Universal Military Training and Service Act
- Thread starter USP45
- Start date
Indeed, LawDog.
But as we point out to the attackers of the Second, look at what it meant when they wrote it.
If the Founding Fathers meant that "organizing, arming, and disciplining" also included requisitioning manpower by coercion, then why (even when this nation was close to being stillborn during the disasters of the early Revolution and later, in 1812, as the British marched on Washington) did they never do so?
Not once until the Civil War (and only rarely during that conflict) and then not again until WWI, did the US ever bluntly tell citizens "You're in the Army now. Or else."
You know the definitions of "organizing", "arming" and "disciplining" fully as well as (heck, better than) I do. If they had wanted to include "Compelling Service" they would have.
You and I have both read enough U.S. history to know that, in times of crisis, the government of the nation, as well as the several states, would be empowered and financed to call up volunteers and volunteer militia units (which were unpaid during peacetime) to serve with the colors for the duration. Posters would be put up, old militia hands would help train those flocking to the colors, the men would elect their officers and they would report to the governor or to the nearest army commander.
If Jefferson and Company had wanted conscription, they would have specified it.
But as we point out to the attackers of the Second, look at what it meant when they wrote it.
If the Founding Fathers meant that "organizing, arming, and disciplining" also included requisitioning manpower by coercion, then why (even when this nation was close to being stillborn during the disasters of the early Revolution and later, in 1812, as the British marched on Washington) did they never do so?
Not once until the Civil War (and only rarely during that conflict) and then not again until WWI, did the US ever bluntly tell citizens "You're in the Army now. Or else."
You know the definitions of "organizing", "arming" and "disciplining" fully as well as (heck, better than) I do. If they had wanted to include "Compelling Service" they would have.
You and I have both read enough U.S. history to know that, in times of crisis, the government of the nation, as well as the several states, would be empowered and financed to call up volunteers and volunteer militia units (which were unpaid during peacetime) to serve with the colors for the duration. Posters would be put up, old militia hands would help train those flocking to the colors, the men would elect their officers and they would report to the governor or to the nearest army commander.
If Jefferson and Company had wanted conscription, they would have specified it.
My last point:
Not a soul here believes the State has the right to put a gun to our heads and demand our arms.
Most here have problems with the State putting a gun to our heads to demand our money or land.
Why the lack of resistance to, nay, eagerness to assist, the State in placing a gun to your neighbor's child's head, your child's head, your own head, and demand your life?
Is a society that does not see the philosophical inconsistency of that position worth dying for any more? It was once. Selective Service in WWI was originally initiated, in part, to help organize the flood of volunteers the Army was unprepared for. "Thank you for volunteering; we appreciate it but have no room now, please go home until your number is called."
To those who quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers may I remind you that it was not universal service. Also, let me add one of his best quotes (and the man was an Annapolis graduate and an invalided officer, so he was no slouch in the "volunteering service" department):
"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"
This nation is about freedom. We will only win our battles to return her to her proper course by reinstilling a love of the freedom this nation symbolizes in all its' citizens. If this is impossible (and I don't believe for a moment it is), then attempting to coax patriotism, love of country, and willingness to defend her by legal pressure will do nothing but increase the contempt the masses have for this nation and her ideals that we so cherish.
I have studied enough history to know that this notion of compelled service was not part of the America the Founders envisioned.
Not a soul here believes the State has the right to put a gun to our heads and demand our arms.
Most here have problems with the State putting a gun to our heads to demand our money or land.
Why the lack of resistance to, nay, eagerness to assist, the State in placing a gun to your neighbor's child's head, your child's head, your own head, and demand your life?
Is a society that does not see the philosophical inconsistency of that position worth dying for any more? It was once. Selective Service in WWI was originally initiated, in part, to help organize the flood of volunteers the Army was unprepared for. "Thank you for volunteering; we appreciate it but have no room now, please go home until your number is called."
To those who quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers may I remind you that it was not universal service. Also, let me add one of his best quotes (and the man was an Annapolis graduate and an invalided officer, so he was no slouch in the "volunteering service" department):
"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"
This nation is about freedom. We will only win our battles to return her to her proper course by reinstilling a love of the freedom this nation symbolizes in all its' citizens. If this is impossible (and I don't believe for a moment it is), then attempting to coax patriotism, love of country, and willingness to defend her by legal pressure will do nothing but increase the contempt the masses have for this nation and her ideals that we so cherish.
