Torveaux

Sorry fellas, but I think the results of an outright ban on handguns would be disastrous. We tried Prohibiting alcohol, it merely enriched the criminals further. Narcotics are illegal, yet tons of them cross the border every day. Others are grown and manufactured illegal right in our own country. As you so aptly pointed out, the black market will make prices rise. That makes smuggling a better risk/return business. Just as with prohibition, some traffickers in illegal arms would otherwise be doing illegal things anyway, some, however, would be otherwise law-abiding citizens that are willing to risk incarceration to protect themselves. The end result is an ever-widening gap of firepower between the criminals and their black market connections to illegal weapons and the average citizen who not only would need to take the legal and financial risks, but would need to acquire the underground connections in order to arm themselves. The same thing happens in the drug world today. Those already connected to criminal activities have a much easier time getting drugs and can get them more cheaply (closer to the producer, fewer people taking a cut) than can the Joe Average citizen that is looking for an occasional recreational drug. The only way a ban would work to make people safer is if somehow (magically?) every gun on the face of the planet would disappear at the same time. The technology would need to be unlearned and the ability to reconstitute such learning would have to be gone as well. Otherwise, the aforementioned market forces will always favor those willing to take bigger risks (criminals) who are willing to beg, borrow, steal, or invent whatever is deemed most effective in carrying out their crimes. You would create not only smuggling to avoid taxes and licensing, but illegal firearms manufacturing would spring up to fill the economic void. Our country is too vast and our ideals too open to be able to effectively ban anything, much less an item that would provide criminals almost unfettered access to the assets of private citizens. Rather than taking an impossible position, I think it would be better if we spend our time eliminating as many of the criminals as possible from the general populace. If the risks of crime are greater and the rewards fewer, market forces will play there as well. An armed or potentially armed citizenry places much greater risk to the criminal with no better than an equal reward. The data speaks for itself in this regard in that crime rates have dropped whenever gun laws are relaxed and concealed carry laws are in place.

I'm with you scoutpacific. My oldest son is a WebI and my daughter is a Brownie. She may as well be a Juliette as the program is so inferior. She loves to attend Pack functions and camp to family camp with us this summer as well. She has been 'forced' to endure a few den meetings (I am the DL) and enjoys those more than the Brownie meetings. I wish the BSA had a parallel program. I don't want a co-ed Cub Program, but perhaps at the Pack level it would be OK. Envision a Pack with Girls and Boys Dens for each level. The only part of the Brownie program I like is the idea of them getting a patch to wear for each Try-it they complete. The specific Try-its need some work, but I think the visible award system is great. The Cub program is a little weak in that area. I have another boy and girl that are still too young. The only reason our daughters will do Girl Scouts at this point is that there is just not a better alternative available.

Adult awards/patches... The Council buys the square knots for those who earn them. The only participation patches for adults are for things like Webelos Jamboree and such. Those are included with the price of the campout. Each individual is responsible for paying for their own camping costs, but we just started a program where each boy can keep part of his popcorn sales profit aside for such expenses. Adults would still need to pay their portion. The 'trained' and position patches for leaders are paid for by the Pack, though some of us buy our own anyway. We had around 30 boys and they sold enough popcorn that we took in about $4500 in profit. Each boy's goal was $200 in sales and all but 1 or 2 made it. The average boy sold about $375 worth. I know my son did fairly well, just over $500, but he could have done much better if not for some family obstacles to getting out there. That is our only fundraiser. We have considered a spring popcorn sale as well, but that would put even more of the profit into the boys' individual accounts for camping and uniform stuff at the scout shop. For things like a family campout, the Pack would only pay things like a fee to hold the campsite. Otherwise those attending split the costs among them. We do a bowling outing every year as a Pack and the Pack negotiates a good deal with an alley, but everyone pays their own way (hardship cases aside). We are hoping to be able to have the Pack pay for more of this type of thing out of Pack funds as we become more fiscally sound.

