Eagle732

NJ, If you review my statement you will notice I was asking if you didn't think it was worthwhile. It was a question, not a statement of what you said. 

The owner of WB, at my suggestion, offered at his expense, to provide a place on his website for Scouts and Scouters to discuss Philmont. There are already thousands of posts on Philmont already on WB (Google "Philmont" specific to" whiteblaze.net" to see yourself). I was thinking it would be helpful to have all those posts in one forum dedicated to Philmont.

I now see that there is no interest so I'll withdraw the idea.  

Yah, hmmm...

 

Whiteblaze is an Appalachian Trail site.  Last time I looked, Philmont was a fair ways away from da AT. 

 

There's a Philmont email list already managed by USSSP, and a Philmont forum at BackPackingLight.  Pretty sure there's a Yahoo group as well, plus da lists run by Philmont staff.

 

As yeh say, it's unclear whether there's enough traffic to merit independent forums on the subject.  Folks generally are interested only prior to or perhaps right after a trip.

 

Beavah

Beach,

I suggest you visit White Blaze again. The site, although primarily an AT site has individual forums for all the major long trails, some of which you've probably never hear of and some which are shorter than the typical Philmont trek.

These trails have individual forums on WhiteBlaze.net :

Colorado Trail

Long Trail in VT

Pacific Crest Trail

Continental Divide Trail

Arizona Trail

Florida Trail

Ice Age Trail

John Muir Trail

Benton McKaye Trail

Mountain to Sea Trail

New England Trail, and several others. 

OK, so you don't think that having a forum on the largest, most visited backpacking site is worthwhile?

I know there are other places to go but none have the traffic that WhiteBlaze has. They have over 62,000 members, have over 100,000 threads and have almost 2 million posts.

Is there a need for an online public forum to discuss Philmont related topics?

I have an acquaintance who owns WHITEBLAZE.NET, the largest online forum for backpacking/hiking. WB has forums for all the major trails including the AT, PCT, CDT, LT etc.

I suggested that WB create a forum for Philmont. Considering over 20,000 Scouts and Scouters go to Philmont each year I think this would be a great opportunity to create a community to share experiences and information. I know that when I was preparing for Philmont a few years ago I visited BackpackingLight.com. However that site is a pay to join site where as WB is free.

Let me know your thoughts and I'll forward them to the site owner. If we get enough interest he will consider opening another forum on WB just for Philmont.

You can visit WB at: http://whiteblaze.net/forum/content.php

Thanks,

Is it just me or has the site been changed? I find it unusable in its current format.

Smokers, drinkers and gun totin' Scoutmasters have rights too.

Well I guess we do things just a little bit different.

Be in uniform

Bring your handbook

Bone up on the requirements, you will be asked questions.

Rank awarded the same night as BOR.

"I have formed a local group with several churches and other scout leaders to put pressure on our Congress man and Senators for change. We have drafted a letter and asked for a meeting with them thru our church minister."

Basement, when you have your meeting maybe you can ask that the laws be enforced that are already on the books. If you read my last post you'll know why I ask this.

Hey Basement, 5 years ago my sister in law was murdered by a criminal with a long record who stole a gun, broke into her home and shot her probably because he didn't want to leave a witness.

When he was caught the first thing the prosecutor did was throw out the 5 year mandatory gun charge, then they dropped the charges to 2nd degree murder so they could get a plea. I expect that the wife and I will have to go to the parole hearings in a few years to try and keep this dirt bag behind bars more that 10 years. I'm sure he'll be happy about that and since he already threatened my FIL I'm sure he'll be gunning for me too. And until I have 3 reported, credible threats I can't even apply for a permit to carry in this state.

How's that fit in to your proposals?

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Are you concerned about the lead concentrations at hundreds of Scout camp shooting ranges?

Lead (Pb) occurs naturally in the environment.

"After spending 3 days and 30 miles hiking with some boys through areas where no firearms is allowed AND once again having some yahoo discharge a firearm nearby where we were hiking on a designated trail (and wearing orange)I really wish the "gun folks" would support restrict idiots with getting firearms. Some folks are just too stupid."