I have studied enough history to know that this notion of compelled service was not part of the America the Founders envisioned.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
A partial plan, perhaps.
jmbg29 wrote:
It would take time to rearrange society into this model, of course, but it strikes me as a highly workable solution to many problems. There's something for everyone here: The altruists and the egotists. The whiners who want to choose their own battles, the gung-ho enthusiasts, the quiet participants, those who want to simply opt out of public service and live and either work or vegetate under the protection of others.
Much to be learned, reading this thread . . . .
Best,
Johnny
jmbg29 wrote:
I wondered if anyone would reference this outstanding work. An easily-digested civics and government lesson may be had, along with a very enjoyable read, in Robert A. Heinlein's classic Starship Troopers, not to be confused with the recent, cruddy, movie of the same name. In the book, only those who materially contribute to the overall good of society have a say in the running. Those who merely live and work within the (world, national, local) community are entitled to most benefits and protections. But those who volunteer to spend, I think, three years, in unrestricted service to society, are entitled to full Citizenship, the earned right to vote and hold public office, to represent society in government. The volunteers may be assigned, according to assessment performed by other volunteers, to necessary duties, including combat.
It would take time to rearrange society into this model, of course, but it strikes me as a highly workable solution to many problems. There's something for everyone here: The altruists and the egotists. The whiners who want to choose their own battles, the gung-ho enthusiasts, the quiet participants, those who want to simply opt out of public service and live and either work or vegetate under the protection of others.
Much to be learned, reading this thread . . . .
Best,
Johnny
[gently]Go back and re-reread my posts: I'm for mandatory training, not mandatory service.[/gently]
During the days of the Founding Fathers, through the War between the States and up to the Second World War, a significant portion of the militia received military traininmg of a fashion through social activities and simple subsistance hunting.
This provided for a militia that a)knew which end of a rifle was the Bad End, b)knew what the Muzzle Reference Sensor was, and how to use it, and c) was fairly proficient at 'neeking around the countryside.
Contrast that with today. Pick ten people at random from LA, SanFran, Detroit, Boston or Newt Yack City. Heck, make it a hundred. Stockbrokers. Lawyers. You know -- yuppie scum. Hand each one an M16 and 460 rounds of ammo(in stripper clips), and point them at the modern equivalent of the British Army of the 1700's.
*sigh* This is our Modern Militia.
Everyone whom the Founding Fathers believed to be in the Militia ought to be able to pick up a rifle and say: "This end Bad; this end Good."
The members of the Militia should be able to load a magazine without getting an attack of the vapours and wetting their pants.
If nothing else, the members of the militia should be able to tell the difference between a rear aperture sight and a front post, and be able to find the latter whilst peering through the former.
And if those skills are not taught at home, Gentle Readers, then it is the duty of the State Government, as directed by Congress, to teach each member of the Militia those very skills.
No if's, no and's and no but's.
LawDog
During the days of the Founding Fathers, through the War between the States and up to the Second World War, a significant portion of the militia received military traininmg of a fashion through social activities and simple subsistance hunting.
This provided for a militia that a)knew which end of a rifle was the Bad End, b)knew what the Muzzle Reference Sensor was, and how to use it, and c) was fairly proficient at 'neeking around the countryside.
Contrast that with today. Pick ten people at random from LA, SanFran, Detroit, Boston or Newt Yack City. Heck, make it a hundred. Stockbrokers. Lawyers. You know -- yuppie scum. Hand each one an M16 and 460 rounds of ammo(in stripper clips), and point them at the modern equivalent of the British Army of the 1700's.
*sigh* This is our Modern Militia.
Everyone whom the Founding Fathers believed to be in the Militia ought to be able to pick up a rifle and say: "This end Bad; this end Good."
The members of the Militia should be able to load a magazine without getting an attack of the vapours and wetting their pants.
If nothing else, the members of the militia should be able to tell the difference between a rear aperture sight and a front post, and be able to find the latter whilst peering through the former.
And if those skills are not taught at home, Gentle Readers, then it is the duty of the State Government, as directed by Congress, to teach each member of the Militia those very skills.
No if's, no and's and no but's.
LawDog
Here's my thoughts on the subject.
Why put a burden on the armed services to absorb, feed, clothe, and train every military aged person? Why not expand the JROTCs and ROTCs across the nation?