Hunt, 44 of the 50 states have state constitutional amendments or language that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms as well. The language of the 2nd Amendment has only been in question recently. Only revisionists and people making a lame attempt to undermine its intent for their own political reasons even question its meaning. The Founders through their language and their associated writings clearly intended that the people retain the power to defend themselves from criminals both within and without their government was not only important, but mandatory for a free people to be governed. The Founders feared the tyranny they rebelled against and gave the people the power to defend themselves. Prairie, the willingness to strip people of any of their Constitutional rights, especially those so clearly defined in the Bill of Rights is tantamount to an attempt to strip them all. If the freedom to defend onesself is debatable, so too is any right enumerated by the Founders. My point is quite germane to the thread. It is much like the saying about the Nazis, when they took the rights others, I stood aside and let it happen and by the time they got to me, there was no one left to help me. Also, an FCC regulation is much easier to change than a law. Packsaddle, not only would such a plan take a long time, it would be impossible without restricting even more of our rights. The criminal element would still be able to acquire new weapons. What is cost to those willing to steal? Your premise is fatally flawed as it presumes that those who engage in crime play by the rules. Even if the US outlawed all weapons and weapons production, criminals would find a way to smuggle them from other nations. Besides, even in a gun-free utopia, those truly bent on killing will simply use the next most lethal alternative. BTW, Pheasants, ducks, geese, grouse, partridge... many tasty animals that are best taken with a shotgun. Besides, using slugs, shotguns are good for big game hunting as well. I thought you were out East somewhere, you can duck/goose hunt if you wish...

We pay for everything that the boys actually earn. Beltloops, patches, etc. We do not however pay for redundant items: 2nd beltloop, replacements, etc. Each boy gets the neckerchief and book for the next year at crossover. Web IIs get the BS handbook and neckerchief if not already provided by the Troop. We have some activity patches for special events that are merely attended, but most involve service (Scouting for Food). If we had the segment thing, we would pay for it as well. We also usually present each boy that crosses over with a token gift. (things like hiking staves, whistle/compass keyrings, etc.) Blue and Gold is a cafeteria style dinner with catered Chicken/Pizza and desserts. Sorry, mbscoutmom, but either the money is going out elsewhere or you are not taking anything in through a fundraiser.

Long Haul, I agree with your basic stance, but the GPS thing had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. It is merely an FCC regulation. Handguns are legal to hunt with in some states. I think hunting deer with a rifle is a bit too easy. Using archery, shotguns, or handguns makes it a bit more sporting. Someone mentioned that shotguns are for those with bad aim. Try hunting upland game birds with a rifle. The basic problem with the premise that more restrictive guns laws will reduce gun injuries or death is that the statistics simply do not bear it out. Criminals do not really care much about gun laws as they are going to commit a crime anyway. The reason you have more restrictions on auto driving is that there are no constitutional guarantees to the right to drive a car. As for the Scouting argument...we can reasonably assume that there are considerably fewer armed or unarmed criminals at Scouting functions than in the general populace. Zahnada, there are likely quite a few people you would not expect that are armed on the streets. One of the advantages of handguns and concealed carry laws are that the criminals cannot predict so easily who are the 'safe' marks. In an area where the law prohibits handguns and/or concealment, the criminals have fairly good odds of knowing they will be the only ones armed in the conflict. This makes crime more likely whether or not a gun is used in commission of the crime. If only long arms were legal, it would still be quite obvious to criminals which marks were armed or not. The really cool part about the concealed carry laws is that everyone need not be armed for them to be effective. Most criminals are essentially cowards. They want to prey on the weak. When they cannot be certain of success, they are less likely to perpetrate the crime. As for the argument about licenses or training, I guess it would not really be an effecive tool. It would limit the likelyhood that any individual on the street would be carrying a weapon. That tips the odds further in the favor of the criminals who would need no such license. I believe proper training is a great idea, but I do not agree that the government should mandate such training. Frankly, I don't think the government should mandate driver's training or other such training either. Great idea to have the training, but how would you feel about the government requiring special training or licensing to practice free speech, or freedom of the press (only licensed people can report?) If the government did not require driver's licenses, the insurance industry would likely develop their own training courses that would significantly reduce premiums. (in fact, where I learned to drive "Driver's Ed" was not required but insurance was much cheaper if you had it)

I don't think I would change the uniform requirements of the unit, I would however, seriously consider finding a better location for meeting.

