Dr. Laura on the VT massacre


PDA






MarshallDodge
April 20, 2007, 07:36 PM
I could not have said it better myself.....

I am "the proud mother of a deployed American paratrooper," and because of that fact I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on the massacre at Virginia Tech.

As a mother I, of course, thought about how horrendous this whole nightmare is to the families of the victims as well as all the emotional damage to the survivors. From listening to the reports on this heinous occurrence, I heard repeatedly that the shooter had to reload several times and went from classroom to classroom.

As a military mom, I immediately wished that our young people had the same obligation and experience that all young folks in Israel have: two years of military training and service. Those reloading and trolling periods were windows of opportunity that only young folks trained militarily would have been able to use to subdue or terminate the perp and save many lives.

Just in case you're saying, "Well, this doesn't happen that often and is not a substantial reason for universal 2-year training," I've got a further reason to support such training.

Radical Islamists and jihadists are already here in the United States. While we have, for better or worse, focused their attention on Iraq and Afghanistan. they will be using their tactics of mass murdering of innocents right here next. It is going to be important that our civilian population have sufficient training and know-how to protect their homes and communities.

The following quote came from an Associated Press (April 17, 2007) article entitled, "Taliban Using Indiscriminate, Iraq-style Tactics, Killing civilians, Rights Group Says." "I lost my son, brother and nephew because of the Taliban. They say that they are fighting for God and Islam, but they are not; they are killing good and innocent Muslims and Afghans who have done nothing wrong," one man was quoted as saying.

I believe every household should have at least one person trained and certified to shoot a gun. I believe every young person between 18 and 20 years of age should be required to receive compulsory military training. Over 70 nations in the world require some level of compulsory military service on the part of their young citizens including countries such as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Why shouldn't the United States be as prepared as these countries? I believe we as Americans should be equipped mentally and physically to protect ourselves, our family, and our Country.

Preach it sister! :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Dr. Laura on the VT massacre" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hypnogator
April 20, 2007, 07:46 PM
Well said!

Cite?

JerryM
April 20, 2007, 07:52 PM
["I believe every young person between 18 and 20 years of age should be required to receive compulsory military training."]

Me too.
Jerry

MarshallDodge
April 20, 2007, 08:11 PM
Cite?

My wife sent me the excerpt from her blog. You have to be a member to read the blog so I didn't post the link.

Soybomb
April 20, 2007, 08:14 PM
believe every young person between 18 and 20 years of age should be required to receive compulsory military training. Over 70 nations in the world require some level of compulsory military service on the part of their young citizens including countries such as Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
I can't wait until the US is the pinnacle of freedom like Mexico. Nothing says liberty like forced servitude to the government!

Seriously how can anyone here like this idea? Part of the whole purpose behind the 2nd amendment was from the framers natural disdain for a standing army. And now we want not only a standing army but to force everyone into it? We've come a long way.

Cesiumsponge
April 20, 2007, 08:18 PM
Switzerland is a fine example of required military training and a distinct lack of a standing military, along with mandatory ownership of (real) assault rifles during militia service and among the lowest crime rates in the world.

Art Eatman
April 20, 2007, 08:26 PM
Hold up a moment, Soybomb: There easily could be a training program, equivalent, say, to the first eight weeks of Basic (Well, when I was in, it was eight weeks. :) ) and then home again.

Ya get out of high school, go off to a summer camp for a couple of months, and that's it. Then you go home and hang out at THR, TFL, Arfcom, etc. :D

What's the problem? We might pick up some voters! Besides, they'll learn things like how to make a bed and about keeping their quarters neat and clean. They'll learn the joys of regular showers. All that will make life a heckuva lot easier after they're married.

Art

Soybomb
April 20, 2007, 08:31 PM
Hold up a moment, Soybomb: There easily could be a training program, equivalent, say, to the first eight weeks of Basic (Well, when I was in, it was eight weeks. ) and then home again.

Ya get out of high school, go off to a summer camp for a couple of months, and that's it. Then you go home and hang out at THR, TFL, Arfcom, etc.

What's the problem? We might pick up some voters!
A small infringement on freedom still seems to be an infringement. How free is a nation where its citizens owe its government part of their life just because it wants it? It seems like more "I know whats best for you" thinking that gun owners seem to dislike when it comes from the other side. In the end we don't owe our government anything, it exists to serve us.

