SR540Beaver

I'll readily admit that the president's children are in more danger than the general public and deserving of protection. That being said, did the parent's of the dead Sandy Hook children not love or care for their children as much as the president does his? Should our children receive a lesser amount of protection simply because they are the general public? If Sandy Hook proves anything, it proves that the general public can be at just as high of a risk as a public official. Would someone target the president's children because he is president? Of course. Did the Sandy Hook shooter shoot people at random.......or did he target specific classrooms? The truth is, we never know when any one of us might be a "target" of a mentally ill person or criminal. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time being upset with the NRA over this. I love my son. I'd die for my son. There is nothing more important to me than the health and safety of my family. I do find it hypocritical for our president to suggest that trained guards in schools are a bad idea when his children are protected. As a scouter, I firmly believe in leading by example. To say that we are equal, but some of us are more equal than others is hypocritical. There are 100,000 schools in the US. Almost 24,000 of them already provide armed guards as a local option and no cost to the federal government. When I was a high school student in the mid 70's, we had armed guards in my white bread, subburban school. It just makes sense.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

"One of da most fascinating issues to me is that da lobbyists have succeeded in getting Congress to outlaw both data collection and research on gun safety."

So lobbyists get congressmen to write and PASS legislation in both houses that can't go into law without the president's signature, correct? I'm curious, how long have the Republicans held the house? How about the senate? Who is president? Why weren't they doing their job?

"Until the NRA and gun owners understand that guns are part of the real problem and that guns have got to be part of the discussion, then we aren't going to really get anywhere."

And just who sets the gold standard in gun safety training in America?

http://training.nra.org/

Training Department

From beginner to developing competitor, the NRA Training Department develops safe, ethical, responsible shooters through a network of more than 93,000 instructors and range safety officers, more than 5,200 coaches, and more than 1,700 training counselors. NRA Training Counselors recruit and train instructors to teach NRA's basic firearm courses. NRA Coaches, in turn, develop competitors at the club, high school, collegiate and national levels.

Hunter Services

With over 2.3 million members who hunt, the NRA offers hunters a wide range of programs addressing all aspects of hunting, including youth hunter skills, advanced skills training and the conservation of our natural and wildlife resources. All Hunter Services Department programs work toward the common goal of instilling and promoting the skills and ethics that will ensure the continuance of America's proud hunting heritage.

Women's Programs

It hasn't always been easy for women to break into the world of shooting sports. But now with organized programs for women, by the women of the NRA, it's as easy as can be. Whether a woman's interest is personal safety, gun safety, gun knowledge, marksmanship, hunting, or recreational or competitive shooting, the NRA has a variety of programs and activities that all encourage female participation at all skill levels.

Youth Programs

The NRA helps America's adult leaders and national youth serving organizations set up shooting programs, introduces the first-time or intermediate shooter to a lifetime of recreational and competitive opportunities, and develops programs for NRA youth members and NRA-affiliated youth clubs.

Gunsmithing

NRA short term gunsmithing schools offer courses on topics such as general gunsmithing, bluing, stockmaking, checkering, engraving, and parkerizing. More specialized courses focus on topics such as accurizing the AR-15 rifle; accurizing varmint rifles; fine tuning single-action revolvers and long guns for cowboy shoots; accurizing the Colt Model 1911 pistol; and English Gunsmithing. Law enforcement armorer classes are also offered.

I believe they do more than their part for responsible gun ownership and use.

(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

Beavah, the anti-gun lobby and the liberal politicians they write legislation for are the ones who defined what an assualt weapon was, and it was all based on appearance. I own a single shotgun that I bought 30 years ago to hunt with. It probably has not been fired in 20 years. That being said, my house is full of "assault" weapons. The kitchen has an array of exremely sharp knives of all sizes. My garage......I can't even begin to list the things in there that can be used to assualt someone with. Hammers, wrenches, pipes, etc. And then there are my sons old baseball bats from when he played little league. And I can't forget my scouting equipment like my Buck knife and my cast iron frying pan. On 9/11, terrorists used box knives to take over aircraft full of people and crash them into buildings. The list of items that can be used as an assualt weapon are endless. The issue isn't the tool used as it is an inantimate object when not in a person's hands. The issue is mental illness that would drive a person to kill others. If I don't have a pry bar, I'll use the biggest screwdriver I can find. A person intemt on killing others will find another way to kill them if their tool of choice is not available. Besides, we don't penalize law abiding citizens by denying them of their constitutional rights because of the criminals who misuse the right.

Let's revise the scenario a little.