Tampa, did you see the person shooting? How do you know he wasn't on private property? I'm sure you know the sound of a shot can carry a long distance. How do you know they were not acting safely? Just wondering.

"Yah, this has me in stitches. Have yeh been watchin' da news lately? Or readin' what folks have been writin' here in da forums at Scouter.com? "

Yes Beaver I have been reading what people say here, especially what you've been saying. What I've seen is that time and time again when someone makes a point that you disagree with you belittle them with some snide little remark like the one above.

Something that I've noticed here lately is that if it wasn't for this discussion on gun control or gays in Scouting there would be little activity on Scouter (Currently the "Today's Active Topics" shows about 400 posts on gun control issues and about 70 on all other topics combined). These topics are so emotionally charged that some people just can't be civil when discussing them. I'm wondering if others, like me have decided to step back somewhat from this forum because of the lack of Scout like behavior by some here.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

I agree with background checks to prohibit criminal since they having given up their rights by their past actions,

Mandatory education to prove you know what your doing since your actions have consequences,

Passing a test to you prove you are responsible,

And paying a tax before you exercise you rights.

The above should be applied to guns and voting!

"Then you know something the Bush WMD inspection team didn't know or was unable to find."

Just for you:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-01.htm

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

The NRA will send you a free packet with child safety information. From the NRA website:

"The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program can provide you with a sample of materials for your review. Our sample packet includes a copy of a student workbook, testimonials, program statistics and ordering information. To receive a free sample packet, please call 1-800-231-0752 or email eddie@nrahq.org."

So Iraq didn't have large stockpiles of chemical weapons? Oh I know different.

Well Beaver, the good senator from Iowa says the administration would not provide requested information. I take him for his word. The senate does have the responsibility to confirm appointees. If the senate which has a Democratic majority wanted to confirm someone I'm sure it would. Sounds like candidate #2 Todd Jones has some issues with "Fast and Furious" which is a whole other world of problems. Funny how no one went to jail for that little scheme.

Beaver "7. Nomination of a new ATF director (dropping his former nominee who has languished for 4 years without a vote)."

Maybe this from a letter to the President from Senator Grassley of Iowa might shed some light on why the ATF DIrector job has yet to be filled"

Grassley "One area I agree with the President on is that a Senate confirmed head of the ATF would be beneficial, but if the Justice Department leadership, including the Attorney General, does its job, there should be plenty of accountability for the ATF. In addition, the last time the President nominated a Director for the ATF, we asked for information in June 2011 regarding the Presidents nominee, Andrew Traver, but the administration refused to respond. Neither the White House nor the majority attempted to move the nomination forward. They pushed for numerous nominees during the last Congress, but the ATF Director wasnt one of them. The new nominee, B. Todd Jones, is a familiar face to the committee, but his ties to the Fast and Furious scandal raise serious questions. Not to mention his involvement in the now infamous quid pro quo arrangement where the Justice Department bartered away valid False Claims Act cases in Minnesota. In any case, hell receive a thorough and fair vetting by the Judiciary Committee."

The Senate confirms nominees, and as you know the Senate has a Democrat majority.

Ah, the devil is in the details Beaver, let's try to keep things honest!(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Why waste tax dollars on research designed to prove an outcome the government wants? Don't they have more important things to spend money on like how fast shrimp can run on a treadmill

"Why not just repeal the 2nd and then the government can do what it wants?"

"Because the second amendment does not grant gun rights."

Yes Brewmiester, you and I agree, The amendments prohibits the federal government from infringing upon inherent rights, it does not grant them. When we weaken one we weaken all.

All this Constitution talk has me thinking I'll go sign up to be a Citizenship in the Nation MBC!

Taxing ammo in a punitive way would be unconstitutional. Why not just repeal the 2nd and then the government can do what it wants?

Again driving a car is a privilege not a right. The State Police will find you and take your license and remove the tags from you car if they are revoked because these items belong to the state.