This of course is just the ideologoical side against it, the financial and practical aspect is another issue all together.

Its odd how back and forth the forum is too. On one hand we'll have a thread where everyone rails against public schools and calls it government indoctrination, and then the next everyone thinks epople should be forced into government service for a period of time :D

I<3MyXD
April 20, 2007, 08:32 PM
I can understand some people feeling like we shouldn't be "forced into servitude" - after all, this IS America... Land of the free. But there is some great sense to having everyone manditorily take a short turn in military service.

Alot of these kids that are shooting up schools and try to portray themselves as "hurt or scarred" by everyone around them for no reason lack any sort of self-worth and confidence. I think the majority of them would really see life from a different perspective if they took on some training and learned how hard life really CAN be - not just when your feeling emo because no one likes your haircut or the fact you wear a black trenchcoat over your sister's pants. Not to mention the careless parents, who could learn how to pay attention to their kids and the warning signs.

I can't speak from military experience, because I never served, but looking back at it, I think it would have really shaped me up sooner when I was a pain-in-the-ass teenager - and I honestly envy those who have served. You're taught to work as a team, but be an individual - and learn survival skills and other important lessons for the real world. I constantly learn alot from my military friends.

I think an overwhelming majority of people in this nation could stand to have a little extra discipline and appreciation for where we all live... Instead of sitting on the couch and complaining.

*just my opinion - go easy... I'm still a newb here :)

eliphalet
April 20, 2007, 08:44 PM
I got one of those " congratulations " Draft notices in 69 and I can honestly say I watched Military service change lot of irresponsible brats into responsible young men. Sounds to me like some right here among us could use a little grownup wisdom and knowledge.

Got stuck on a job once where the only raido station we could get had Dr. laura. We usta joke about her but that last paragraph she said was right on IMP.

JLStorm
April 20, 2007, 08:53 PM
Hell hold voluntary weapons and tactics training paid for with our tax dollars for those that dont plan on joining the military. You show me any teenage boy that doesnt like the idea of guns, mud, sweat, and explosives. I think the US would have to put the volunteers on a wait list....hell offer a tax rebate for taking the course or even better, make it mandatory that it count as college credit! That way, they get the experience, no pressure to join the military and they get rewarded in more ways than one.

TimJim
April 20, 2007, 09:01 PM
Why wait for the government to train young people in the arts of self defence? Sounds like an opportunity to me.

It's doubtful the couple of seconds it takes to swap magazines in a glock afforded anyone, trained or otherwise, much of a chance to hit the psyco over the head with a desk. And of course there was the second pistol, which probably was not emptied at the same time. As aggravating as this situation was for those of us armchair QBs with some combat experiance/training, without a suitable weapon at hand there would be little chance of subdueing an armed freek without the element of surprise and some teamwork. ("...never bring a knife to a gun fight" -Untouchables)

I, for one, will not second guess the actions of those who were attacked. Having been both a Marine and an engineering student (VT was my second choice for grad school), I've found that most engineering students are quite bright and familiar with firearms (if not downright facinated). Many of them would make fantastic Marines if they chose to do so. The valor of the Aeronautical Engineering professor makes my case.

The blame rest soley on him whose name I will never speak, may he rot in hell.

longeyes
April 20, 2007, 09:10 PM
I think she's right on.

RKBA is not an expression of solipsism, much less narcissism, it's an expression of an awareness of the fundamental rights of a responsible citizen in a free republic. No man is an island.

JohnBT
April 20, 2007, 09:26 PM
"You show me any teenage boy that doesnt like the idea of guns, mud, sweat, and explosives."

Sounds like the Boy Scouts when I was a kid. Okay, we had firecrackers, not explosives.

John

Ian
April 20, 2007, 09:27 PM
Just what we need to do...give the feds a massive increase in the number of soldiers at their disposal.

You can draft me when you drag my cold dead body to boot camp. :fire:

mek42
April 20, 2007, 10:03 PM
make it mandatory that it count as college credit


First two years of ROTC fits the bill nicely if you make the semi-annual FTX mandatory. Thrice a week PT would also go a long way toward establishing regular fitness habits.

Wasn't the first two years of ROTC mandatory at one point for the land grant Universities at some point, or am I misremembering something?

