JMHawkins

Yeah M1 Garand thumb...Beretta bite too...how embarrassing. Not to mention that in their haste to look like they were doing something, they forgot to exempt Police, who typically carry 15 round magazine in NY.

... I was NEVER told or asked or even given a vague hint that I needed to do anything other than to report what I thought was the objective truth. I don't doubt that for a moment. But that's not how the bias creeps in, especially when it's research grants. A few years ago, when I briefly had more money than sense, I started the project of building a house on a 5 acre parcel outside of town. That of course requires lots of permits, studies and what not. One of the biggies is a biologists environmental study. My builder had a firm he recommended. They were scrupulously honest a

Government FUNDS research. Research is actually performed by regular citizens at universities, research corporations, and other places. That's da opposite of a monopoly. Nah, that's a monopoly. You're looking at the government as the customer of the researchers, but if you have a situation where there is only one customer, then they're not a customer, they're an employer. The only one. See professional sports leagues for examples of monopolies recognized because of their control over employment rather than prices. Anyway, you're the one who brought up the notion that we had to

So what you're sayin Beavah is that since the government created rules that effectively block private organizations from engaging in potentially beneficial research, the obvious solution is for the government to get bigger, spend more money, and acquire a monopoly on that particular type of research. Research which, by the way, is assumed to be important to answering the question of whether the government should assume even greater power and control by restricting what has been - since the founding of the country - considered a fundamental right. Now I may be a simple workerbee, but it s

Tommorrow. Maybe the next day. Depends on when you can get 5 scouts signed up. Don't worry about timing - start the ball rolling. When you have 5+ scouts and enough adults to fill out the charter and take care of the work, do it. But it sounds like you are in a very similar situation to what we were two years ago (though you have a few more people that we do, we're maybe 6,000, not 24,000). Two packs, a Troop that folded over a decade ago, most kids who continued went to a troop in the next town over, 11 miles away. That was us. We started organizing things in the f

But of course they didn't ban any research. They just banned spending tax dollars on it. There's a world of difference.

Let me ask a different question Beavah. Is there any legitimate reason to exercise budgetary control over public money? Eagledad already answered your main complaint. I'm not missing anything.

Yah, hmmm... JMHawkins, I'm a pretty decent student of history. Can yeh name even one example where registration has been a precursor to confiscation in the United States? Or anywhere? New Orleans, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain All English-speaking (well, if you're willing to stretch the definition a bit for New Orleans and Australia) locations. Previously existing registry databases were used for confiscation or forced-buy-back legislation. I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't know that. I'm guessing you will dispute these examples. As far as the CDC goes, allo

What IS "taxing ammo in a punitive way"? At what threshold does it become 'punitive'? This of course is the question, and the reason why "sin" taxes, or other attempts to use taxation to discourage legal behavior are problematic. At what threshold would a tax on ink be punitive and start to infringe on 1st Ammendment rights? At what threshold would a tax on attorney's fees be punative and an infringement on someone's 4th, 5th and 6th Ammendment rights? Clever lawyering around the 2nd Ammendment by trying to claim the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to

1. I'm not a proponent of registration and background checks. I don't see much evidence they are effective at keeping guns out of the hands of loons or criminals. Of course there is the argument that the existing registration and checks aren't sufficient and if we just do more, it will start working. It's a point I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on. It would be moot if there wasn't also a downside to registration and checks. Registration has been a precusor to confiscation often enough to warrant concerns about a slippery slope, and background checks are subject to abuse, both i

If a District approves a person or even a married couple for all 126 merit badges, isnt that a problem that should be addressed somewhere along the line? This is exacttly the sort of thinking that's wrong. The Scoutmaster is the place to address the problem. He or she should address it by maintaining some quality control over the MB experience the Scout has. But all you "smack down the SMs ego" folks don't like that. You want to take the SM - the person most acutely charged with mentoring the entirety of the youth's Scouting experience - out of the loop. For you it's a bureaucratic

Alot of scoutmasters need their egos deflated. Then they shouldn't be Scoutmasters. This is a poor way, a bureaucratic way, of going about solving a leadership problem. But then that's what I've come to expect out of National. We need to encourage more, and better, use of discretion at the local level. Instead, we're substituting rules and proceedures that only empower the very people who are eroding the value of the program.

Alot of scoutmasters need their egos deflated. Then they shouldn't be Scoutmasters. This is a poor way, a bureaucratic way, of going about solving a leadership problem. But then that's what I've come to expect out of National. We need to encourage more, and better, use of discretion at the local level. Instead, we're substituting rules and proceedures that only empower the very people who are eroding the value of the program.

