Twocubdad

Sorry for the muddling, Beav. My ConLaw classes were more than 30 years ago and swingin' a hammer for a living doesn't give me much call to use it. What I do recall is my dear ol' prof explaining that when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; when you have the law on your side, argue the law; when you have neither, argue the Preamble. Perhaps my use of the phrase "fundamental right" tilts more in the direction of "unalienable right" while "constitutional right" or "enumerated right" is more precise and what I intended. And I don't disagree with your post in the least in regards to the origin of our liberty and the relationship of limited, Constitutional government to our liberty. Numerous chapters of The Federalists lay out the same argument. But you can't be suggesting there isn't a difference between activities which come under the Article I, Section 8 enumerated powers versus those protected by the Bill of Rights, which was my point.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States and the Electors shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. Amendment XV, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Amendment XVII: The senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years and each Senator shall have one vote. Amendment XXIV: The right of the citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors of President of Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Amendment XXVI, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied to abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Everytime we get into one of these discussions the opinions polarize toward either mixed-age or same-age. It's not an either/or. When Scouts are given the opportunity to form their own patrols, my experience is they do a pretty good job of balancing things. Age wise we tend to wind up with younger patrols, middle-aged patrols and older patrols. It usually works out well without the drastic results in either direction -- the best of both extremes. Even among the lo-mid-hi groups, there aren't clear distinctions and considerable overlap. Usually there are a couple clear leaders in each patrol (especially this time when we ID'd the PLs first and then let them recruit their patrol.) This past patrol shuffle was a bit of an anomoly with the patrol of all second-year guy coming together. Even that, I think, is a problem specific to this group of boys. They are very immature for their age and have a strange competition, love/hate relationship amongst them that I haven't quite put my finger on. Usually, even among boys all of the same age, there are those who are more mature, have better skills and are the clear leader of the group. Not this bunch.

The election is over The results are known, The will of the people Has clearly been shown. So put differences behind us Let recriminations pass, I'll hug your Republican elephant And you can kiss my Democratic ass! (My little old lady aunt sends me this every four year.)

There is a distinction between fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution and priviledges granted by the states and federal government. Flying a plane, driving a car, and working as a lawyer or general contractor are priviledges subject to basically any control the legislatures or Congress see fit. Fundamental Rights have a higher status. There are no licensure requirements for starting a church, printing a newspaper or voting. Limitations on civil rights must meet a high standard and, as a practical matter, are subject to careful review by the courts. Voter ID laws have been a big topic for debate of late. If I have to show an ID to get on an airplane should there be at least the same -- or even greater standard -- to vote? I think the best argument against voter ID law is voting is a fundamental, constitutional right, flying isn't. (Although it's clearly more complicated than this.) Of course that doesn't mean there are no limits on fundamental rights, just a much higher bar for enacting limits. And there are tons of exceptions. I can list a half-dozen off the top of my head and I sure a flat-tailed rodent with a law degree can list even more. A quick one: Most ministers are licesed by the state. But I'll suggest they are not licensed to preach the Gospel, rather through their entanglement with the state to carry out the governmental function of performing marriages. (And personally, if I were called to be a minister, the libertarian/curmudgeon in me would refuse to be licensed by the state.) So where's the break point? When I get appointed to the Supreme Court (and I'm sure Da Beav will aready be Chief Justice by that time), fundamental rights, including gun ownership, should be universally available to all citizens until an individual demonstrates a reason the should have that right taken away. Think "innocent until proven guilty". Think voting rights. Everyone gets to vote until they are conficted of a felony or declared mentally incompetent. Having a bad day and getting your political opinions from Fox News doesn't disenfranchise you.

Duplicate post deleted. How do you duplicate a post a day later?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Gotta say, Beav, I'm uncomfortable with prohibiting your hypothetical woman from buying. Would you have a poll worker deny that woman the right to vote? Agitated and convinced the economy is going to hell would describes me after most political discussions with my college-sophomore son. It strikes me as trampling on both the First and Second Amendments to deny me a purchase. You may write her opinion off a wing nut, but it's no crazier than some of the radical left economic ideas. If I want to spend my money preparing for something with probabilities way to the right (no pun intended) of the decimal point, that should be my perogative. Illogical and irrational are two different things. From the perspective of the gun shop owner, that's a pretty tall order. With Dram Shop Laws, there are some fairly objective indicators bartenders can be trained to spot. Sure, if some one walks in a gun shop in a blue rage, slams a wad of cash on the table and say, "Give me the biggest gun you've got cause I'm going to shoot every so-and-so in my office," then no, you don't want to sell that guy a gun. But don't we already have a cooling-off period for handgun purchases for that very thing? It seems to me there are a lot of folks under the care of mental health professionals who go out and do harm to themselves or others. If professionals have a hard time making the call, you think a shop owner can?