Every school district if it wanted federal bucks would have an active and participating JROTC/ROTC.
Students who participated would earn financial incentives worth discounts in tuition and book costs in education.
Discontinue or greatly reduce the current system of federally and state funded student aid and grants. We would then gradually approach the ideal Heinlein had where service is the price of citizenship.
Make JROTC training as meaningful as current ROTC training is. Summer school at least one summer means going to camp at some National Guard base for at least six weeks. Here they get the training they can't get back at school.
Enrollment is not mandatory, but any family with several young mouths to feed and educate will see the advantage of "encouraging" their youngsters to go into JROTC/ROTC. I took the NROTC route because with three other brothers Dad just couldn't afford to set aside money for college tuition and books. I won the four year scholarship which paid for tuition, books, and some pocket money. When I graduated I had a job flying jet aircraft that lasted twenty years.
Finally, there is a pool of potential JROTC instructors all around us. There are a bunch of us old fuds who would love to get back into teaching what we learned when we served.
And those who don't want to enroll in JROTC and ROTC, no problem. When the flag goes up and they are drafted, they can go into labor battalions digging anti-tank ditches. Doesn't take much training to turn a shovel.
Why put a burden on the armed services to absorb, feed, clothe, and train every military aged person? Why not expand the JROTCs and ROTCs across the nation?
Every school district if it wanted federal bucks would have an active and participating JROTC/ROTC.
Students who participated would earn financial incentives worth discounts in tuition and book costs in education.
Discontinue or greatly reduce the current system of federally and state funded student aid and grants. We would then gradually approach the ideal Heinlein had where service is the price of citizenship.
Make JROTC training as meaningful as current ROTC training is. Summer school at least one summer means going to camp at some National Guard base for at least six weeks. Here they get the training they can't get back at school.
Enrollment is not mandatory, but any family with several young mouths to feed and educate will see the advantage of "encouraging" their youngsters to go into JROTC/ROTC. I took the NROTC route because with three other brothers Dad just couldn't afford to set aside money for college tuition and books. I won the four year scholarship which paid for tuition, books, and some pocket money. When I graduated I had a job flying jet aircraft that lasted twenty years.
Finally, there is a pool of potential JROTC instructors all around us. There are a bunch of us old fuds who would love to get back into teaching what we learned when we served.
And those who don't want to enroll in JROTC and ROTC, no problem. When the flag goes up and they are drafted, they can go into labor battalions digging anti-tank ditches. Doesn't take much training to turn a shovel.
LoneStranger
New member
Everybody thinks that they have a better fro-fer-all and that it should be the only fro-fer-all. But since everybody has their own fro-fer-all how does one determine which fro-fer-all should be the only fro-fer-all? The answer is that every fro-fer-all has to be examined and compared to all the other fro-fer-alls and a voluntary decision is made for the fro-fer-all that is best.
While a number of posters have made comments about how the military helped them I am sure that others could show that it hurt them. Can anyone show that forcing this military service on another person is moral if you don't know the result?
As I have looked back at my previous post I don't believe that I said voluntary military service is involuntary servitude. What I said and believe is that putting a gun to the head of someone else and telling them that they will do what you, Who Made You God??, tell them to do or you will kill them dead is evil. In fact I'm curious as to the difference between you and any other run of the mill thug/brigand?
It is always neat and keen to mouth platitudes about something but it is a lot harder to look at a situation and have to think about your response.
The truth is that our society was set up as a Republic and not a Democracy! And there are some damn big differences between them.
A truth is that if our society adhered more to the concepts of limited government and of necessity more personal responsibility we would probably have fewer problems in our dealings with groups outside our borders. But as long as we have those who wish to use the power of government for their personal gain we will have major problems with the world. A draft/conscription just makes it easier for men of evil to misuse our country.
While a number of posters have made comments about how the military helped them I am sure that others could show that it hurt them. Can anyone show that forcing this military service on another person is moral if you don't know the result?
As I have looked back at my previous post I don't believe that I said voluntary military service is involuntary servitude. What I said and believe is that putting a gun to the head of someone else and telling them that they will do what you, Who Made You God??, tell them to do or you will kill them dead is evil. In fact I'm curious as to the difference between you and any other run of the mill thug/brigand?
It is always neat and keen to mouth platitudes about something but it is a lot harder to look at a situation and have to think about your response.
