Kahuna

packsaddle says: >>Kahuna, concealed carry is left to individual states for the most part. I observe some variation but most, if not all, require both classroom and range training. And the permit expires, usually after five years or so, so renewal is required. In some states this is fairly expensive as well, paying for the permit and paying the trainer.

It would be hard to date within twenty years. He is wearing the uniform of the late 1920's to late 1940's. You can't see enough of it to date any better than that. However, from his haircut, I would guess it's late twenties or early thirties. Boys did wear their hair like that later in the thirties, but not as often. The "early 1900's" is obviously bogus as they didn't wear neckechiefs and had the high collar WWI army uniform prior to the twenties. Might move this to the history threads. Some of our better historians only hang out there.

Hunt says: >>Your freedom to carry a gun goes only as far your ability to convince your state legislature to allow you to do it. As a result, you have to persuade the majority why they would be better off with things the way you'd like them to be.

P_S: NRA estimates 60-65 million handguns, so I think 100 million guns would be a little low. The NRA of course heavily supports gun safety, including the very popular Eddie Eagle program for young kids to instill behavior that insures they know what to do when they come across a gun (don't touch it, call an adult), and urges its members to take gun safety training. NRA courses are offered all around the country. The NRA doesn't support mandatory gun safety training as a condition to owning a firearm. I'm not sure what NRAs position is on mandatory training for concealed carry, but to me that's a separate issue. There is a much greater chance that someone carrying a gun on his/her person will do harm to the public than is the case with a gun kept in the home.

Hunt: Thanks for posting that. I just didn't want to do the research if I didn't have to. I was aware that it was the state of the law, but not really the reasoning. I'm still not sure I understand entirely why the constitutional prohibitions which originally constrained only Congress and were later extended to the States don't carry with them the same prohibitions in these cases. I guess I could figure it out if I wanted to become a constitutional scholar (which I don't). Anyway, thanks again.

Hunt says: What's more, the Supreme Court has already held that whatever limitations the Second Amendment imposes, it imposes them on Congress only, and not on the states--so the states can enact whatever gun control laws they want with no Constitutional limits. Would you mind citing the case in which the Court held that? That's not a challenge, I just want to read the case. Thanks.

>>So, here's a question to the gun-control and anti-gun-control crowds. Would you be in favor of strict restrictions on handguns for ordinary citizens? Any weapon over a certain size would go relatively unchecked.

P-S: Egggzackly!

SRBeaver: I'm not sure I understand your question, but I am assuming you are implying it probably hasn't cost me anything. That would be incorrect. I don't know what it has cost me in terms of tax dollars expended in defense of state laws against those groups or how much more I paid for my gun because the manufacturer has had to defend against harrassing law suits because they made a gun that was later used by someone to harm someone else, although it had no defect and only did what it was legally built to do. I do know (although I'm not going to share the figures) how much I have contributed to the NRA and to politicians who run against ones who support gun control.

Strikes me that the biggest cost of a heavily armed nation is defending the right to own them against the Brady's and the ACLU. Just like in the case of the BSA, the cost of the legal assault on 2d Amendment rights is enormous. As is the cost of defeating anti-gun legislation. The cost in terms of accident, injury, etc, (while I don't know the figure) is way less than the similar costs of automobiles. If you are looking for a dangerous instrumentality with crazed, improperly trained operators, many of whom are not currently licensed, take a look at that one. Worries me a lot more than the danger my neighbor may shoot me by accident.

The COR can definitely do it, without consulting anyone. The question is, does he represent the CO on this issue? You can go to the head of the CO and ask that question. They have the power to rein him in or replace him. If the CO backs him, then you should be looking for a new sponsor. It makes no sense for the CO to demand that boys not of their faith follow their dietary rules. You should make every effort to do it without rancor and try to get them to agree to let you take your equipment.

I see no evidence to support the theory that people in urban areas desire gun control. While that may be true in some urban areas (San Francisco, for instance), people in big cities in the South don't feel that way at all. The propaganda labelled statistics put out by the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups is what causes these perceptions, including that the accident statistics are 43-1. They also inflate the number of injuries involving "children" by including gang victims under 18 injured in gang violence.

With all due respect, P_S, I have never seen a gun law that took guns out of the hands of criminals. I can certainly understand how you or anyone would be concerned that I, a gun owner, know what I am doing if I'm carrying it around with me, but I think all right-to-carry states have such requirements. A gun in my home doesn't threaten others if stored properly. Licensing, in this day and age, like registration, is simply a way to intimidate and restrict the ownership of guns. Registration also gives you a handy list of gun owners you can go to to round up guns and serves no other purpose that I can see. I also fail to see how a so-called "assault weapon" including a tommy gun would threaten anyone else. Bad guys will always be able to find them. Good guys know how to use them and where. I don't think I've heard of a gun collector going on a rampage with a .50 caliber in a shopping mall. Yes, they can be stolen, but again they are out there for the bad guys anyway.

The only problem with berets is that kids do not have any idea of how to wear them. Most adults don't either and can't help them. They should be worn like the Army now does: more or less square on the head with the right side folded down against the side of the head. A couple of training sessions and fairly constant enforcement will ensure they look sharp. No harder than socks pulled up and shirts tucked in. Having said that, I wouldn't think every group of kids would want to wear them, but obviously some do.