A big student at the middle school is overcome by hormones and anger about something and in the middle of the day, she pulls a knife and starts screaming and making verbal threats at everyone around her. The coach, the custodian, the assistant principal, and one of the nearby teachers surround her at a distance to prevent her from hurting any students before the police can arrive in about 10 minutes. The assistant principal is scared to death to the point of shaking. The kid is so angry she doesn't care about her own life and decides to charge right at the assistant principal with her knife. Having no way to defend himself other than throw his arms up in a defensive move, she stabs him in the neck, severing an artery. As he collapses, she lunges at the students who were standing behind him. How do you stop this girl from injuring or killing someone else?

It's called an analogy and it is fairly accurate. People unfamiliar with guns want to ban ones that have an assault weapon appearance. Kind of like banning people based on their appearance (color), it's a stupid idea by narrow minded people.

Yeahhhh.....it isn't my party. I'm libertarian. I just understand their message and the constitution. Look, I'm a charitable person. But I like choosing my charitable actions. I don't like being forced by the government to hand over money to pay for things I wouldn't normally give my time or money to. And no, I'm not talking roads and bridges here. While I like to help people and appreciate people helping me, I understand that when push come to shove, I only have ME to rely on. I need to look out for me and I need to be prepared. That is taking personal responsibility. It isn't, I got mine or you're on your own. I'll gladly help you if I feel you need it and might even help you when I'm in dire straits, but I'm not going to count on someone else to take care of all my needs. That's just foolish. Republicans have earned my scorn just as much as Democrats have. I was no admirer or defender of GWB and the Republicans spending like drunken sailors as John McCain put it. They got the ball rolling, but Obama is taking it down the field in grand fashion. The path we are on is unsustainable. It is irresponsible. It is theft If I have to pick between the principles of the two major parties, I'll have to go with the Republicans over the Democrats when it comes to what is best for our country. They both need to be spanked, but the Republicans are at least halfway adult in their approach to our fiscal problems.

Moose, I challenge you to provide us with a quote (in context) from a Republican saying, "you're on your own". Are you mistaking "taking personal responsibility" with you're on your own? Those are two different things.

As far as finding a message that is acceptable to current society, that will be hard when the other party woos voters with a "free" cradle to grave care program. Many people will take the easy route everytime only to find a cliff around the next bend. Think Greece. All of these entitlement programs actually come with a real hard dollar cost. Eventually, the bill comes due and you have two choices. One is to tax people even more than you are. The other is kill the program because you can't pay for it. Either scenario ends up with riots i nthe streets with people demanding that the government who sold them of cradle to grave care belly up to the bar and keep providing it. After all, they deserve it. they have come to expect it. Promising to kiss all your boo boo's and make it all better is a great sales pitch that wins votes and is hard to overcome with a message of being self reliant. We teach "be prepared" to our scouts. The personal responsibility message of the Republican party is the same thing, just stated in different words.

How about just saying, "the recharter deadline is here and we can't recharter until YOU take YPT. In order to keep the charter alive, I need you to take it ASAP and let me know so I can turn in the paperwork"?

An interesting read on the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336529

Regulating the Militia

By Kevin D. Williamson

December 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.

My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls sensible gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy, etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are disingenuous), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case.

Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes. The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person let alone a Harvard Law graduate believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny........

scoutingagain: "Well why bother with armed police or specially trained teachers in classrooms. Let' s simply train children about guns and let them defend themselves. If 14 year old can carry, should 12 year old? What would be the recommended cut off age for children to carry in school? If any?"

I challenge you to show where I suggested children carry guns. Do you as a scouter teach children how to responsibly build a fire and maintain it without burning down a forest? Do you not think fire can be deadly? Do you not teach children how to cook where a pot of boiling water can be knocked off onto someone? Do you not teach a child how to handle knives and woods tools responsibly? Do you not think as knife or axe can be deadly? Do you not teach children how to hike in areas with animals such as bears and cougars? You may be surprised to learn, but the BSA teaches responsible shooting and gun safety. Why we go so far as to not allow paintball or lasertag because it teaches to point a weapon at a person instead of a target. I never said anything about allowing children to carry guns to school. What I did mention was taching someone to use a tool in a safe and responsible manner. Doesn't mater if it is a pocket knife, the stove at home or a jig saw.

I know this, I want my child to have a fighting chance at survival instead of leaving him to be a victim. Call me old fashioned, but throwing your arms up and begging for mercy isn't the best defense in the world.

Well it depends on whether children are taught about guns or not doesn't it? I had a conversation with my sister-in-law this weekend who is unhappy that her 13 year old son has a pocket knife. It scares her to death. He might get hurt. It worries me a little too, because he isn't in scouts and he hasn't learned how to handle, care for or respect a knife like a 7 year old Cub Scout does.

Pack, for every horror story you can produce with guns, a story of how they were used to defend someone can be produced. While guns can be used for offense, they can equally be used for defense. Education is key. Taking guns away from lawful citizens leaves them at the mercy of the criminal who ignores such laws. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and they've had 500 homicides in 2012. Would people owning guns for self defense act a sa deterrent. Probably. Criminals always look for a soft target.