Buddy Rabbit
April 20, 2007, 10:20 PM
The day after VT she said we all need to be armed. Something to the effect that 'if someone there had a gun' . . .
She almost got it right when she said in Virginia you can carry, but VT "vetoed" that law.

Dr L has a HUGE following.

obxned
April 20, 2007, 10:24 PM
Universal military service seems to work well in many places. It is no more 'involuntary servitude' than the hours I spent last year to earn the money to pay my taxes.

The only problem is that our armed forces have little use for people who cannot read and write or speak English. Most specialties require a lot of expensive training. We can't afford to spend a lot of money training people who will be gone in 2 years, nor can the services teach the basic skills that should have been learned in school.

FeebMaster
April 20, 2007, 10:44 PM
It is no more 'involuntary servitude' than the hours I spent last year to earn the money to pay my taxes.

You've got that right!

Crazy John
April 20, 2007, 10:47 PM
I thought all native born American males had a six year military obligation. Just because thay don't draft ya doesn't mean you wouldn't have to serve if they wanted you.

DualBerettas
April 20, 2007, 11:11 PM
we're not supposed to have a standing army either...oh wait that's from that archaic document...

crebralfix
April 20, 2007, 11:53 PM
A small infringement on freedom still seems to be an infringement.

What??! You actually believe yourself to be free?

You may want to think about this a bit more. Things like: if you don't pay the car tax, who gets the car? If you don't pay the land tax, who gets the land? If you want to buy a gun, who do you have to ask? If you wish to get married, who grants permission? If you want to drive around in a car, who do you ask? Who watches your bank account for "odd transactions"? If you wish to speak about a politician two months befoore an election, who do you call to get permission to do so?

Thanks for the laugh!!!

Ian
April 21, 2007, 12:09 AM
So, am I hearing this right, mek42? We need to force military service on everyone, because it'd be good for them (and we of course know what's best for them)? Did I wander into DU somehow? :scrutiny:

It is no more [or less] 'involuntary servitude' than the hours I spent last year to earn the money to pay my taxes.

Yep, that's true (though when you say "hours", I trust you mean "months").

Soybomb
April 21, 2007, 12:10 AM
What??! You actually believe yourself to be free?

You may want to think about this a bit more. Things like: if you don't pay the car tax, who gets the car? If you don't pay the land tax, who gets the land? If you want to buy a gun, who do you have to ask? If you wish to get married, who grants permission? If you want to drive around in a car, who do you ask? Who watches your bank account for "odd transactions"? If you wish to speak about a politician two months befoore an election, who do you call to get permission to do so?

Thanks for the laugh!!!
Man you're right I guess I should just turn my guns in and tear up my voter registration card now :(

If anything I figured gun owners would fight against more infringement on rights. If the system isn't perfect though we're just to give up and accept anything?

It is no more 'involuntary servitude' than the hours I spent last year to earn the money to pay my taxes.
Perhaps we should work on shrinking government then so you spend less money on taxes instead of spending more through some unnecessary government nanny program which will just raise your taxes even more. I think its bad enough I pay as much in taxes as I do, I sure don't feel like I owe my government even more, especially in the form of months to years of my life. The government works for me, I am not its servant.

Send your kids to military school if you think they need it, past that butt out of my life and the life of my children ;)

tmajors
April 21, 2007, 12:30 AM
Radical Islamists and jihadists are already here in the United States. While we have, for better or worse, focused their attention on Iraq and Afghanistan. they will be using their tactics of mass murdering of innocents right here next.

Do a google search for an article called "Mass Slaughter in Our Public Schools: The Terrorists' Chilling Plan". The original article has been pulled and put into subscriber only sections but a few copies of it exist out in the 'net either in excerpt or in full if you look. I managed to cache a copy locally before it got pulled from general availability.

The article is SPECIFICALLY about our lack of security in schools to handle planned terrorist attacks in them by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

HiroProX
April 21, 2007, 12:49 AM
Any nation that does not inspire it's men and women to fight to preserve it willingly has no right to exist... and will cease to exist.

You cannot make a man lay down his life for another. He has to be willing to do so on his own accord.

Conscription = slavery.

Pilgrim
April 21, 2007, 01:25 AM
Just what we need to do...give the feds a massive increase in the number of soldiers at their disposal.
From another point of view, a government against the private ownership of arms sure as hell doesn't want to teach a lot of young Americans that they are fun to have and shoot.