Reasonable reply, 732, thank you. 4 -- seems to me one of those regulations the honest people follow and the criminals ignore. So someone takes out a whole subway train, then what? We can go back and say, "yeah, they bought that much ammo alright." Unless someone is on the other end of the computer looking at your purchases then knocking on your door when you buy too much, this seems like a cart-after-the-horse solution. Again, someone 'splain to me what I'm missing. 5 -- what is the standard of care now for securing a gun from a 16 year old? That may be a good starting point. Off hand, I'd say locking your front door but leaving the gun on the kitchen table isn't secure. Having your gun in a safe which was cut open with a torch was. I think the details here are solvable. Thanks! Oh, and Merry Christmas.

Your Scouts didn't choose age-based patrols, they chose to be with the guys they want to go camping and hang out with. When I'm put in situations where I'm required to be with people not of my choosing, I call it work and get a check at the end of the week. When I hang out with folks I like, they tend to be my friends and tend to be my age (acknowledging that as we get older "my age" is a much wider span than it was at 13 or 15). Scouts, like everyone, tend to stay active and involved in an organization when they are with their friends. So kudos to your troop for being boy-led and organizing themselves as they see fit. On the other hand, in my experience boys need a couple years under their belts before they're really ready to accept the responsibility of being in their own patrols without the supervision of a troop guide or older PL. First- and second-year Scounts aren't ready to FOLLOW a same-aged patrol leader. This fall we came to the point it was necessary to reorganize patrols. It happens. We had the guys who wanted to be PLs raise their hands then told the rest of the troop to go join the patrol leader they wanted to be with -- just give the troop scribe a roster when you're done. (As a side note, if you want a wake-up call be the pain-in-the ass guy who never does his share of the work or is constantly getting in trouble and discover NO ONE wants you in their patrol.) We wound up with one patrol of 16- and 17-y.o., four patrols somewhat mixed ages and one patrol of all second year guys. I knew that patrol was a train wreck waiting to happen and tried to encourage some other guys to join them. No deal. So three months in it's a classic Charlie Foxtrot. PL thinks everyone will do everything he says just because. The PLs two best friends think the have it made because their best friend is in charge. Nothing gets done. Constant bickering. Discipline issues. Complaints from parents. A bunch of 11- and 12-y.o.s just don't have the maturity to work together as a cohesive team and to listen to a leader who isn't seen as being significantly older (which could mean 15 or 55). They don't see the advantages of being subservient to the PL just for the common good of the group and they're not mature enough to jump in and do the drudge work just to get it done. I've asked my senior guys to keep an eye on the patrol, camp a little closer to them and "visit" their campsite at critical time. The senior guys are over it. They're sick of them. Me too. February, at the end of the term, that patrol may be absorbed into the others. Haven't really decided yet. My SPL and I will have a discussion on this after the first of the year.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

