search
top

The Campaign to Make Us Pariahs Continues

Opinion published in Sunday’s USA Today says the Boy Scouts should ditch NRA and create their own firearms training program. This is just one guy’s opinion, so I’m not sweating it. But it shows the concerted effort to place us outside the mainstream, likely coordinated by Bloomberg, is continuing.

The NRA needs the BSA more than the BSA needs the NRA. The BSA is perfectly capable of creating a firearms safety program of its own without the NRA participation.

You want to test that nice theory? If you ask me, this is a bigger threat to the Boy Scouts, because I believe we have the cultural power in the circles BSA depends on to end it as a national organization of any consequence. This would not be a wise fight for the BSA to pick.

27 Responses to “The Campaign to Make Us Pariahs Continues”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    The BSA is having an image problem already in the codeine circles for going co-ed. Dumping the NRA on top of that would be finish.

    FTR I think they made a tough but necessary call there, for the trains their leadership laid out. So we shall see

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t really begrudge BSA for going co-ed. Thought they should just change it to “Scouting” in that instance, and drop the B part. Be up front and honest about it.

      I mostly don’t begrudge them, because Girl Scouts are already coopted by SJWs, and I think girls should have an alternative.

      • Hank Archer says:

        BSA will be essentially dead in 20-30 years. In general, the sorts of people who are the main audience of the BSA are culturally conservative and won’t support the SJW deceptive nonsense the organization is now promoting.

        70% of BSA Troops are sponsored by Christian organizations. The Mormon community (20% of current scouts) has already pulled out and are now setting up a parallel organization. The liberal churches who are in alignment with the BSA’s new direction are dying and the orthodox churches will probably eventually join the new Mormon initiated organization.

        • Alpheus says:

          I’m not yet sure whether other orthodox churches will join the Latter-day Saint organization (I’m a Latter-day Saint, so I’m in the thickets of what’s going on), because it may be too tightly coupled with our doctrine. One of the justifications is that the Church is becoming more international, so being tied to a national organization is kindof limiting. I have sometimes wondered why the BSA program couldn’t just be internationalized, but I suspect that part of the reason is that the BSA is going down roads that the LDS Church doesn’t want to go down…

          Having said that, it’s not all that difficult to imagine other Churches seeing what we’re doing, and deciding to go down that road themselves, possibly even using the LDS program for inspiration for their own programs. Heck, I suspect that the BSA program will heavily influence the LDS one!

          It’s not all that difficult to imagine these different groups occasionally doing activities together, or running camps together, etc. But it’s going to be hard on the BSA….

          • Hank Archer says:

            BTW – when I say orthodox (notice I didn’t capitalize it) I mean those churches which are still teaching a doctrine that would be recognized as “normal” by someone who lived before the 1930 Lambeth Conference.

        • Ian Argent says:

          Going co-ed was a reaction to the LDS backing off from the BSA. I’m not entirely sure of the exact timing of the official break vs the announcement to go co-ed, due to other membership decisions on the part of the BSA.

          And prior to THAT, there was an appearance of the LDS having an outsize influence on the BSA as a whole. I wasn’t involved enough at the time to say how much reality and appearance meshed, but the allegation crossed my eyeballs…

          I will say that my son’s first pack meeting strongly emphasized that there was a faith-based component to Scouting, and that there would be firearms instruction down to the Tiger level (first graders). And as an adult leader, the BSA made sure that I knew Shenanigans Would Not Be Tolerated.

          It may be that the BSA withers away in 20-30 years. But if they do, the decision to go co-ed isn’t going to be part of it; but rather that there are more options for youth activity.

          • Alpheus says:

            I’m fairly certain that there has always been a strong faith-based component to Scouting, from its founding, and that it’s independent of LDS influence.

            It’s been decades since I’ve looked at that aspect of Scouting, though, so I can’t say for absolute certainty.

            It’s my understanding that the BSA doesn’t like atheists participating (particularly as leaders); oddly enough, I personally don’t have a problem with atheists participating, so long as they respect the faith-based aspects of the organization. I’d go so far as to say that I’d even have no problems with atheists being ministers, if they are willing to stay faithful to the teachings — having said that, there was a minister in the news a few months ago who was an atheist who refused to teach the doctrine of her Church (Presbyterian, if I recall correctly), and I honestly wondered why her Church hadn’t excommunicated her already.

            • Ian Argent says:

              The Scout Law is: “A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.”

              (Once I get that rolling it keeps rolling, but I need a push to get it rolling right now after 30 years of neglect). That goes back to Baden-Powell, IIRC.

              And the Pack says “under god” when they do the pledge of allegiance, too.