Pilgrim

ezypikns
April 21, 2007, 01:39 AM
What??! You actually believe yourself to be free?


We'll be much more free in the U.K......no wait, Australia....no, wait....uh, just where should we go?

And did any of you ever hear about something called "The Draft"? I worked just fine for most of us.

You live in this great country. You enjoy all of its freedoms (and please stop whining about how you're enslaved). And you feel like compulsory military service is just too much to ask? Stop and think a minute.

DualBerettas
April 21, 2007, 01:54 AM
There are some good points in the video

Terrorstorm

find it on google video

DB

tincat2
April 21, 2007, 02:08 AM
I'm going to propose that for all 18 yr. olds(and I'm not going to jump around about rights too much because these are children who are ending the "child" phase of life and we should do the best to set them off right ) should do a mandatory two year national service thing where they will be given several types of training during their stint. When they are done, they will have learned some military discipline(notice it's first on my list) and skills(weapons and self defense training). They will also get a GED or a decent(12-15 hrs.) semester's worth of college credit(accepted at any university in the country by law). In addition, they will have gained on the job experience and training in some task that the country needs done(point here is to get some stuff done and build confidence in the kids in their ability to get stuff done). Lots of things to work out about this, but I do believe that we could help bolster a national identity in upcoming generations with a shared experience of work and discipline leading to betterment. Of course, the participants would be paid reasonably w/bonuses for better and best performance, etc. I don't see this as an 'army' per se, and the purpose should not be a military one rather a civilian contribution to society(no buying or talking your way out, except for major complications). If this training dovetails into a voluntary stretch in the military, ok, but completely voluntary unless a true national emergency exists. Politicians and their corporate cronies will have to be kept away under promise(not just threat-mandatory, hope you don't get caught cause your beer belly or bad heart's just gonna make it worse on you) of harsh manual labor penalties assessed from the top down. Since the parents don't seem to be able or want to bring the kids to adulthood, maybe this will work as a kind of finishing school sort of thing.

Cosmoline
April 21, 2007, 02:26 AM
What makes this a pro-RKBA stance? She wants to institute a universal draft and have some sort of official arms training. What's the difference between that and Robert Clark telling us to join the military if we want to shoot assault rifles?

SWModel19
April 21, 2007, 02:45 AM
Personally, I like SciFi author Robert Heinlein's approach: military service is completely voluntary, but if you don't volunteer, you cannot vote or run for office.

Soybomb
April 21, 2007, 02:51 AM
Personally, I like SciFi author Robert Heinlein's approach: military service is completely voluntary, but if you don't volunteer, you cannot vote or run for office.
So it would be a government of the military and not a government of the people? I'll pass.

gunsmith
April 21, 2007, 03:08 AM
Dr Laura isn't against rkba and she stands up for two abused groups in this country, children and men.
I've listened to her off & on for years, I don't always agree with her but my life would have been better if I had someone like her to listen to when I was young

rhinov
April 21, 2007, 03:36 AM
I could see some kind of draft if and only if the country was in a situation where it may be totally overpowered by an outside force. Not before that. This is america and the government doesn't own any of us. I never served but I think those who did are better men than me. The military is better off having people in it who want to be in it anyway.

Strings
April 21, 2007, 04:06 AM
Nope... Heinlein had it right: if you want to be a citizen, give a two-year term of service to the country. And it wasn't JUST military service: it could concievably be anything (postal work, road crew, disaster relief).

Of course, I don't think they were any illiterates in Starship Troopers...

TimboKhan
April 21, 2007, 04:25 AM
Dr. Laura is on the short list of women I despise (also included: Feinstein, O'Donnell and DeGette), but I sort of have to agree with her on this one. I have long said that compulsory service, military or otherwise, after graduation would be a good idea. I know the kids would whine about it, but it is good experience for them, helps the country out and I think it would reduce binge drinking on college campuses. Of course, there are plenty of holes in my logic that you can exploit, but what it really boils down to is that I feel like todays kids, on the whole, could stand a dose of reality and hardship. I am only 35, but I am going to be graduating college in May and My guess is that maybe about 20% of the kids that started when I did are going to be there with me. I see a lack of even the most basic discipline, a huge sense of entitlement and an inability to cope with much of anything past a bad text message. Frankly, I include myself in that group (or, at least I would have...), because I KNOW that if I had went to college directly after high school, I would have drank my way out inside of a year. Allrighty, I am done waving my stick and yelling at the clouds....