So maybe Scouting.com is not the best place to get this info, but coming up with reasonable (and I'll add effective) solutions to gun violence it the key. I've re-read the thread, start to finish, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Two things surprised me: one, that there are special bullets for killing zombies and, two, out of 80 posts, E61 is the only one who actually suggested possible limits on guns/ammunition. Gold star for you, E! I am not a "gun guy." I own two guns. One is a 1914 S&W cowboy-style six shooter my grandfather left to me and the other is a cheap muzzle-loader I literally found in a trash can. So bare with me as I sort through this from a fairly uneducated point of view. Seems to me there are XX issues here; 1) Type of firearm. This is basically the "assault weapon" debate. I would think having a ban on assault weapons in place for 10 years would have provided pretty good data. I'd like to see it. Of course we'll never see it from either the Huff Post nor the NRA I read the post/link here which gave the now-expired federal definition of assault weapon. Seemed like a lot of smoke to me. Most things which defined assault weapon really went to the appearance of the guns, not function. My take was the law really only banned guns which were bad-ass looking. I guess if I'm Special Forces and looking to storm an insurgent safe house, some of those features are important. Otherwise, it's just the macho appeal of having an AR or UZI knock-off. (Maybe that's part of the video game argument.) On the other hand, one feature of an actual assault weapon is it's compact size and things like folding stocks. Again, if you're storming a 747 that's probably important. I'll allow the size also makes concealment easy, which could be a factor in civilian shootings. I've never actually held an AR-15, but they seem to be pretty dang big guns. If Lanza could carried an AR into Sandy Hook Elementary hidden under his coat, it makes me wonder if size matters. But I was surprised to learn he never fired the two 9mms he had. But the biggie, that which makes a difference is full auto vs. semi auto vs. single-action which leads to.... 2) Rate of Fire. Full-auto has been heavily controlled since the 30s. And even my grandfather's 1914 revolver is technically semi-automatic -- everytime I pull the trigger, it fires. Granted, its not as smooth and fast as a modern 9mm, but it still shoots everytime. Maybe there is an argument to be made to ban everything but single-action, bolt action or single shot guns. Based on my exhaustive review of the History Channel over the years, that would seem to be most firearms designed after 1880 or so. There you have a pretty good argument for reasonableness. If someone can make a technical If I'm buying a gun for self defense, I don't think the muzzle loader I pulled out of the trash is it. Even the professionals of the day could only get off two shots a minute (again, History Channel). One of my gun-totin' buddies says it is possible that he could be killed with his own gun, but he'll be beaten to death with it. The bad guys may take it from him, but the clip will be empty. That seems like a reasonable approach. I you're protecting yourself or family and make the decision to use deadly force, YOU USE DEADLY FORCE. That means as much lead down range as possible. If someone can offer a technical argument for some mid-ground on semi-automatic weapons, I'd love to hear it. 3) Volume of Fire3) The magazine debate. Limiting magazine size seems like a reasonable thing, I just don't know how effective it would be. Is there a big difference between one 100-round mag and six or eight 15-round mags. If I'm in Mogadishu, yeah. But it doesn't seem like the time it takes to drop a clip will really make a difference in these civilian mass shootings. The real issue here is.... Availability of Ammunition4) Unless you're really preparing for the next war, stockpiling 10,000 rounds of ammo does seem nuts -- we'll no more nuts than preparing for the next war, but that's another thread. So how do you control that? You make it illegal to transport more than XX rounds? Who does that stop, besides my ASM who organized the troop shooting sports weekend in the fall and bought $600+ worth of ammo? Do we institute a psudoephedrine-style registry? Since ammo lasts years, what stops somone from buying their limit and saving it over time? Does ATF get to randomly search my house for my cache? Do shooters have to collect their brass and swap it out? This is an area where there could be a reasonable/effective solution, but I've not heard one. Lastly, Access5) Our state has a law under which gun owners can be charged if they leave a firearm accessible to a minor. I can see expanding this, to cover any firearm subsequently used in the commission of a crime. I your legal gun is stolen, you're responsible for it. If I'm facing criminal charges or multi-million-dollar liability if my guns are stolen, I'm probably going to make dang sure they'rea secure -- or get rid of them if they're not important enough to me to go to the trouble/expense of locking them up. I agree with whoever posted (not surprisingly, I think it was Beavah) that the NRA should be appalled that firearms are being used by criminals. If that Lapierre guy (whatever his name is) had two brain cells to rub together, the NRA would be all over something like this. EVERY responsible gun owner should be doing this. I don't really know what the "gun show" exemption, but if folks are using it to get around in-place laws, it needs to be fixed. On the other hand, if I want to sell grandpa's revolver to someone, I don't think that's any business of the government. I don't know how you put into place any sort of mental health check on gun purchases. Do we now create a national mental status database? Okay, if you've ever been legally committed your name should come up on the list. But who get's on the list? Being a danger to yourself or others is a pretty high bar. Anyone with a bout of depression? According to the CDC, anti-depressants are tne most frequently presecribed medication among folks 18-44. Heck, age aside, I've probably got five kids in the troop I don't think are stable enough to own a gun -- triple that if you include too stupid. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Truth be told, I've written this as much to think through it myself as anything. If anyone has knowledge or insight here I'd like to hear it. Yeah, I get the Second Amendment argument and I'm not unsympathetic -- I actually kinda agree -- so I'm not really looking for a political discussion one way or the other. But if anyone has CONCRETE, REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE IDEAS, I'd like to hear a real debate. But spare me the zombie apocalypse stuff.

