Universal Military Training and Service Act

Guess I'm going to wear this thread out. As far as the draft being unconstitutional, I think you need to read it. I can't find my copy right now or I would provide the article number and exact wording. The constitution requires the government to provide for the defense of the nation and gives it the power to raise an Army. Doesn't say anything about volunteer, militia or draft, just that it can raise an army.
 
Been there, done that, got a tee shirt, don't want to do it again. However, if the Green Machine really wants this old body back, I will go.

I don't believe a draft is justified at this time. The present war situation does not call for it. However, if things get worse and we run out of men, then I am for the reintroduction of the draft.
 
About time! but for some limp wrist to call it slavery...I guess he/she just doesn't know all the goodies they have in their life now is directly related to the time spend by others serving their Country. Wouldn't it be nice if all youngsters spent some time doing something for their Country and not just for themselves. To call it Slavery, maybe I am confused but I thought Serving your country as an Honor not some form of punishment...
 
The negatives really do outweigh the positives here.....

There would be some gains to society. People would have a common reference. The bank president and the janitor could talk about their experiences in the service. If truly universal (like I believe our congress could give us a law like that?) the service experience might serve to more homogonize our society. Things might actually be a little less divided. People would have had to work and share hardship with people from all walks of life. I really think the nearly universal service in WWII helped contribute to the prosperity of the 50s and early 60s.

Politicians would have an understanding of what people in the military do. They might be less prone to misuse the armed forces like certain past admistrations have.

The downside is that it would be enormously unpopular and divisive to our society. There will not be a fair way to ensure everyone does his or her part. The military would have to totally change it's culture (not that there aren't a lot of things that need changed) to accomdate a conscript force. First term attrition (already in the low 40 percentile with the volunteer force) would skyrocket. NCOs (already babysitters in our current zero defects climate) would probably leave in droves. DW Drang is right, we are no longer set up to handle a large influx of new troops. We really don't have a tradition of peacetime conscription. The cold war is long won, and it was the all volunteer force that finally won it. There is no need for a large standing army. And like it or not that's what a national service law would give you. It would be enormously expensive. Everyone is not cut out to be a soldier. Without a national crisis to make everyone be a soldier why do it?

I think what everybody he who is in favor of it is looking for is a way to restore a sense of personal resposiblity throughout our society. National service of any kind won't undo years of the nanny state. I don't know what will, but an Army is a reflection of the society it serves.

Jeff
 
About time! but for some limp wrist to call it slavery
Click to expand...

Before you embarass yourself further, this "limpwrist" is a heterosexual male who volunteered for military service and who also works part-time in law enforcement.

Mandatory military service=involuntary servitude=slavery.
 
I, too, served my country for just shy of 13 years. If our military hadn't been turned into a pizza delivery service I'd probably still be on active duty.

And I'm still part of the "defense force". If the bad guys come here, I assure you that I will be prepared and willing to go fight.

But there's no way that anyone can be pro-freedom and pro-conscription, because the two are mutually exclusive of each other. It is immoral to force someone to pick up a rifle and fight if they are not of a mind to do so.

If a people as a whole do not have the will to fight and defend themselves, then they deserve their fate. THAT is the message that we need to be teaching our young people.
 
When antis bring up "well-regulated militia" don't we respond that 'well-regulated' refers to training?

Seems to me like the Second Amendment to the US Constitution demands that the Federal Government provide training for the militia.

And since I can't find anything in the Constitution, or in USC Title 10, Chapter 13 about exemptions to militia service -- other than women (sorry, gals) or National Guard officers (already had Army training), it do seem to me that, Constitutionally speaking, every man jack on this board should have received mandatory military training by the Federal Government.

LawDog
 
And since I can't find anything in the Constitution, or in USC Title 10, Chapter 13 about exemptions to militia service -- other than women (sorry, gals) or National Guard officers (already had Army training), it do seem to me that, Constitutionally speaking, every man jack on this board should have received mandatory military training by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...
I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution (or Title 10) about the government having the authority to compel service, either.

Since the Constitution is rightly viewed as a limitation on the federal government's authority, and since the authority to compel service is not granted within that Constitution, then I am of the opinion that the federal government lacks said authority in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

And that's on top of the moral objection I noted before. Conscription is fundamentally wrong.
 
As someone lucidly put in another thread recently (paraphrased): You don't FORCE me to serve my country, you ASK me to.

Involuntary servitude issues aside, consider:

If you DON'T live up to whatever subversive requirements some anti-gun burrowcrap or rep adds to this, there would be grounds for denying 2nd Amendment rights. Gee, you failed to show up for your mandatory monthy "refresher" training at a seriously inconvenient time & place? well then, you're officially "unregulated" and thus denied RKBA. Gee, you don't like the musket you've been issued? well, tough - that's your "arm" and that's all you get to keep & bear, no personal purchases allowed.

Compulsory military service looks good when viewed with noble intentions. It will suck bigtime when the corrupt get done with it.

Better idea: pump up the DCM/CMP to provide good, solid, non-obligatory training. I won't join the National Guard because of the ensuing obligations - but I'd be an enthusiastic participant in voluntary training.
 