Rather than the COR, you may need to get the Committee Chair involved. The COR in many orgs is simply not actively involved in the Pack. ScoutNut is spot-on in saying that the CM has no real say in who the Den Leaders are. (please excuse the poor grammar, I'm tired)

Well, 3 of our 5 Webelos I's just received their awards. The other 2 did not get to a resident or day camp, so they will be ineligible.

I would tell the DL to re-read the Wolf book. Page 6 (2003)"Arrow points are presented at the Pack meeting after he receives his Wolf badge." it continues... "Completing electives for Arrow Points generally should wait until until after he has completed his Wolf badge, and he cannot receive Arrow Point until after he has been awarded his Wolf badge." I think it is pretty clear and the book should be definitive enough.

I would not say it is a difficult parent, I think the Committee made a bad decision. Our dues are $35 this year up from $25 last year. That is still less than half of your Pack. We pay for all awards and do not have artificial limits on the boys. The cost per boy is about $90. The remaining money is all made by one popcorn sale in the fall. Parents can opt out of the popcorn sale by making up the difference, but even in our relatively well off (financially) community, few exercise that option. Selling something is good for the boys and helps build their confidence. I agree with most of Eamonn's post, I would suggest however that if he is coming for a bridging ceremony he is perhaps joining a Troop and would still be a BSA member. Even if he is not moving on, he earned the award as a member of the BSA and should still receive it. If a baseball player retires at the end of the season he still gets any awards (MVP and such) earned during that season.

I will consider myself consulted.... While letters of marque were not given to just anyone, the ability to own or possess a ship of war or a cannon or the 'top of the line' military weapons was not restricted for many years after (1934) the founding of the country. Like all other gun laws, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 did nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, it merely made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The founders did not outlaw ownership or possession, they outlawed activities, such as piracy and enforced those laws with what would now be considered cruel and unusual punishments. TheScout is quite correct in one sense, a big portion of the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment was in response to the oppression of the governments of the day.

BrentAllen you are spot on. If we follow the letter of the rules, Scouts and Scouters cannot wear any 'civilian' wear with uniforms items. No underwear, no footwear, no non-issue coats. I think wearing long sleeves under the shirt is perfectly OK, if not encouraged. As long as the shirt coordinates with the uniform, it can look pretty snappy. As a Cub Leader, I wear a long-sleeved navy sweatshirt under my uniform for some things. Coats cover the uniform shirt making its wearing pointless. Layering is a great way (and highly recommended) way to stay warm. A long-sleeved uniform shirt is not nearly as effective.

Stop having so many fundraisers. Have one good fundraiser and get the whole group on board. We told our parents this year what the target number was for each boy to sell popcorn in order for us to fund the program at its current level. The alternative was for each parent to simply write a check for the amount of profit the pack would have realized from the sales. Everyone sold popcorn and only a few did not reach the target number (about $200 in sales). We sold 3x the amount of popcorn that we did last year. It is pretty easy for families to get burned out on multiple fundraisers. Find the best one and make it work.

Don't be so sure about 5 boys. Part of your problem may be that you must get through so much for 11 boys. Maybe the boys could recruit 1 more boy and have two dens of 6. While even numbers are better for some things, there are significant advantages to smaller dens. The boys get to do more rather than just observing others doing more. They also get more time as denner to develop leadership. At 11 boys you are beyond the outer guideline. You do not really have any wiggle room for expansion.

Our Council allowed this type of activity at the Webelos Jamboree this fall. I had the same reaction that GreenEagle5 had. This may be OK for Scouts but it hardly conforms to safe activities that one would plan for Webelos. In fact, I would restrict it to Boy Scouts 13 and over (much like climbing a tall wall and such). As for being "a blast", I hardly think that is a reason to include such an activity in a Webelos program. Many things may be "a blast" to 8-10 year-olds that we do not really want them to do at their age (if at all).