Taking a break from the immediate debate, did anyone catch this in the Huffington Post article: "...having armed security on-site failed to prevent the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school. "In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine...." My first reaction was, "wait a minute -- Columbine isn't the deadliest school shooting." So I re-read the section. "...the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school...." Do we really require supurlatives for everything? Would the point have not been made if Columbine were further down the list? Or is this just more of the subliminal bias we accept in reporting these days -- not that we should expect any better of the HP. You are now returned to your previously scheduled discussion, already in progress.....(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Hmmmmm.... In recent memory we've had the Poison Dart Frog patrol, Avalanche patrol, Geko patrol, Pyros, THE patrol. I can actually only remember couple patrols with "official" names/patches. I was okay with the Hooter patrol (and an appropriate Owl patrol patch), but caught flack from several moms on the committee. The patrol decided discretion was the better part of valor and took the hit. Who cares. Let the kids have fun with it. BSA will survive without that two bucks.

Yeah, the NRA needs to learn to just keep their mouths shut after these tragedies. Then again, it strikes me as a bit opportunistic and ham-fisted for the CSE to run out and personally present Spirit of the Eagle awards to Chase and Ben's families quite so soon. But I digress/hijack.... Anyway, If you read only one article on all this I recommend the following, sent to my by one of my ASMs: http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/ The article notes there hasn't been ONE SINGLE fire fatality in an American school in the past 50 years. Why? Because we've taken a systematic approach to fire prevention and protection. But, you say, we don't have arsonists targeting school children. No, but we could, if you think in terms of terrorist attacks. And if, God forbid, terrorists decide to fire-bomb schools, the same drills and fire safety devices which save lives in electrical fires will save lives during attacks. Some of the things the article suggest better training of students and teachers, but more importantly systematically upgrading the design and construction of schools with an eye toward security. For example, we now have automatic fire doors which close whenever a fire alarm is pulled. Why not similar security doors? We need to rethink the light, open and airy design of schools. The article mentioned the number of students killed at Columbine who were trying to "hide" in a glass-walled library. I was at one of the local high schools last week and couldn't help to notice how impossible it would have been to secure the school. More than a dozen small buildings built over decades connected by breezeways and sidewalks. Folks who want to make the point will note the trillions of dollars required to replace all the schools in the country. But that's a red herring. We didn't improve fire safety in one budget cycle. As wooden doors wore out we replaced them with steel doors. As buildings were renovated, they were brought up to fire code. When new schools were built, they met modern standards. I don't want our schools to look like CIA headquarters, but I'll bet most folks who work in any sort of corporate facility are better protected than their children. Fire protection building codes are based on making fires survivable until the fire department arrives. If a building has a 15 minute fire rating but the local fire station is a half hour away, you've got a problem. But with shootings, the response time needs to be in seconds. So yes, the article does recommend armed guards. It asks if we would put firemen in schools with uniforms and badges but no fire extinguishers? Again, I've already read articles saying it would take the entire active-duty US military to put one armed guard in each school in the country. Horse hockey. I don't know about other areas, but in our school district all the schools already have School Resource Officers. SRO is really a misnomer -- these folks are real cops who have real patrol assignments when schools are not in session. Honestly, I never thought to look and see if they carry their service arms while working at school, but I bet the do and if they don' they should. As regular cops they're on call to respond off campus if an emergency requires it. And this my opinion, not the article, but I do think trying to make kindergarten teaches into SWAT team members is just silly. People are drawn toward professions based on their aptitudes and general outlooks on life. Maybe there are some heat-packing kindergarten teachers out there, but I tend to think those things which make one a good kindergarten teacher is not the skill set they're looking for in a scout-sniper. While there are a lot of small things we could be doing to improve school security, I don't have a problem looking at the state of gun laws either. As with every other civil rights, the Second Amendment is and ought to be tempered by the other ten. Maybe banning high-volume magazines is a reasonable thing to do. I don't know, I can't say I've ever fired a semi-automatic weapon in my life, so this is outside my area of experience. But then I have to wonder if there is a big difference between a shooter in one of these situations with 10, 10-round magazines vs. one 100-round mag. The bad guys will always find a work around, like flying airplanes into building, righ? I've always thought anything said in the immediate wake of these tragedies is bound to generate more heat than light and the current round of debate seems to be proving me right. But then I'm not doing the political trigonometry to get my point of view through Congress, either. Hopefully, we'll find a balance. Unfortnately, we don't seem to have many folks in leadership these days with balance as their goal.