The truth is that our society was set up as a Republic and not a Democracy! And there are some damn big differences between them.
A truth is that if our society adhered more to the concepts of limited government and of necessity more personal responsibility we would probably have fewer problems in our dealings with groups outside our borders. But as long as we have those who wish to use the power of government for their personal gain we will have major problems with the world. A draft/conscription just makes it easier for men of evil to misuse our country.
Would that be the rough equivalent of sending them through boot camp right after high school graduation and then home in time to register for college in the fall? I'd love to see that offered on a voluntary basis.
My last thoughts on this one as well:
In a country which truly values its freedom, the draft or conscription is unnecessary. The people will have such a strong enough desire to be free that they will do those things which are necessary to remain free. That is an attitude that generally must be taught, though for some it is just inherent in their being. And if they are not, as a whole, willing to take on those responsibilities, then they are not worthy of being free people and deserve whatever fate befalls them.
For that reason, it is vital to the survival of this country that we teach our children from when they are very young about those responsibilities, and that they learn the basic truth of the old saw that "freedom is NOT free."
That being said, I think it is immoral for me to decide that you or someone else should be forced to fight and possibly die for a particular cause. That is totally inconsistent with the ideas of freedom on which this country was founded.
D.W. Drang
New member
Here's a more fundamental question: What's the point? What are they trying to accomplish?
D.W. Drang, re: what are they trying to accomplish?
The architects and supporters of this legislation ( H. R. 3598 to be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/ ) quite likely have these goals
1) one year of remedial education and training by non-liberal professionals to mitigate the rotten K-12 indoctrination
2) to introduce everyone to military basics to prove that "it is not as bad as the liberals make it out to be" AND so upcoming generations have a better idea of what they are voting about regarding military.
3) to be recruiting and screening program from which good volunteers will come forth in larger percentages than the present method which draws from the public schools.
4) to give the nation a universally trained cadre which can be drawn upon for defense when (not if) TSHTF.
Number 4 above may be about as close to a "militia" as the anti-gun bunch would allow. That this program could be used as an excuse to define "militia" as those enrolled in that one year of training is a risk, but where we are now isn't any better.
To everyone here, and especially the ex-military or present military TFL'ers, wouldn't you personally like to have a chance to give graduates of our public schools one year of your own brand of remedial education and training to correct what they've been indoctrinated with? Since we have a broad range of military experience here, what should be included in the one year curriculum besides the proposed "instruction in physical fitness, international relations, military tactics, homeland security, United States and world history, vocational training"?
For starters, I'd make sure they were proficient with everything in the standard special forces loadout: Colt 45, Sig P226, H&K P9S, S&W 357, M16, Colt 727, M16/203, H&K MP5, M2HB .50cal, MK16 20mm, MK19-3 and M79 40mm grenade launchers,
http://www.navyseals.com/equip/armory.html
Then I'd hope they get the equivalent of Marine Basic Training, but a combo of all four or five services would be even better - doable in 6 months (since there are basics common to all).
Here are the present military Basic Training programs
http://www.goarmy.com/basic/
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/basic/
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/basic/view.html
Darn, they didn't have "warrior week" when I went through Lackland - that week would be an eye-opener for graduates of our liberal public schools - and the marine basic would be even better for them (instead of "zero tolerance" they'd learn how to use an M16)
to skip the USAF intro (though they do have a really neat logo) go to
http://www.lackland.af.mil/737trg/737web/BMT.cfm
The architects and supporters of this legislation ( H. R. 3598 to be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/ ) quite likely have these goals
1) one year of remedial education and training by non-liberal professionals to mitigate the rotten K-12 indoctrination
2) to introduce everyone to military basics to prove that "it is not as bad as the liberals make it out to be" AND so upcoming generations have a better idea of what they are voting about regarding military.
3) to be recruiting and screening program from which good volunteers will come forth in larger percentages than the present method which draws from the public schools.
4) to give the nation a universally trained cadre which can be drawn upon for defense when (not if) TSHTF.
Number 4 above may be about as close to a "militia" as the anti-gun bunch would allow. That this program could be used as an excuse to define "militia" as those enrolled in that one year of training is a risk, but where we are now isn't any better.