Pack, here is the flipside of that coin. Crap happens. Be prepared.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1

14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots, nearly kills armed intruder

Updated 6/23/2012 4:27 PM

PHOENIX (AP) A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize the woman.

Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom.

When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

The woman who rang the home's doorbell got away.

Holmes hailed the teen's actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.

"The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family but this young man did exactly what he should have done," he said. "I'm not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted."

Holmes said that the gun the teen grabbed was his father's, but did not know whether the boy had been trained to use it.

He said the family, whose names were not released, is declining to speak to reporters about the ordeal, saying that they "are all pretty traumatized."

"The dad was pretty much out of his mind with distress, officers couldn't even talk to him," Holmes said. "It's going to take them a while to recover mentally."

He said police don't yet know what the suspect's intentions were and that will be one of the first questions they ask him when he is well enough to talk.

"This was mid-block in a neighborhood, at 4:30 in the afternoon in summertime and children are there," he said. "They just took a heck of a gamble for this particular house, and we've got to try to figure out why."

Holmes added that the family is lucky that the teen acted so swiftly and effectively.

"As ugly as this is, and as much as this family is going through, we don't have injured children on our hands," he said.

Threads are conversations and over time, the subject changes. Besides, there are multiple gun control threads running. The right to vote is NOT in the constitution. Voter qualifications are left to the states to determine. What is in the constitution are what you may not exclude within the population you do grant the right to vote. If states wanted to say as they once did that only property owners could vote, they could do that. But it would be black, white, red, brown, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, etc. property owners because the amendments say you can not deny a person the right to vote based on those particular criteria. There is indeed a real difference. Now, over time, it has become traditionally held that everyone has a right to vote because in this day and age, people over the age of 18 who are not felons are granted the right to vote. I'd like to add to that list citizens of the US, but certain segments of our society fight any attempt to enforce citizenship as a qualification. But there is no constitutional right as most people assume.

So as I said, amendments spell out what you can not use to limit who can vote. If the constitution guaranteed the right to vote, you wouldn't need amendments that say what parameters can not be considered for exclusion. There was a time in our history where only male land owners had the right to vote. Voting qualifications are actually left to the states except for the federal civil rights covered in the amendments saying you can't exclude based on race, gender, etc. States could exclude the vote based on other parameters if desired. That being said, states have been trying to pass voter ID laws to curb voter fraud from illegal aliens and have met with resistence from the current administration. Bottom line is there is NOT a constitutional right to vote as most Americans believe. Their individual states determine who has the right to vote and the states are limited by amendments on what exclusions they can not use.

I've lived in Oklahoma for 55 years. I've seen my share of tornados in that time. The biggest, baddest tornado of all came within a few blocks of my house back on May 3rd, 1999. That being said, the likelihood that your house is actually going to be destroyed by a tornado is statistically small. That doesn't stop people from "being prepared" and building storm shelters. Gun ownership doesn't really matter if you live in a high crime inner city or a low crime suburb, some people just like "being prepared" for something that "could" happen, but probably never will.

What was it Baden Powell supposedly said when asked what to be prepared for? Why, any old little thing.

FScouter: "Only the gun folks talk about this. Why is that?"

Really? A simple Google search proves differntly. For instance, http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/

Beavah: "He ran on a platform of mild tax increases on top earners. In other words, raisin' taxes by a tiny amount on a tiny group of people, to a level that's still da lowest in the last 80 years when yeh figure in da capital gains rate reductions.

That's not an extreme position. It's really quite a conservative one."

No, no it's not. It's an extreme position. If we replaced the word "wealthy" with Jew or black, I don't think the Democrats would be so hep on singling them out for special treatment. Taking something away from someone simply because they have more than someone else is immoral and unethical. For those who think it is part of the "social contract" and is the "fair" thing to do, are you letting the neighbor with an older car drive your newer car? Are you giving up an extra room to the family down the street that has a smaller and more crowded house? Perhaps you are out of personal choice. Now imagine that the mayor tells you that you have to let other people drive your car and live in your house. How would you feel about that? Would you sour to the idea of someone else being given access to your property that you worked to own? The same principle applies to taking wealth from people who can "afford" to give up some because they have more than they need. Who decides that? What gives them the power to decide that? How is it fair? If your wife has sex with you seven days a week and mine only three days a week, should I get to have sex with your wife two days a week so we equally have sex five days a week? If not, why is it OK to do the same thing with people's wealth?(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

Twocub,

Could you point me to the place in the constitution where the right to vote is guaranteed? I know there are folks who admit that while the right isn't spelled out, it is implied. What I recall is that amendments have been added that state what you can not do to restrict voting, such as race and gender. But there is no right to vote enumerated in the constitution. Other than civil rights at the federal level, the states determine voting rights as all votes other than the vote for President is at the state level or lower.