You are still talking about SAINT Nicholas, right? But I never said this isn't stupid. In my opinion, the vast majority of stupid rules like this are the misapplication of SCOTUS rulings by idiot school administrators who either don't understand the law, are paranoid of being sued or are too lazy to reasonably apply the law so they just ban everything.

Comparable to the AARP's solutions for Social Security. And for the same reasons.

This is actually one of the rare instances where I agree with Merlyn and, oh by the way, the Supreme Court. The line was crossed, skeptic, when you accepted the insanely small check from the school and became an agent of the government for the day. Frankly, given the pay (about $55/day 'round here), I'd have put my Santa hat back on and told the principal "sorry, today's my day to be Santa." And where it crosses back over the line is when they try to tell private individuals they can't wear Santa hats. I'm with Da Beav. After telling the principal to pound sand, I'd have bought all the Santa hats I could find, stood on the sidewalk and given one to every student willing to wear them. When the principal complains, tell him that by his own words the wearing of a Santa hat is a protected religious expression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daDf0e0poas (I wish I could just post the video here.)

I think Bob Hope was at the '73 jambo.

Gotta tell ya, my pet peeve is in the other direction -- the folks who get all huffy over "Happy Holidays." I've heard/seen/said Happy Holidays my entire life. The intention of the phrase is to wish someone happiness through the holidayS as in Thanksgiving, Hannaka, Festivus, Christmas, New Years, Ramadan, whatever. No intent to take Christ or anyone else out of Christmas. People just seem to enjoy being offended.

Tokala -- help me understand this. And I'm not asking you to throw your own council under the bus, so feel free to use percentages or generic info. What is the total for staff salaries. You never see councils report actual salaries -- they're always allocate out to various functional line items like "program," "fundraising," or "administration." Frankly, I never trust those allocations anyway. Secondly, how do salaries compare to money raised. Point being, if FOS, (family, business, community, etc.) accounts for a third or so of council income, but the salaries we're spending that on salaries, then what's the point? I know it's more complicated than that. My DE does the normal district stuff, but is also advisor to the advancement committee, the OA lodge and some council golf tournament (or some dang thing). But it also seems to me a lot of this stuff is intentionally bound up. If the staff is spending a third of the time raising a third of the budget, just cut income and expenses by a third and call it good. (And I know that all councils' fundraising cost miraculously come in under 15%, but I don't believe that either.)

Most program stuff is now required to turn a profit -- training, camporees, day camps, etc. When I was Cub day camp director I was intimately aware that not only did our camp not receive one dime from the Council either directly or indirectly -- not held on council property, no staff time or resources used, nothing. So after spending hundreds of hours of my time on day camp, it really chapped my butt to have the local FOS guy show up and tell the pack parents that their donation helped pay for the district camp. The next year, I grabbed the fellow before his presentation and let him know that unless he wanted to be corrected in the middle of his presentation, he needed to be a little tighter with his facts.

I'm amazed at the honesty. Must have caught someone at the council during a weak moment.

Also try http://ow.ly/g8PEi . This takes you to this weekend's edition of "Scouting Hot Finds" newsletter. I think a number of Scouting collectable dealers work together to summarize everything (or at least the cool stuff) posted for sale on eBay. If you go to this issue there will be a link to get a regular update. There are almost always old Eagle medals listed for sale. I know the main guy, Jason Spangler aka Santeeswapper. He's a good guy and if you contact him personally I'll bet he can help you find the medal you're looking for.

EagerLeader: "We never see the scout at meetings, so until recharter rolled around I totally forgot about him. " I assume this to mean since the Scout submitted the original application the Scout has been rechartered with the troop. I'd say that makes the whole "is he or isn't he a member" moot. It does, however, goes to the general shadyness of the situation, but I don't think you can tell the kid he isn't a member. The issues with the application should have been addressed at recharter.

Somehow newspapers, magazines, internet services, cell phone companies and a lot of other businesses with annual renewals have figured out how to do this without funneling the process through one individual for every few dozen members. So the UNIT recharters by signing the annual recharter form and mailing a check. Why can't individual members, at that point, pay their dues and renew their "subscriptions" online? I can't think of a single issue which couldn't be overcome electronically. Funny how BSA started out as essentially a means of selling books and magazines to boys. You wanna bet if that were still a substantial portion of the revenue we would have the world's slickest renewal system?