Boy led troop or not, you need discipline from the adult leaders, otherwise the boy leaders are not only the first line, but also the final line. It won't work. If the SM is not a disciplinarian, fine. Not everybody is. No reason one ASM (we had one nicknamed "Mad Dog") can't be the disciplinarian.

It's just wrong to say that changing membership requirements changes advancement requirements. Everything affects advancement if you look at it that way. Nothing wrong with attendance requirements. If you have a full troop and kids waiting to get in, you should have attendance requirements. Personally, I wouldn't set a 60% or any specific requirement for advancement, but I would want the BOR to know if a Scout hadn't been much in attendance for any or all types of activities. There is a participation requirement. BTW, I will mention one more time that the SM works for the Committee, not for the CO. The CO can say who can't be SM by refusing to approve the application, but it's up to the committee to say who he/she will be. I'm always surprised there is so much confusion on this point.

TheScout: My remark was somewhat tongue in cheek as indicated by the final line. Still, it was not, in those days, considered a privilege to arm yourself with cannon if you had the means and the desire. Letters of marque were definitely a privilege. As to previous decisions of the SCOTUS: decisions can be wrong as well as right. Sometimes the Court will reverse itself decades later.

The CO and thus the committee has the power to require a boy to own and wear the uniform to be a member of that unit. In my troops, there was no question that members would wear the uniform. If a boy couldn't afford a uniform, we would get him one. If he had a religious or other objection to wearing it, he was welcome to join another troop and we were happy to help him locate one. The advancement issue doesn't come into it at all. It's a membership issue. Of course, as has been pointed out earlier, not everybody feels it's necessary and that's fine. That's why there are multiple troops in most areas.

"I do not beleive the framers of the Constitution wrote it to protect the right of an individual to own their own cannon, or frigate, or first rate ship, the WMDs of their day." I am not so sure. There were plenty of letters of marque issued out to private ship owners during the Revolution and the War of 1812. These were private people who fitted out and armed their ships and were permitted to attack, capture and burn enemy vessels. Those who didn't have a letter of marque were permitted to arm their ships, but if they used them offensively they were considered pirates. Personally, I've always wanted an Iowa-class battleship. I keep watching e-bay, but haven't seen one.

Aloha Nui, P_S! The gun issue is extremely complex, but a few facts stand out apart from the constitutional issue: the crime rate in Florida has gone down dramatically in many categories since introduction of right-to-carry and the "castle" doctrine, removing the duty to retreat. In a lot of places where guns have been outlawed, there has been a rise in the crime rate. The Brady people, with help of the media, have grossly overplayed the number of gun accidents as they relate to other types of accidents. I am an NRA member. I get the magazine monthly. There is always a page there with stories of people who have used personal weapons to save themselves from harm or robbery. Many of these people would be dead without their guns. I could go on, but I doubt I would win the argument. I wouldn't win because few people tend to change their minds on this issue. Like abortion, we tend to be on one side or the other and not open to change.

"we no longer live in those times ..." Once again P-S, the times are not relevant to the principle. You ignore the thrust of the Jefferson quote which is to the effect that we need guns to prevent tyranny by government. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it seems clear to me that the "well regulated militia" portion of that Article refers to the ability of Americans to shoot well in case they are needed in the militia. "no longer vulnerable to invasion . . ." If you believe that, I'd like to show some land in Florida as soon as it's low tide. We have been invaded (9/11) and will be again. Yes, your odds of being victim of a home invasion are probably less than being killed in a car crash, but if my home is invaded, the invaders will get a very nasty surprise. I would also mention that, without government oversight, the vast majority of people I have known who have weapons in their homes have weapons training and know what they are doing. Of course we could always bring back the draft, which would ensure that every young person gets some weapons training. I think I would prefer that.

. . . how can they have Scouting in their souls? Oh, sorry, yes I just lost my head for a moment. You're right, if the BSA decides tomorrow that the uniform should be tangerine with purple piping, I would either rush out and buy it or be a totally worthless ex-Scouter, wouldn't I? If you re-read my post it says as published in the latest BSA guidlines. Some of us are old enough and wise enough to have been in Scouting under varied guidlines. Guidlines change. If you have Scouting in your soul, that doesn't change. ie, if I wear my old uniform from 1960 (which there is no danger of, it shrunk), does that mean I don't have Scouting in my soul?(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Revisionist history is abounding here, regarding Reagan and Carter. Reagan's victory had nothing to do with baseless accusations against Carter. Carter was a terrible president and Reagan offered a vision of the future that people liked. It was a vision that he largely led the country into during his presidency. Reasonable people can differ about Carters' character. Personally, I don't think a man who so consistently injects himself into international affairs where he has no business and makes gratuitously nasty remarks about his successors in office can be considered a nice man. Carter has done a wonderful job with Habitat for Humanity and a couple of other causes of that sort, which, IMHO, is exactly where he should focus his activities.

New York would be the likliest one to pass a law like that. Washington D.C. has an ordinance that essentially prohibits private ownership of firearms of any kind. Is that okay with me? Heck no, and I don't know why they put up with it. They have one of the highest murder rates in the country. But is it their right? Of course.

I think the answer to that is somewhat like Justice Stevens' comment about pornography: "I can't define [what a Scouter is], but I know [one] when I see [one]." They come in all shapes and sizes, but they all have the best interests of kids at heart. Some of them don't follow the program as published in the latest BSA training materials. Some of them wear uniforms that don't meet the current standards (especially true in Sea Scouting), and they don't all think the same way I do, but they have Scouting in their souls.