David CO

6 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

You  must go to a nice camp!

We do. 

We have found that the church-owned camps offer more activity for the older scouts. Our Church is making a real effort to engage the older kids. There are several church-owned camps that are within our travel distance and budget.

Many of my older scouts already have part-time jobs that pay a lot better than BSA. When they go to summer camp, they want a vacation ...not another job. 

46 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

Most camps I've been to have like 3-4 different water/boating merit badges. Then, usually only around 30 mins to a hour few times during the week called "open boating or open swimming"

Bummer. 

23 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

(the open time, not the merit badge)

What is the point of teaching a boy to do something (merit badge) if you're not going to let him do it (open time)?

Just now, ItsBrian said:

Those are usually for only a hour a day. Never heard of water skiing at a camp.

Water skiing/water boarding is one of the most popular activities with my older kids. The speed boat is out on the lake most of the afternoon on nice days. 

48 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

What do your senior scouts do at summer camp to keep busy?

Swimming. Fishing. Boating. Water Skiing. I know it's rough, but somebody's gotta do it.

The framers did envision the need for change. That's why they included a process by which the Constitution can be amended. My objection isn't to change. My objection is to those who would wish to change the Constitution without going through the amendment process.

19 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

sI am not sure what law you refer, but the Continental Congress absolutely issued Letters of Marque to attack British ships. In fact, they did so before they even wrote the Declaration of Independence. Which is why British Captains considered any ship under Continental Flag as a pirate and subject to the worst forms of treatment, including hanging, conscription or what amounted to a death sentence on British prison ships. The British did not treat POW's well in many cases, but sailors were often treated worse because of them being considered pirates due to their Letters of Marque.

16 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

David might have been referring to current maritime law which I was not sure if I remembered correctly. If so, thank you David for the clarification.

The 1856 Paris Declaration outlawed the issue of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The United States refused to sign it because it contradicts the U. S. Constitution. Yet, the United States has not issued any Letters of Marque and Reprisal since the Paris Declaration.

The Confederate States of America did issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal during the Civil War. The United States did not.

I am not up on current maritime law. It is my understanding that the United States still holds to the position that it cannot sign a treaty that contradicts the U. S. Constitution.

14 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Re: private ships with cannons. At the time privateers were issued letters of marque (as permitted in the Constitution) to act on behalf of the us govt to attack and seize foreign ships which otherwise would be considered piracy under maritime law. The letters of marque legitimized the privateers as de facto navy ships. IIRC, current international maritime law prohibits issuance of letters of marque in the current times.

The United States is not a signatory to that "law".  

5 hours ago, scoutldr said:

Aren't they supposed to wait for backup rather than charging in blindly as the Sherriff suggested he should have? 

If that is the case, then we need to arm teachers. You can't expect people to rely on the police for their protection if the police are going to stay outside the building and wait for shooter to run out of ammunition.

I saw a news report today that said the armed deputy sheriff who was working at the school took a defensive position outside the school instead of doing his job protecting the students from the shooter.

I am disgusted. 

33 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

@David CO , @skeptic  hopefully my edit to skeptic's post will suffice. 

 

Your edit was both sufficient and funny. 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Ahhh.  This is what I see being pretty much ignored in most conversations.  Does not "well-regulated mean that controls of some form, such as laws and such, are part of the right noted?

Skeptic, please correct your post. You attributed something to me that was posted by someone else.

In answer to your question, an explanatory clause is not usually seen as limiting or expanding the functional parts of a rule or law. 

The example I was given, when studying school law, involved firecrackers. The rule stated that students may not explode firecrackers at school, as they might frighten the horses and cause them to bolt. In later years, they no longer had horses, but the rule still applied because there were also other reasons why they might want to prohibit the use of firecrackers.

The explanation did not limit or negate the rule. 

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

Citizen militia members of the time typically did not own personal canon, swords or bayonets. They did not own many of the weapons (or shot) that most of the military used or had access to. The Founding Fathers could never envision the proliferation and variety of weapons available today.Their intent was to allow the people to defend themselves and rise up to meet any challenge from an opposing foreign power or government (even our own).

They did not mean for the right to bear arms to be equal to that of the military, per se. Which is why the 2nd Amendment reads in full "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not mean that the people have the right to have the same weapons as the military. 