I think what we need are more Justices like Roberts. If you watched his confirmation testimony it was clear that he values the law first and is able to filter out his personal views when sitting on the bench. Miers may be like Rehnquist in that she has never been a judge, but she is very unlike Rehnquist as she is not exactly a scholar. Rehnquist graduated #1 in his class at Stanford. Miers went to SMU, I could find no mention of where she was in her class, which generally means she was not near the top. I think that unlike the observations of some, she appears to be pro-life and is not necessarily a Constitutionalist. If your only point of interest is in Roe v Wade, then I think she would be a positive choice for the pro-life crowd and a negative one for the pro-death crowd. The problem is that there is a great deal more to the law than that one poorly written decision. I think Bush is a nice guy, but like his father before him he can be easily mislead by people with more nefarious objectives. There are many more qualified candidates out there, both male and female. Both Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen are better qualified and are, like Roberts, defenders of the Constitution, rather than a particular ideology. Owen was #1 in her class at Baylor Law and both have extensive judicial experience. It is not that Miers is a bad person or anything, it is that she is not the best candidate available and for the Supreme Court it is incumbent upon the President and the Senate to get the best Justices they can find. As for comparisons to JFK appointing his brother as AG, at least AG is a temporary position.

So what would happen if two Venture Crew members were married (to each other). While it is becoming increasingly uncommon, many people get married in that 18-21 time frame. Since they are married can they share a tent? Why or why not? If two married adult leaders are at camp they can share a tent. Just curious. This is a very interesting topic. I guess when I turned 18 so many moons ago, my peers and I all understood that the 'rules' were different and girls that were OK to date the day before were off limits until they reached an older age (varies by state). I think the same thing applies to Scouts. If you are an adult leader, you should fish for dates somewhere besides in the Youth pond.

You are absolutely right fgoodwin. There a just a number of people, parents and leaders mostly, that just can't understand the whole concept and just assume that the program is designed to get the most bling and to manipulate the rules so as to best add awards to each boy. That teaches them exactly the wrong thing, but as long as they can rationalize it to themselves I suppose they sleep well at night.

As a legal immigrant myself, I get very upset about all of the illegals. Illegals do not pay most taxes as they generally are paid in cash, under the table. They do pay sales taxes, but much of the money they earn is returned to Mexico to prop up their flagging economy. There are plenty of anecdotal stories about immigrants from other areas, but the largest influx comes from Mexico. The borders need to be physically closed and at the same time the system for guest workers needs to be implemented. There should be an amnesty program for those currently here: they have a fixed period of time to surrender to authorities on their own and be deported or they will be tracked down over the next few years and get permanently deported (the difference is that in my scenario, those deported could still apply for guest worker permits in their home country and return provided they had a clean record here and had a job waiting permanent deportation means they cannot legally immigrate ever. I would treat the appearance of those permanently deported back on US soil to be tantamount to espionage and treat them as such). The INS could spend more energy tracking current illegals if they did not have so much work to do processing those flooding across the open borders. The Border Patrol could be smaller if the border had a physical obstruction.

I would love to get Touch Rugby approved as a Cub Scout Beltloop/Pin option... I played Fullback about 70 pounds ago... Now I look like a scrummie without the 'ear' problems.

RuggerBear, Just curious does the Rugger part of your handle come from Rugby? I'm a former player and current coach.

At the Bear level the parents approve the achievements. In most situations you just have to take their word for it, but if the dates do not fall within the Bear timeframe, they cannot count. Like I learned from my first CompSci teacher...garbage in-garbage out.

CC is definitely the way to go. The Committee Chair is the real source of direction. From that role you select (with COR approval) the leadership from CM on down. You can help the CM get better or replace him with someone more ready, willing, and able to put together good Pack events. All you can really do as CM is try to get your DLs trained and put together the Pack program yourself. Selection of leaders is not your job at that level. You can make recommendations, but that is about it.

FScouter is right in concept but not in terms of roles. It is the responsibility of the Committee Chair and the COR with input from the Cubmaster to form dens and recruit leaders. It is the Cubmaster's job to see that the leaders get resources and training. Either way, I would never take a den of more than 9 boys. Once it hits 10, it is really time to split in two. 20 boys could be as many as 4 dens. Realistically, you should have 3 dens. There are as many ways to split them up as there are people to come up with ideas. I would try to stick to keeping core groups of friends together as much as possible. They are more likely to continue if their friends are on board. Your only real position must be to firmly but politely tell the CC that you cannot serve more than x boys. Only you can really define x, but the program is not designed to handle more than 8 or so per den. It is his/her job to source among the existing parents or other individuals for a new leader(s). By trying to serve all 20 boys, you will end up serving none.