Eagle732

"It says the right to bear arms.....But not what type.......remember it was 230+ years ago."

Basement, 230 years ago the only way to communicate was either verbally (speech) or print (press). Would you agree to banning the internet and cell phone use because both are extensively used in crime?

Didn't we just have this discussion on giving up freedoms?

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Beav, so first my quotes were from "nutters" and now you say they're "out of context" but offer no proof. Anyone who follows the gun control issues knows that there are plenty of politicians, including the ones I quoted who would gladly support far greater restrictions or even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

acco,

You could purchase and mount on your home full auto weapons if you choose. You just need a $200 federal permit for each one.

Your high school daughter is not old enough to carry a weapon and we have Gun Free School laws. However school shootings in Israel are rare, maybe heres why: http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/12_Pics_of_Day/121214.pic.of.day.c.html

If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) you could carry in church. It might come in handy one day. We had a guy come into a local church here and rob everyone at gun point during the service. Fortunately he chose not to shoot anyone.

Of course we would be safer if NO weapons of any type existed, but that's not the world we live in is it?

So I'll play your game. All firearms in the US are banned, now what? Are we safer?

Well we can't let facts get in the way of a political agenda now can we?

Those I quoted are not "nutters" as you say, they are elected or appointed US politicians that currently have or recently had a hug amount of political power.

There's lots of quotes from nut jobs out there but I purposely did not use them because I wanted to keep the conversation legitimate.

You calling the quotes I site as just those from "nutters" belittles the legitimacy of my post and quite frankly is beneath you.

I can assure you I run from nothing.

The topic of the thread is "GUN CONTROL, what is reasonable?". Just look at the top of the page, it's right there. You don't need to use misleading partial quotes to make your point.

I don't believe it would have an impact either way. Full auto weapons have been strictly regulated since the '30s.(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

" If there is any doubt about the safety of a camping area, simply don't go there."

FrankScout, do you think there was any doubt in the mind of the staff about how safe that school was at 9:20 on Friday, December 14th?

How long is it going to take for a Park Ranger to come to your aid when your boys are threatened in some campground. My experience last month was over an hour.

Brought to you by the same people who banned little red wagons and paint rollers!

Paranoid? Here's some quotes to think about:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno, Attorney General.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them.'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it!" Senator Diane Feinstein, Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995 (WHO IS CURRENTLY DRAFTING A NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AS WE SPEAK!)

" We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Congressman Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, December 8, 1993

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum (of course poor Howard is dead so his opinion doesn't count but it still shows the mentality)

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." MA Governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis

"If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated" Congresswoman and (thankfully) past Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Mom was reportedly concerned about the financial collapse of the country. Quite frankly so am I.

"Be prepared????? Really for what?????"

Why, for any old thing! B-P

Basement, you really seem wound up about this, what gives?

I don't carry because here in the great communist state of Maryland you can't realistically get a CCW. If I could I would.

Would I carry on a scout trip? I don't know but I had an incident happen on the last camping trip that had me wishing I was packing. And of course the Park Ranger tells me later that he was an hour away and wouldn't have been able to help even if I could have gotten a cell call out.

What would you do if some crazed Boy Scout hater drove into your camp with a shot gun and started shooting randomly at your boys? Of course that could never happen, or could it?

RPGs are explosives so continuing to try to make a point using them as your example is not logical. Sorry.

We're talking about INCREASING controls on firearms, not decreasing the controls. We law abiding gun owners accept the laws on the books and ask that they be enforced.

Prove to me how increasing gun control will increase my safety? That is the question. I have the right, if you want to take it away than right then the onus is on you to prove that it will be beneficial. The '94 Assault Weapons Ban (which didn't actually ban assault weapons, only certain semi-auto weapons with too many of certain specific features) expired in '04 because it was not proven to be effective.

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy "strongly discourages hikers from carrying firearms" but they have no legal authority to not allow you to do so. They have no enforcement or regulatory authority. You have every right to carry as long as you abide by the law in the jurisdiction you are in.

I have hiked the entire AT and then some. I had one instance where I was wishing I had a gun. The only other situation I was aware of during my 5 continuos months on the trail last year was when one of the young ladies in our group was almost abducted by some local drunks while we were in town. She fought back and got away. Never underestimate the power of a thru-hiking gal!(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

BE PREPARED!

I lived through the riots of "68. We lived just a few blocks outside of the Baltimore City line. I remember my father and all the neighbors being very afraid that the riots, looting and burning would spread. Dad had a friend that owned a gun shop and I remember going with him to buy a few boxes of shotgun shells "just in case". I know he would have done whatever necessary to protect us.