I was sorry to see the draft ended.

I believe it would be a good thing for every young man to go into the military service for about 2 years.

I recognize the reluctance of a young person to go into the service for a couple of years. However, a person learns some valuable things that hold in good stead for a lifetime.

Having asked many, many veterans about their military service, the attitude is almost without exception, that it was a good thing, that they were glad they went, they learned some valuable things, but they wouldn't want to make a career of the military.

Too many of our young men are so self-centered that they would go to Canada and dodge the draft. I am contemptuous of all who did or would do such.
I remember the cry of the coward during the cold war, "Better red than dead."

I have posted this before, but it is worth remembering.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so be the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill


Amen,
Jerry
 
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100%.

But you'll note that it talks about values and attitudes. Forcing someone to either fight or be shot themselves doesn't exactly fit the mold, IMO.

I served because I felt it was my duty. My children will be raised in a similar manner, but if they choose not to do so that will be up to them. With the current state of our military and its general mission and usage, I'm not going to recommend it to them. They can stand ready to defend the nation without serving in uniform as far as I am concerned.

Jerry,

I'm guessing that a large part of your comments below are about Viet Nam and those who did not want to go fight in that war. My dad enlisted in the Marines at the age of 20 and spent 2 years in uniform, 18 months of which were spent in Nam with the 1st Marine Air Wing. He has told me many times that had he known then what he knows know, he would never have volunteered to for duty over there, and would have taken his chances with the draft instead. Thus, my opinion is that forcing people to go fight for a cause with which they may or do not agree is flat out wrong.
 
I've always found the Hienlien model to suit my tastes. I really see a great deal of benefit to the idea of universal service. Having said that, I would have to say that this idea may have to sit idle for a time. We currently suffer from to many parasites in our country. Prior to 9/11 I would dismiss criticism of our military offhand. It generally came from snivelers that either never served, or had a hard time in service by virtue of their being snivelers.

These days my response is to get right in their face about it. I make it plain that they know not of what they speak. Every "The 'Nam" Olly Stone cliche' has been played out by now. The petulant teenager with an anti-authority complex act has had it's run. To see that sort of arrested adolecent behavior in 50 year olds is truly digusting. I have resolved to make my own contempt for it more plainly evident.

The generations that elected (by error, omission or willful act) a notorious draft-dodging, pinko, commie rat, ala WJB Klinton, and raised the Kippy Kinkles and Johnny Jihads of the new Amerika, are unworthy of the protection and benefits that universal service would afford.

The upside is going to come from the current crop of teenagers. They are going to be the "Greatest Generation of this century. They have witnessed things that were completely unthinkable for the WWII generation. They have a visceral understanding that their parents narcissism and perpetual ability to rationalize the most aggregious affronts to deceny brought on the attacks. They will do what is right, the human instinct to survive will demand it of them. Then one day, when the dust has settled, they will raise their own children in such a fashion that those children will compete for slots in the military in the same way that people compete for slots in the adult daycare... er, I mean University system.

For those that served and made our lives and freedom possible, Thank You. For those that figured someone else would do it, you're welcome.
 
If...

...compulsive military service was so near and dear to the Founder's hearts, why did it not rear its' ugly head until the 1860's? Remember, the "well-regulated militias" that fought in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, as well as the vast majority of troops in the US army and all the troops of the Confederate army during the Civil War were volunteers.


Amazing how many people are "pro-freedom", except for their certain pet areas where they are more than willing to enlist the guns of the state to compel their fellow citizens against their will.
 
I don't see anything wrong with it, after all, all the socialist countries in Europe have a similar progr.................. :eek:

ERRRRRRRRRR......NEVERMIND!

:p

Obviously sarcastic :D
 
Justin, you just took the words out of my mouth.

Volunteer - Democracy
Draft in need - Democracy
Mandatory draft, without need - Socialism.

To hell with that crap about it "building character", "today's kids need it", blah, blah, blah. There are plenty of ways to build character, and old people have been crying "these kids these days need structure," for every generation since we were fighting sabre-toothed tigers with rocks and clubs.

You know what else builds character, and provides structure? Being down in a ditch shoveling mud out of footings before the inspector arrives, staying up for 2 days to get the final touches on a presentation ready for the board, tracking down a virus in a corporate computer network, walking an 8" cinderblock wall 3 stories in the air to fix some flashing even though you're afraid of heights, teaching teenagers History or English, stocking 400' of shelves before opening the store in one hour, ....

Need I go on? Sound familiar to any of you?

People get "structured" everyday. Give them their youth, if they want it.
 
Better idea: pump up the DCM/CMP to provide good, solid, non-obligatory training.
Click to expand...

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Hold your cards! I think we have a winner here!


Seriously, I would back something like this 100%.
 
No, no involuntary servitude.

It's not right when imposed by slaveholders on slaves, and it's not any more right when imposed by the government on allegedly free citizens.

This proposal creates a situation whereby citizens are subservient to the government.

I happen to believe the government is supposed to be subservient to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top