't know for sure, but I don't doubt there is. That's beside the point. I, and I feel reasonably sure you also, wouldn't accept a believer of Thuggee as a leader in the BSA, but according to your theory of "non-denominationalism" we must accept them. He would think himself morally staight just as much as any homosexual would think himself morally straight. If we can't say the homosexual is not morally staight, how can we say the Thug is not morally straight? By what standard do we judge? What standard should we use to judge moral straightness?

which religions are they that consider murder as good or moral? Well, there are the various sects of radical Islam that say if you die while killing an infidel it's a ticket to paradise. India had suttee and the Thuggee. The Aztecs did human sacrifice. Generally they dress it up as doing a good deed. There are other religions and sects that are even more egregious examples. The point is that we must draw the line on morality somewhere. Just because some religion somewhere says a thing is OK, doesn't mean the rest of us should accept it in our organization or society.

Quoting tjhammer: Why don't those of us who oppose the BSA policy have the same right to association and self-determination as those of you who support it? You do. Go somewhere else and exercise it. What you don't have is the right to force the rest of us to accept you in our organization. Is it solely because there are more people in BSA that think the way that you do than the way we do? Is that really a valid standard for legislating morality? I don't seek to impose my morality on you, nor do I seek to change the organization in a way that affects you. The only valid standard for legistlating morality is an absolute standard. Unfortuneately, finding a consensus on that absolute standard is very hard, so we're left with majority rule, which I generally find better than minority rule. Sometimes I'm thankful that we can all agree that 2 + 2 = 4 (an absolute truth). But you do seek to impose your morality on me and change the organization in a way that affects me. You want the BSA to allow homosexual membership. For the BSA to allow homosexual membership is a tacit endorsement of homosexuality as "morally straight", implictly teaching that homosexuality is not sin, and I will not be a member, nor allow my children to be members of such an organization. Quoting acco40: Also, the BSA professes to be non-denominational. So what constitutes "morally straight?" Is there only one denomination that views homosexuality as sinful? Pick any behavior, from shoplifting to murder, and I'm sure you can find some religon somewhere that says it's OK. Should BSA allow membership to people who sacrifice their first born to Molech, simply because that religion says it's OK? The line must be drawn somewhere. The BSA has defined homosexuality as not "morally straight" and the majority of the membership seems to agree. If they were to define it as being "morally straight", I would leave immediately. TJ, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe that to spoil your fun, or to make your life hard, or to make you hurt. I sincerely don't want you to be unhappy. Trying to say something that's bad for you and bad for others is not bad, does not make it so, though. Admittedly, I can't give you lots of reasons off the top of my head that homosexuality is bad, but just as a child must trust his parents when they won't let him play with a book of matches, I must trust my Father, God that homosexuality is bad, bad for the pratitioner, and bad for those around him. I hope that someday, you'll be able to see this also. Something to ponder to yourself, if someone could present you with irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is sin, would you repent and turn from it? -Rob

Well, acco40 and tjhammer, if we're not to use religous texts or our own opinion to define "morally straight", then what are we to use? The law and oath are not self defining. They are based on external definitions. On what do you base your definition of morally straight and why? What do you use to define any part of the oath and law? Your personal opinion? On what or whose authority do you determine that being homosexual is "morally straight"? Your own opinion? I certainly don't think you base that belief on what the Bible says. Prove to us that it's not immoral. -RobK

Coming from a socialist website, this article is almost self-parody. What's next, are they going to trot out a Che Guevara look-a-like to decry the prison camp at Gitmo? BTW, one of the locations "believed to be in mountainous terrain in the eastern United States" is an underground complex at a resort in Greenbrier, West Virginia. It's been around for most of the past century.

Quoting from the referenced article: There are several problems, however, with employing 2000 year old religious texts to criticize what we now know about sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Most significantly, it is problematic to treat the Bible as if its writers were not affected by the limitations imposed on them by their position within a very specific cultural and historical context. Using their definition of hate speech, this sounds like anti-religous hate speech to me. Telling me that I shouldn't call homosexuality sin and avoid it's adherents and promoters is no different than a Christian saying "What you're doing is sin, you should stop." It's a moral judgement based on personally held moral beliefs. Homosexuals et al. often ask "What right do you have to tell me that I'm wrong?" I'll turn the question around. What right do they have to tell us that we're wrong? Who gave them the authority to tell us that homosexuality isn't wrong and that we have to accept it? If expressing the belief that homosexuality is immoral is a hate crime, then how is it any less a hate crime to say that it's immoral to believe homosexuality is immoral? The very idea of "hate crime" is disgusting though. Is it less evil for a mugger to murder a homosexual simply to get his wallet than for someone to murder a homosexual because he's a homosexual? Would there be hate crime charges if I was murdered because my killer hates right-wing Christian gun owners and thinks they all ought to die? Would it be any less of a "hate crime"? Regarding using 2000 year old texts, Sun Tzu's The Art of War is older than that, and no one denies the universal truths in it. BTW, Bob White, glad to hear from you again...

The fiction of a liberal media persists. Let's see, over 98% of reporters vote Democrat. Sounds liberal to me... The media in the US is largely corporate and bows to those interests. All too often I find that corporations are very liberal. So in that case, I think you're right. The media is largely corporate and does bow to those (liberal corporate) interests.