Well Beaver, the first point I would make is that cars are not protected by the Constitution. However:

"We do have speed limits, though, which might be da equivalent of gun-limited zones (but with lesser penalties).

Yep and you can't have certain classes of weapons, already a law.

We do limit da size of vehicles to a standard; we do charge extra taxes to larger vehicles with higher axle weights, which would be da equivalent of higher taxes on more powerful firearms.

Yep and all firearms and ammunition is currently subject to the the federal 11% Pittman Robertson Tax. This was self imposed by sportsman. additionally there is the 6% state sales tax. Already a law.

We do require registration of vehicles.

Hmm, my state has required all handguns and "assault" rifles to be registered at the time of sale already. Already a law here, your state may vary and that's there right.

We do require training and licensing of drivers if they want to leave their own property.

Yep, already have to take a handgun safety course to purchase a handgun, and a hunter's safety course to hunt. Already a law here, your state may vary and that's there right.

We do tax gasoline in order to pay for da services used by everyone who drives (road repair, etc.), which would be da equivalent of taxing ammunition to pay for the costs of general firearm ownership.

See Pittman Robertson tax comment above.

We do require liability insurance for automobiles in many if not most states.

If I misuse my guns I should be held legally responsible and the victim can sue me. Insurance would be dirt cheap for law abiding gun owners because the risk is so low. I already have insurance through the NRA. How are you going to get the criminals to buy insurance? Or is my insurance premiums going to have to cover the injuries caused by the criminals just in case they decide to disregard that law too?

We do operate on a strict liability basis for some sorts of automobile issues.

Pretty vague, not sure what you mean here

We do collect data on automobile accidents, and fund substantial research programs to improve automobile and highway safety.

There's plenty of biased government studies already. CDC funding for gun studies was cut in '96 because the studies were studies were flawed (biased).

We do let private property owners set their own rules for what they allow on their property, including where our car should be parked (or our firearm stored).

Incorrect, lots of areas restrict where you can park a car due to local ordinances and homeowners association). All firearms laws apply wether I'm on my property or not. If I have a shotgun with a barrel under 18" and the police find it on my property I can't claim that because it didn't leave my property it's OK

I don't feel that my freedom to drive is substantially limited by all that, eh? In most cases, I think it's just responsible and prudent. In some cases it annoys me in small ways, but I'm willing to put up with it because I recognize there are reasons for it and that not everyone agrees with me.

That's you right to feel anyway you want.

So I think we could come up with some reasonable regime like that for firearms, eh? Da fatalities and injuries from firearms in da U.S. are roughly comparable to cars (by order of magnitude), so some similar approach doesn't seem unreasonable.

I mentioned two points that I thought should be addressed, documented mental illness and federal prosecution of firearms violations. I know for a fact that the 5 year mandatory sentence for gun violations is the first charge dropped. I've see it first hand

Since you want to compare guns to cars I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. My good friend Mike Williamson wrote me the other day about this very subject (thanks Mike, great piece, I knew it would come in handy).

WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS LIKE WE DO GUNS!

"To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos. For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees (FAL) who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime. There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.

You will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street. Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education. Also, not all states will accept all licenses. You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted. It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through. Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all. Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing. (I'll add that your license from your home state might not be accepted in another state and you will not be able to operate a vehicle in the other state)

Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving, if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.

There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.

In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them for disposal. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals. The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.

The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually maybe this month we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel."

Hope you enjoyed the read Beaver, feel free to nit pick it apart.

Remember Cars don't kill people, drivers kill people!

Have a nice day

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Yea we don't ban cars that can go 120mph when the highest legal limit is 70. Focus on the criminal and not the inanimate object.

How about enforcing the 47,000 current gun laws on the books? I know for a fact that the mandatory 5 years for a gun crime is the first charge thrown out. Also there are many states that don't report those who are disqualified under federal law due to mental illness

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158758286/the-law-and-reality-of-gun-access

So if the Pres wants to start issuing exec. orders maybe he can start with these two suggestions. Make the states report those who have been legally established as being mentally ill and have the feds prosecute more gun crimes.