              There was very much an undertone of “you can believe what you like, but you need to believe in something” in the initial onboarding event and materials. That hasn’t changed in the 30 years since I last wore the BSA uniform. (As a Den Leader I get to do that again, and I can’t say I’m not proud to do so.)

  2. SPEMack says:

    The BSA has already ditched a couple of positions that were liasons with the NRA.

    And to be honest, it’s the NRA’s fault. The constantly changing requirements to run a BSA range, at the behest of the NRA training division, make it hard for smaller councils to operate their summer camps.

  3. Alpheus says:

    I’m not at all convinced the NRA needs the BSA. When I think “NRA”, I never think “Boy Scouts”, and I doubt anyone else does either — indeed, when I was a Boy Scout, I had no idea one way or the other whether the NRA was affiliated with the scout camps where I practiced shooting.

    While I also doubt the BSA needs the NRA, I would still expect it to be useful to remain affiliated — so long as the NRA provides good training and range support. If they are neglecting that, though, then it’s time for the NRA to re-evaluate their purpose. Activism is important, but so is culture and training.

    • Sebastian says:

      It’s not really an affiliation: The NRA pays for a lot of those ranges, and trains a lot of the people who teach scouts marksmanship.

      • Alpheus says:

        That’s a good reason why I think the “affiliation” that the opinion article is decrying isn’t as strong as it’s made out to be — and why the BSA distancing themselves from the NRA isn’t going to be as noticeable as the article thinks it would be.

        Frankly, I would expect that the NRA will continue to do what it does, because while the political stances of the NRA are the most public part of what they do, as far as I can tell, they are still *very* active in the safety and training parts too.

  4. Joe says:

    Definitely being funded and led by Bloomberg. The Leftist, SJW aspect of this op-ed wreaks of it, and it is examplatory of how those of us are in a “Culture-War” whether any of us like it or not. That being said….

    How does everyone here at the blog feel about Michael Bloomberg’s chances of becoming the 2020 Democrat Party Presidential Nominee? He is running, without a doubt.

    • Hank Archer says:

      The Democrats will never again nominate a straight white male for President.

    • Sebastian says:

      He has no chance in a Dem primary. Despite all his nannying, he’s otherwise a moderate and a capitalist through and through. No way he’d get anywhere in a Dem primary.

      • Joe says:

        Kind of how I feel. Considering that Elizabeth Warren may have scuttled her 2020 Presidential aspirations due to her whole “heritage issue”, my $money would be on Corey Booker, Kristen Gilibrand, or Kamala Harris winning that 2020 Democrat Presidential Nomination. The VP Slot will definitely be a woman though, regardless of the Presidential Slot being Male or Female.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          I think Biden will pull through and win the Dem primary. He’s the only one I would be remotely concerned about against Trump. If they go full SJW Trump gets re-elected nationally.

          • Joe says:

            Trump would crush Biden. He’d beat him up and down over that Trans-Paciific-Partnership and how he helped Bill Clinton Ratify NAFTA back in 1993.

            Regarding the SJW stuff, the Plurality to emphasize, of the Democrat Party Base is too “Minority Obsessed”. I also think that Corey Booker especially, would beat Biden in the Primary Debates, and get the Youth Vote and Minorities combined with enough Working Class People, as well as Independents in the Open-Primary States.

      • Richard says:

        He is also 76 and Jewish both of which are serious drawbacks in a Democrat primary.

  5. National Observer says:

    “But it shows the concerted effort to place us outside the mainstream”

    By “us” do you mean the NRA, or the firearms rights community? Are you conflating the two? If so, I think it’s very arguable.

    You know my argument by now: That the NRA has been working overtime, with Snarling Dana and the abandonment of any pretense at being “single issue,” to place itself “outside the mainstream” and go full Culture Warrior.

  6. Jim says:

    I’ve been a local Scout leader going on 15 years now – and I’m an NRA certified firearms instructor and RSO, and an NRA Life Member. The partnership between the NRA and the BSA has been beneficial for both organizations, as far as I can see. The NRA (and the Friends of the NRA – especially on the local level) helps us provide good instruction and safe places to shoot (the range at Ockanickon Scout Reservation here in Bucks County, for example, was rebuilt by Friends of the NRA donations). By teaching boys (and girls soon, I hope) how to shoot safely and enjoy the shooting sports generally, BSA helps continue the tradition to future generations. If the BSA decided to ditch the NRA, that likely will be the end of my participation in the BSA.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Another NRA attack - […] Someone is advocating the Boy Scouts ditch the NRA and start their own firearm safety program. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top