Civilian ships often carried cannon. Some of the Illinois militia units had 2 pounder "grasshopper guns" in their arsenals. I've seen one in a museum. Individual civilians could own punt guns, which were huge shotguns or small cannons.

33 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

You, and you? Or some other Bozo? 

Not Bozo. He never put me into a clown suit. He took his clowning very seriously, and felt that only skilled actors should don the fright wig and big red nose. His clown character had a pet chicken, so I would often be assigned to the big beak and yellow feathers, where I was less likely to lay an egg.

21 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

The CO doesn’t really want to be involved. 

Don't blame the COR for it. The COR is supposed to represent the CO and follow the lead of the IH. If the CO wants to boycott council, the COR doesn't go.

Most of my unit considered my long-time COR to be a bit of a clown. In fact, he was a professional clown. He also did super heroes and holiday characters. He didn't attend district meetings, but he had a standing offer to entertain the kids, free of charge, at any boy scout/cub scout function. The boys loved him. He was a great guy.

He also had a Pedro costume. I'll give you two guesses who got to be the back side of the donkey. Some people felt it was type-casting.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Technically you are as CORs are part of the district and council committees with voting rights. Grant you I've only seen 1 COR do just that, but he was also the district chairman as well.

 

I suppose, if you're the only one, it makes you the chairman.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

You're not in NC by any chance? One of my district folks said nearly the exact same thing when I told them how long I was in Scouting when I first moved here.

Nope. I'm not a district folk either.

24 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Throwing out my 20 years Experience Card again.

20 years experience? You're practically a rookie. I have almost twice that. And I've been thinking all along that you were one of us old-timers. 

23 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

I don’t know a single COR around me that has ever even interacted with council. Mostly the CC’s do it.

Unfortunately, it is not realistically possible for a COR to avoid the council altogether. Some council interaction is unavoidable, but it usually takes place behind the scenes, and unit scouters are often unaware of it taking place.

The CC should never step in and do the COR's duties.  

The COR appoints new unit leaders, so it is entirely appropriate for a COR to attend a meeting to introduce a newly appointed leader. I think that is often enough. More often than that and people are likely to feel that the COR is micromanaging the unit leaders.

9 minutes ago, perdidochas said:

I don't think there is a difference.  When I was a WDL, I knew that only some of my Webelos were going to Boy Scouts. However, I think the Webelos program as designed was appropriate for all Webelos, not just the ones going to Boy Scouts.  

A two year transition? Isn't that a bit much?

I think the webelos program, as it was originally designed, was a more appropriate program than what we have now. 

4 hours ago, MattR said:

How about we assume it's exactly half and instead talk about the large difference between cubs and scouts. 

Fair enough. I like a man who can compromise. 

1 hour ago, The Latin Scot said:

Perhaps explaining the factors which influence those who do not progress, rather than basing your argument on the quantity of boys who do not, might be a more effective way to illustrate your point.

I don't think so.

My point is that there are so many boys who don't make a successful transition from cub scout to boy scout, that they are being ill served by unit leaders who see that transition as the main goal of the last two years of cub scouts. So, the numbers do matter.

I am pretty confident that my statement is correct. It is less than half.

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Age card? Stating our experiences is a card? 

How does someone with a “anti-OA” card know what’s best for a dreamer? Scouters should spend less effort telling what Scouts can and cannot do, and instead a build a program that encourages more dreams and let’s the Scouts choose their path.

Barry

You've completely lost me on the dreamer comments. I have no idea what you're saying.

Yes, my unit opposes OA because of the cultural appropriation issue, but I can't see how that has any relevance to this conversation.

I am all for letting boys choose between scouting and sports. I don't have any preference for which program they choose. One way or the other, it's fine with me. I think I have made that clear.

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Lol, I have too much actual experience to know better. And I have no problem with glass half empty people so long as they don’t keep trying to pour that half empty glass on dreamers. 

I probably have about the same amount of experience, so playing the age card doesn't work on me. 

It is not a question of optimism or pessimism. It is about wanting what's best for each kid. Sometimes that's scouting, and sometimes it's not.

Boys might love flag-football, but not like full-contact football. Boys might love little league, but not like playing baseball when the pitches get faster and the base-lines get longer. It happens all the time. The same is true of scouting. Many boys who like cub scouts will never enjoy boy scouting.