Given that Obama won't hardly rub elbows with the leadership of his own party, I'd have to say he probably isn't hyperpartisan. Narcissistic on the other hand..........

Fehler,

You are fortunate in that you have never seen or experienced evil. How, I do not know. I have. It exists.

Evil exists. We don't see it all that often, but it does exist. Guns are not the problem. Guns are merely a tool. I live in Oklahoma City. I was sitting at my desk about 6 blocks away from the Murrah Building when McVeigh blew it up. My wife's office was even closer. McVeigh didn't need a gun to murder 168 people. Evil isn't on a time table. Evil can act swiftly or take its time making plans. Gun control laws will not stop shootings in public places. Having guards in schools probably won't stop shootings, but they do provide a measure of safety far greater than throwing your arms up in front of your face and begging for your life. We have active duty soldiers killed inside their own bases. Evil doesn't respect life or law. We can try all sorts of things to mitigate the effects of evil, but we can't stop it. Harden one target, it will find another.

Survival is an instinct. We survive thru self defense. Being able to defend yourself or have some sort of protection available is not an unreasonable thing. There is an armed guard in the lobby of my building. Many moons ago when I was a kid working in a grocery store, we hired off duty police officers as guards. They wore their uniforms and guns. We provide our President and other high government officials with security. Why is it unreasonable to protect our children as best we can.

There is the unrealistic expectation that we disarm everyone and remove guns from society. A simple question here, do the same folks who think this is possible also believe that we can deport every single illegal alien from the US? The answer is no. Why? The usual answer is that there are too many and it would be too costly. There are far more guns than illegal aliens. And even if you were able to get citizens to give up their constitutional right to bear arms, criminals do not follow laws. The evil folks who would misuse a tool to harm others will be totally unaffected by your well intentioned meanings. By removing a deterrent, you move the criminal to the top of the food chain.

The NRA didn't ask anything unreasonable. Providing trained armed guards to protect our children is something that should be handled at the individual school system level and not at the federal level anyway. As many have noted, there are school systems that already do this. The NRA has a good point concerning the current culture and media. I don't remember the number of killings a child will have experienced by the time they turn 18, but it numbered in the 10's of thousands. To think that the violence and disregard they see in movies and games has absolutely no impact on their world perspective is just silly. I know that as a parent, there were shows, games and music that I did not allow my son to participate in. Did he outside of home? Probably. Did he at home? Absolutely not. The NRA is also correct about mental health. The issue is the person doing the killing, not the tool they use. McVeigh used fertilizer to build a very powerful bomb, but I'm still allowed to purchase fertilizer for my yard and use it responsibily. Add to that that the NRA is the largest proponent of responsible gun usage and safety training in the world.

For those who want to get rid of or severely control guns, you have the means to do so. It is called a constitutional amendment. As far as evil goes, you have little recourse but to defend yourself by any means necessary. Me, I prefer to have a gun over begging for my life.

This should give everyone pause.

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower'

The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. Its not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

William Binney: Yes, thats what Ive been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything theyve done for the last 10 years at least........

Until the end of the month, I'll have been a Chapter Adviser for the last 3 years. Beginning in January, I'm an Associate Lodge Adviser. I can't recall ever seeing any of our youth leadership at the Chapter or Lodge level wearing silver.

You recruit, recruit, recruit. You invite Webelos to go camping with you and you pay attention to them and make them feel welcome. The first troop my son joined (a troop I didn't want him to join, but let him decide) was not welcoming at all. They were an older troop of mostly older boys who really didn't want their boat rocked. They liked their little group. There were 5 boys and their parents who all joined along with us. It lasted 6 months before there was a falling out. We left there and joined another troop where my son earned his Eagle and attended until the day he turned 18 and went off to college. That troop has a roster of around 60 with most of them very active. Our secret, good program and recruiting. Don't worry about a feeder pack. Our troop has been around for almost 50 years and we didn't have a pack associated with our charter until this year. While we have a good relationship with them and help them, we know that they are free to join the troop that best fits them. We will do our best to recruit them, but respect them making a different choice. Some of our fellow troops call us poachers because we recruit with every pack in our district. They believe that the pack at their charter or the schools surrounding thei location are off limits to everyome but them. That's just laziness on their part. They need to provide a good program and recruit too. Make an open invitiation to every pack in your district to go camping with your troop. Staff day camp and cub resident camp. I can't tell you how many kids wanted to join our troop because they knew the boys in our troop from cub camp staff. Get active in your OA ceremony team and provide crossover ceremonies to the Webelos. Recruit, recruit, recruit and then welcome them with open arms.