Jump to content

SB_Eagle

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SB_Eagle


  1. 5 minutes ago, allangr1024 said:

    This has already been happening.  Trail Life split off five years ago.  The LDS church will make their own, and I bet it will follow the Trail Life model of sponsorship.  I have read that the Catholics are considering putting together a Scouting type program for their constituents.  The fracture has already begun.  

    I'm not doubting you, but is there a source on this?


  2. A few years ago, I was in pretty much the same situation: New Tiger Den Leader after being OA brotherhood in my youth, lodges merged since then.  OA was some of my best memories and I just wanted to support the current lodge, even if it was just the yearly fee.  They probably had a record of me, but I really had to dig to find my ordeal and brotherhood dates in order to list them on the lodge membership form.  I wear the lodge flap, the Cubs are intrigued by it.  I sometimes help out the troop, so I guess it seems more 'appropriate' now.

    • Upvote 1

  3. 21 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

    This is just a summary of how conservatives think the world is blowing up because the Boy Scouts are allowing girls to join.

    They were wrong about the world ending when women and blacks were given the right to vote.  They were wrong about the world ending when gays could officially be married.

    They are wrong about this too.

    You are completely out of line with this post.  Conservatives supported the right to vote for women and blacks amongst strong democratic opposition.  Democrats still only pretend to care about all women and minorities just so far as to gain votes, and as long as they don't have their own opinions against the party line.

    This is about preserving a program dedicated to helping boys, and we have just told boys in the BSA that they are no longer a priority and that they are undeserving of their own program. 

    • Upvote 3

  4. 22 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

    Apparently not.  For example, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would oppose closing the background-check loopholes such as gun shows and Internet sales.  I would think that any rational person would want to make sure that everyone gets checked out before they can buy a gun.

    Sales from licensed dealers have to go through the paperwork process and background process no matter where the sale is made.  Out-of-state sales (such as through the Internet) have to be done through a dealer in the buyer's state, through the paperwork and background process.  As for private sales, it is illegal to sell to a prohibited person.

    In most of these events, the background check system already in place failed due to the lack of input from governmental agencies.  In the case of the recent Florida shooting, law enforcement failed repeatedly at every single level both before and during the event, while policies are in place to prevent protecting against these events.      


  5. 4 hours ago, JustAScoutMom said:

    And yet, there is absolutely no way that we are allowing only those with demonstrated proficiency with basic weaponry to use/bear arms.  That is where you and I will have to disagree.

    I'll explain again.  No matter how you view or want to view the wording or meaning of 'well-regulated' or 'militia' in the first clause, you are attempting to evaluate the JUSTIFICATION clause as if it were the OPERATIVE clause, which clearly recognizes the already existing 'people's right to bear arms' and states that it 'shall not be infringed'.

     I view Duty to Country as being LOYAL to it and the original legislative framework and that includes understanding how and why they were written, and to defend it from those who wish to enjoy what liberty provides them while criticizing the methods by which it is defended.

    I read a news story this morning about how the South Africa’s parliament has overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of land without compensation.  It is witnessed that their government uses brutal tactics against the landowners, including murder.  They have no Second Amendment to protect their right to defend what's left of their liberty.  Historically, this is the direct end result of extreme policies being pushed even here in the United States.        


  6. 7 hours ago, JustAScoutMom said:

    And yet the constitution does refer to well-regulated, and regulations are rules.  We abide by them.  Companies abide by them.  But apparently, we don't want to regulate here regardless of what the constitution says. 

    You misunderstand what 'well regulated' means in the Second Amendment.  The first 'well regulated militia' clause explains the reason of the second 'right to keep and bear arms' clause. Regulated meant 'proficient in the use of arms' as written at the time.  The 'militia' are all able-bodied persons.  In no way does it or has it ever meant to be a right regulated by any congress. None of the Bill or Rights limit or seek to regulate citizens' rights, only recognizes and limits governments' ability to limit citizens' rights. The Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 along with Supreme Court case DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are good places to start in order to better understand this.  It has been repeatedly reaffirmed that armed self-defense is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed upon, no different than any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

    • Upvote 1
×