To everyone here, and especially the ex-military or present military TFL'ers, wouldn't you personally like to have a chance to give graduates of our public schools one year of your own brand of remedial education and training to correct what they've been indoctrinated with? Since we have a broad range of military experience here, what should be included in the one year curriculum besides the proposed "instruction in physical fitness, international relations, military tactics, homeland security, United States and world history, vocational training"?
For starters, I'd make sure they were proficient with everything in the standard special forces loadout: Colt 45, Sig P226, H&K P9S, S&W 357, M16, Colt 727, M16/203, H&K MP5, M2HB .50cal, MK16 20mm, MK19-3 and M79 40mm grenade launchers,
http://www.navyseals.com/equip/armory.html
Then I'd hope they get the equivalent of Marine Basic Training, but a combo of all four or five services would be even better - doable in 6 months (since there are basics common to all).
Here are the present military Basic Training programs
http://www.goarmy.com/basic/
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/basic/
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/basic/view.html
Darn, they didn't have "warrior week" when I went through Lackland - that week would be an eye-opener for graduates of our liberal public schools - and the marine basic would be even better for them (instead of "zero tolerance" they'd learn how to use an M16)
to skip the USAF intro (though they do have a really neat logo) go to
http://www.lackland.af.mil/737trg/737web/BMT.cfm
Re: D.W.'s very good question, I think we do not at this point have sufficient information to determine exactly what they're trying to accomplish.
But I seriously have my doubts that it will be anything like what Solitar envisions.
I see it as the government getting one last chance at indoctrination of our young people before they enter the real world. I would like to know exactly what they'll be teaching them about "homeland security," U.S. and world history, and so forth. It will likely be the same thing they're currently teaching the kids in the government school system.
They'll be teaching them that "homeland security" depends on a sheeple-like citizenry being subservient to the state and not being prepared to defend themselves but to uselessly yet hopefully call 911 or other "authorities."
They'll be teaching that the 2nd Amendment grants a collective right to the National Guard to bear arms, and that there is no individual right to do so.
They'll be teaching that America is bad and all the communist and socialist countries are good.
No, I see this program as turning the military into an armed AmericCorps. Do we really want that?
But I seriously have my doubts that it will be anything like what Solitar envisions.
I see it as the government getting one last chance at indoctrination of our young people before they enter the real world. I would like to know exactly what they'll be teaching them about "homeland security," U.S. and world history, and so forth. It will likely be the same thing they're currently teaching the kids in the government school system.
They'll be teaching them that "homeland security" depends on a sheeple-like citizenry being subservient to the state and not being prepared to defend themselves but to uselessly yet hopefully call 911 or other "authorities."
They'll be teaching that the 2nd Amendment grants a collective right to the National Guard to bear arms, and that there is no individual right to do so.
They'll be teaching that America is bad and all the communist and socialist countries are good.
No, I see this program as turning the military into an armed AmericCorps. Do we really want that?
I would like to point out that the "Heinlein Model" in the strict military interpretation has already been implemented and tested in Switzerland.
The local authority convened on the village green, and only armed men were allowed to attend (this is one reason for womens suffrage being introduced so late, as it was felt that only those ready to defend the community should represent/be represented in it). Higher levels of government are only involved in issues having more then local impact and requiring more then local cooperation to resolve.
The difficulties in transporting this concept elsewhere lies therin, that the swiss population is highly uniform in the public appraisal of the virtues of serving your community and access to, respect for and proper conduct with firearms deeply embedded in swiss culture starting at an early age.
The more "modern" a society becomes (not realising that killing is a necessary prerequisite for eating, for example - a point brought home easily by subsistence hunting), the more "self realization" is regarded as the only purpose to life, the more socially defunct egomaniacs are produced who will abuse whatever weapons they can obtain. Like the guy who shot up a local parliament in Switzerland last year.
The local authority convened on the village green, and only armed men were allowed to attend (this is one reason for womens suffrage being introduced so late, as it was felt that only those ready to defend the community should represent/be represented in it). Higher levels of government are only involved in issues having more then local impact and requiring more then local cooperation to resolve.
The difficulties in transporting this concept elsewhere lies therin, that the swiss population is highly uniform in the public appraisal of the virtues of serving your community and access to, respect for and proper conduct with firearms deeply embedded in swiss culture starting at an early age.
The more "modern" a society becomes (not realising that killing is a necessary prerequisite for eating, for example - a point brought home easily by subsistence hunting), the more "self realization" is regarded as the only purpose to life, the more socially defunct egomaniacs are produced who will abuse whatever weapons they can obtain. Like the guy who shot up a local parliament in Switzerland last year.