Probably time for someone to come in with a competitor system of awards for all da units who want to do scoutin' for real. Either that or just do away with appeals at all levels, not just T-2-1. Close as I can tell, they're not value added. I sorta consider the National Outdoor Achievement Award the competitor system for Eagle. I'm more impressed with the requirements for it than I am for Eagle (certainly considering the lax standards). At least 125 nights camping, several challenging MBs, WRFA and LNT trainer certification, plus planning and leading a big trip. I think it beats Eagle

So what about you all? What successes did you have last year? Our Troop celebrated it's first birthday, congratulated it's first set of First Class Scouts, and went on it's first 50 miler.

Glad to hear it! Crewing a boat is a fantastic learning experience. Oh, hang onto that ice breaker. If the predictions about a new Ice Age are right, you can use it to come up to Seattle and fetch me...

"I wonder if it wasn't scouting would it be some other activity" Might just be something to that. Fraternal organizations are on the decline. Maybe years ago there was an Antlered Ruminant lodge the guy could join for friendship and comraderie. I suspect there were some Moose Lodge Orphans back then too. And stopping off at the neighborhood bar for a drink a la Cheers! is sort of frowned upon for the family man these days. It's always a balance. I think we should do like Beavah and remind each other when it seems like we're out of balance.

The Super Scouts are gratifying to have and can be much more fun to deal with but frankly they don't need us -- they'll do well no matter what I'm not so sure about that. When the kids who do all the right things don't get much recongition for it, are they going to continue doing the right things? One of the sobering things I took away from reading A Fine Young Man was that good kids can fall apart in their teenage years. There are enough changes going on in their brains and bodies that we can't take them for granted.

What some folks seem to be suggestin' is that da average civilian first aider should be carryin' IV clot-buster drugs just in case da 12 year olds they're with in da woods suffer an M.I. That's neither prudent nor rational. Actually, I think the more relevant First Aid analogy would be EpiPens. The law says the uncredentialled civilian should not be carrying around an EpiPen for use on someone else if that someone else should need it. Instead, the uncredentialled civilian is supposed to dial 911 and hope the experts get there in time to save the guy.

In da mean time, if yeh can't wrap your brain around da notion that ... you're not a reserve police officer defendin' da America Actually Beavah, we are. Of course it's not an offical title and some folks don't want to accept the responsibility, but we are all responsible for taking care of our selves, our families and our communities. This modern notion that everything should be left to the crednetialed experts while the unwashed masses sit around wating for somebody to save their bacon is a very un-American notion.

also reckon I'm not altogether comfortable with random folks of varied levels of trainin' comin' together without any chain of command structure to start firin' on strangers in their neighborhood durin' a natural disaster. And they may not be altogether comfortable with sitting around their neighborhood un (or under-) armed if a natural disaster leaves them cut off from duly constituted authorities with chains of command when strangers with guns (the strangers being of the type who don't pay much heed to what the law says) come saunterin' in. Remote possibility? Who's to say. Y

Not da point, JMHawkins. Point was that da folks were isolated invaders of another nation, which isn't the same thing. When you're in that position, yeh are organizin' your community for mutual defense, eh? Not imaginin' yeh have a need to defend yourself from your community. Da issue is one of honesty about da meaning and intent of da language, nuthin' more. As perdidochas pointed out, organizin' to defend yourself from your community isn't necessarily a notion relegated to the archaic past.

How many rounds does one need for ... basic self/home defense? What's reasonable? 6, 10, 30, 50? Just asking? Dunno. How many rounds is it going to take to drive off or incapacitate the bad guy(s)? 7, 11, 31, 51? What do you say when the answer ends up being one more than the number you advocated as the limit? Oops, sorry? Just askin'...

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... Obviously no one needs to defend themselves against hostile people these days. If someone attacks your familiy, the police are only 20 minutes away.

I wonder if the founding fathers had AK's, SKS or any of the AR clones in mind. Absolutely they did. Well, they didn't call them that back then. They just called them "arms." They wrote the 2nd Ammendment in a way that it guaranteed people the right to bear the most sohpisticated, deadly, weapons of the day. They didnt' even ban private citizens from owning field artillery (though honestly it was expensive and hard to come by). The Founders trusted the average citizen with firepower. You can argue they were wrong, or you can argue they were right then but times have cha