So WasE61 turn in your guns but don't ban mine. I'll keep mine and protect my family. You're on your own, good luck.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Well Calico,

How many regimes would you like me to name that disarmed their subjects before killing them? And I can think of at least one rag tag group that beat the greatest military power in the world with little more than single shot rifles.

We need to go back to the "Well regulated militia" or well trained volunteer soldier and put him to work protecting our children. He will gladly do to for free to give back to his country.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Tampa, you obviously didn't read the second article. The writer advocates a volunteer force consisting of retired police and military personnel, trained and certified AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE! And before you say it wouldn't work let me remind you that there are probably millions of volunteers working in the classrooms every day.

Also the vast majority of the country is protected by volunteer fire and EMS who train and equip themselves largely AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE! (not yelling , just emphasis). We trust a teenage kid with dragging our family members out of a burning house or a car salesman who volunteers to be a paramedic with giving us life saving drugs but we can't trust a retired police officer or Marine with the safety of our children? So quoting salaries and numbers of paid police officers per school is irrelevant to my point. As I said before we can continue doing nothing, or doing things that have been proven not to work or we can deal with the problem. I'm reminded of the definition of insanity.

Pass more laws if you like but ask yourself how's that gun free school zone working out?

Take the time to read these two short articles from some very knowledgable experts. These guys have been taking about this for years, notice the date of the first article is May of 2010. I attended a seminar that Grossman spoke at, he is right on.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6067353-Newtown-shooting-Why-Minutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/

We know what one deranged individual with little training and planning can do in an unprotected environment. Consider what a team of fully supported, highly motivated and trained terrorists could do. Now do we waste time with simple minded schemes advanced for political purposes or do we address the problem with action?

I don't know, China thinks it's time we do something about Americans owning so many guns, they seem very concerned.

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/

Depends on who's doing the defining.

Wiki says: "An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies."

The equivalent would be the M-16, full and 3 round burst fire or semi auto (1 shat per trigger pull)

Webster says: "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

So this could mean your typical semi-auto hunting rifle that is also used by the military.

Now the trouble starts when the government gets involved and starts making up its own definition, and since they have the power, they get to make the rules. Take the previous assault rifle ban which expired after testimony showed it was not effective.

From www.atf.treas.gov :

Semiautomatic assault weapon.

(a) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:

(1) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models),

(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil,

(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70),

(4) Colt AR-15,

(5) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC,

(6) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12,

(7) Steyr AUG,

(8) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, and

(9) Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

(3) A bayonet mount,

(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and

(5) A grenade launcher;

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip,

(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer,

(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,

(4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and

(5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and

(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.

So here we've changed the definition from "Assault Rifle" to "Semi-Auntomatic Assault Weapons" which now includes pistols and shotguns if they have certain features.

By the way, i own #4 of from the list in part A. I use it for target shooting.

Didn't we just have the discussion about giving up freedoms?

There is a Pack/Troop/Crew in our district run by volunteers from the special needs school here just for scouts who need extra help. God bless 'em, I couldn't do it.

fred, I was referring to "Adulters, drunks, wife beaters" that moose mentioned.

Drunks showing up at troop meetings or outings,

Wife beaters are obviously violent and are breaking the law,

Adulterers, well when it happened on a camping trip between two married adult who were unfortunately not married to each other (before I was a member),

then I don't have a problem with weeding those type of people out.

In my many years as an adult leader I have had one person removed for alcohol abuse and one charged criminally for destruction of troop property. I never lost a minutes sleep over either situation.

EagerLeader, you said the application went directly to council. I assume he paid the BSA registration fee to council. Does your troop have membership fees in addition to the BSA registration fee? If so did the scout pay those dues to your troop? If he didn't than I would not consider him a member. As I said before I'd want to see the application because if the the SM's signature is not his than the app is not valid.

Horizon, you are correct that a SMC does not guarantee advancement. I do SMCs all the time with my scouts for a multitude of reasons. However, most parents who are not familiar with the process would consider it so even though they would be wrong. In this case I think one would need to make it clear that this meeting was in no way going to lead to advancement. That would be for a SMC in the future.

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

I would have a sit down with him, not as a SMC, and defiantly not with his mother present. I would have a ASM with me who would be taking notes. I would ask him how he has contributed to his troop and how he fulfilled his requirements. I would also be reluctant to accept any advancement signed by another SM for the rank he is currently working on without verification from the previous SM.

As soon as mom finds out she can't bully you she'll find another troop. I've dealt with bully parents in the past and I can assure you it never gets better, only worse. If you let this boy join your troop expect more of the same.

My guess is he's going for 1st Class so he can move on to the crew and start working on Eagle.

I'd be real interested in seeing the application to see if my signature somehow appeared on it. If that were the case I'd be asking all kinds of questions on how it got there.

My "We" was in fact referring specifically to my unit. I do not know thus can not comment on what others do.