Heinlein's model sounds ideal when you state it as:
"Only those who materially contribute to the welfare of society are allowed to reap its benefits."
However, in order to translate that statement to Heinlein's model "mature" society in Starship Troopers, you'd have to add the following:
". . . . . and only those who serve in the military materially contribute to the welfare of society; anyone who serves in any capacity outside the military is not contributing."
It runs into reality. For instance, what do you do with homosexuals if you institute Heinlein's model in the present day? Either you have to fix the military so that it will accept homosexuals (which hasn't worked out too well) or you have to decide that no homosexual will ever have a vote!
"Only those who materially contribute to the welfare of society are allowed to reap its benefits."
However, in order to translate that statement to Heinlein's model "mature" society in Starship Troopers, you'd have to add the following:
". . . . . and only those who serve in the military materially contribute to the welfare of society; anyone who serves in any capacity outside the military is not contributing."
It runs into reality. For instance, what do you do with homosexuals if you institute Heinlein's model in the present day? Either you have to fix the military so that it will accept homosexuals (which hasn't worked out too well) or you have to decide that no homosexual will ever have a vote!
yankytrash
New member
Hey! There's an idea! No more liberal votes for California. They might actually get their gun rights back!
Ya - I know. Low blow. Couldn't resist. The current argument is getting exhausting....
This thread had nothing to do with public education and its supposed shortcomings until a couple of you dragooned it into being an excuse to rant on what is obviously a pet topic of yours. Since you insisted on bringing it up, though...
1. Compulsory public education is not the same as conscription. You have the option to home school your children or send them to a private school of your choice. There is no comparable option for mandatory military service.
2. The purpose of the military is, as noted conservative icon and windbag Rush Limbaugh says, "to kill people and break things." The military does not exist to provide a one year remedial course that undoes 12 years of indoctrination by the homosexual-communist-NEA cabal and their coconspirators. However dear that notion may be to your heart, it is nothing more than you wanting to point a gun at somebody's head and forcefully accomplish the indoctrination you prefer. How does it feel to be in the same company with the Democrats you despise? They habitually misused the military as a social laboratory, too.
1. Compulsory public education is not the same as conscription. You have the option to home school your children or send them to a private school of your choice. There is no comparable option for mandatory military service.
2. The purpose of the military is, as noted conservative icon and windbag Rush Limbaugh says, "to kill people and break things." The military does not exist to provide a one year remedial course that undoes 12 years of indoctrination by the homosexual-communist-NEA cabal and their coconspirators. However dear that notion may be to your heart, it is nothing more than you wanting to point a gun at somebody's head and forcefully accomplish the indoctrination you prefer. How does it feel to be in the same company with the Democrats you despise? They habitually misused the military as a social laboratory, too.
Good point on the inability of many US residents to use small arms with any proficiency.
Before going to the mandatory training, has the US Fedgov even bothered to remove ALL Federal-level restrictions on the acquisition of arms and training? If they are acting in good faith to improve readiness, wouldn't NFA 1934 and the more recent restrictions directly contradict that goal?
Before going to the mandatory training, has the US Fedgov even bothered to remove ALL Federal-level restrictions on the acquisition of arms and training? If they are acting in good faith to improve readiness, wouldn't NFA 1934 and the more recent restrictions directly contradict that goal?
The "Heinlein model" from "Starship Troopers" does not require military service for citizenship franchise. It merely requires a single term of civil service: anything from mobile infantry to bean counting. The book itself isn't perfectly clear on this point, but Heinlein himself said as much later in several venues, and was a bit peeved that people seemed to glom onto the military aspect of his idea.
A nit that needed picking, IMO.
A nit that needed picking, IMO.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Well, I'm just beginning to read this thread, but I'm fascinated at Navy Joe's comment.
Let's see if I get this right. We'll force people to work for the government, but an offsetting benefit is that we'll also force them to learn more about the Constitution, liberty, etc.
Have I got that right? We'll impose involuntary servitude, and we'll force-feed them Constitutional training? How bizarre. How perfectly Orwellian.
I think military service has lots of benefits. But I always find it fascinating how many otherwise great supporters of liberty go for involuntary service. Amazing.
Regards from AZ
Let's see if I get this right. We'll force people to work for the government, but an offsetting benefit is that we'll also force them to learn more about the Constitution, liberty, etc.
Have I got that right? We'll impose involuntary servitude, and we'll force-feed them Constitutional training? How bizarre. How perfectly Orwellian.
I think military service has lots of benefits. But I always find it fascinating how many otherwise great supporters of liberty go for involuntary service. Amazing.
Regards from AZ
Dependence on volunteers was okay back when the other nations limited wars to volunteers and mercenaries. Maybe we are fortunate to return to such a time of chess-piece gentlemenly war. We may never again, at least in the lifetimes of our grandkids, have to field hundreds of thousands of soldiers. We can rely on volunteers.
Earlier a comparison was made between the number and effectiveness of volunteers stopping the war on our BOR and especially the RKBA. We are losing that war. No? Want to bet that Hillary's bunch won't take the Whitehouse in 2004 or 2008? Why could that happen and why did it darn near happen in 2000? Because our "volunteers" didn't (and won't) show up in enough numbers to ensure victory. The trapshooters and paper punchers don't figure it is their war. Same will happen when we again need breadth and depth in our national defense.
In reality though, because we are surrounded by unpassable oceans and friendly neighbors our worst enemy is ourselves. If we here in the core of the resistance can't come up with and implement any effective ideas to defend us in our present state of siege, then we may as well turn in our bats, knives, guns and pepper spray cans. It's over. As our foreign enemies predicted - we have defeated ourselves.
Eighty million gun owners? Hah. Seventy nine million and nine hundred thousand wusses or traitors. We couldn't field one division of decent riflemen even if we had ten years to get ready.
Earlier a comparison was made between the number and effectiveness of volunteers stopping the war on our BOR and especially the RKBA. We are losing that war. No? Want to bet that Hillary's bunch won't take the Whitehouse in 2004 or 2008? Why could that happen and why did it darn near happen in 2000? Because our "volunteers" didn't (and won't) show up in enough numbers to ensure victory. The trapshooters and paper punchers don't figure it is their war. Same will happen when we again need breadth and depth in our national defense.
In reality though, because we are surrounded by unpassable oceans and friendly neighbors our worst enemy is ourselves. If we here in the core of the resistance can't come up with and implement any effective ideas to defend us in our present state of siege, then we may as well turn in our bats, knives, guns and pepper spray cans. It's over. As our foreign enemies predicted - we have defeated ourselves.
Eighty million gun owners? Hah. Seventy nine million and nine hundred thousand wusses or traitors. We couldn't field one division of decent riflemen even if we had ten years to get ready.
Jeff Thomas
New member
OK ... I'm not going to waste any more time reading the rest of this thread. Some of this is indeed disgusting.
So, I'm a parasitic citizen, interested only in my self interest because I didn't serve, and because I don't believe in the draft? You guys are really in orbit. I was under the naive assumption that self interest and the free market were a damn big part of American liberty.
I respect and appreciate those who served, and in case of true defense, my kids and I would be right there with you. But, most of this isn't really about defense, and you guys know it.
Put myself through college, twice. Worked my ass off. Raised a family. Pay incredible taxes. Perform charitable work out the ying yang. Pay my bills.
But, you want to come to my home, and force me or my kids, effectively at gun point, to perform military service ... most of which is not defense, but going off to the latest, fashionable foreign hell-hole, determined by some self-centered, corrupt politico?
Go jump in a lake is the very nicest I can manage to respond. [My more honest, hand signal answer will be expunged ...]
Disgusting thread indeed.
So, I'm a parasitic citizen, interested only in my self interest because I didn't serve, and because I don't believe in the draft? You guys are really in orbit. I was under the naive assumption that self interest and the free market were a damn big part of American liberty.
I respect and appreciate those who served, and in case of true defense, my kids and I would be right there with you. But, most of this isn't really about defense, and you guys know it.
Put myself through college, twice. Worked my ass off. Raised a family. Pay incredible taxes. Perform charitable work out the ying yang. Pay my bills.
But, you want to come to my home, and force me or my kids, effectively at gun point, to perform military service ... most of which is not defense, but going off to the latest, fashionable foreign hell-hole, determined by some self-centered, corrupt politico?
Go jump in a lake is the very nicest I can manage to respond. [My more honest, hand signal answer will be expunged ...]
Disgusting thread indeed.