ArfinGreebly
April 21, 2007, 05:03 AM
For a moment I'm going to suspend my bias against state education (indoctrination and all that).

Let's assume for a moment that some kind of infrastructure could be realized using either actual .gov training or contracted training and that this could handle the volumes coming out of high schools.

Its entire purpose would be training. The basic training would be a minimum of three months. At the end of three months, all those passing the course would be officially militia-qualified. From here, after receiving one's training certificate, there would be three options:

receive choice of small arm, go home;
go on to advanced training as a paid course of study;
go on to formal military service as a volunteer, choose branch and term of service.

Now, rather than make this mandatory, there would be some kind of incentive. Long term tax break. Special discounts for higher education. Subsidies on weapons and/or ammo purchases. Free membership at gun ranges. Whatever.

(I tend to favor the "service of some kind as a condition of voting" but that's kind of beyond the scope of this.)

Given adequate incentives, you make it possible to have an actual well-regulated militia that's not part of a standing army.

Additionally, the arms used in military service would be generally well understood in the civilian population.

Eventually, a well-trained, armed culture is the result. Competence with firearms becomes as expected as an understanding of baseball or football or basketball.

Gun ownership becomes (in the words of Oleg) unremarkable.

Strings
April 21, 2007, 05:36 AM
I'd like to hereby nominate Arfin for whatever public office we can stuff him into!

Waywatcher
April 21, 2007, 06:49 AM
An event like this shows peoples' true colors.

RealGun
April 21, 2007, 07:17 AM
Given adequate incentives, you make it possible to have an actual well-regulated militia that's not part of a standing army.

Additionally, the arms used in military service would be generally well understood in the civilian population.

Carrying a defensive handgun has nothing to do with rifles, other than rifles being a related interest not common to all those choosing to carry a handgun.

Do us a favor and keep the 2A and personal self defense as separate and distinct rights. Self defense relates more to the 9A, although certainly dependent upon a lack of infringement of the RKBA. I say that because only those rights in which the government would have a special interest are enumerated in the BoR. Self defense is not one of them. Furthermore, the 2A does not (yet) apply to States, although it clearly was so intended (by the 14A).

With that in mind, it is not a good idea to rationalize why a defensive weapons training program should be government funded. A familiarity with firearms in general, especially infantry standard issue (rifles), would be a good thing and one in which the government would or should have an interest. Handgun training would only be justified as government funded to the extent that a soldier would use one.

It would be nice to say that the US -IS- an army like Switzerland's armed population, but we are a long way from that in our current culture.

Thin Black Line
April 21, 2007, 07:41 AM
What's the problem? We might pick up some voters! Besides, they'll learn things like how to make a bed and about keeping their quarters neat and clean. They'll learn the joys of regular showers. All that will make life a heckuva lot easier after they're married.


Art, I would be in favor of this if we were using the original state-based "militia"
system that the Founding Fathers envisioned. Not the current one that is
developing where the State governors are out of the loop and one man (or
future woman) in DC gets to make the sole decision of where to enforce the
globalist empire on any given day.

If Dr. Laura wants to cite mandatory military service like what they have in
Switzerland, then we need to be more like that and re-visit our old stance
of isolationism and securing our freakin' borders like the Swiss do. If Dr.
Laura wants to cite mandatory MS like what they have in Israel, then when
we "go it alone" in foreign military action in self-defence we bomb the cr@p
out of something hit it hard, don't bother to rebuild it, and withdraw.

As far as marital benefits for military service, I would certainly agree w/ Dr. L
when it comes to personal responsibility in relationships and MS alone won't
do that. In fact, long repeated deployments show just the opposite.

ptmmatssc
April 21, 2007, 08:51 AM
Constitution , Artilce 1 , Section 8 , powers of congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Rather than mandatory US military idea being tossed around , I would rather see congress arming the militia and letting the states train them . Though I like the swiss idea , I don't think forcing people in a "free" country into the armed services is right . On the other hand , anyone not joining the armed forces or becoming a member of their state militia should not be able to get state/federal aid . Since they are not willing to do their part in defense of nation , they should not be able to reap the rewards .

Blackfork
April 21, 2007, 09:06 AM
The Army doesn't like spending the money on range time and bullets to teach shooting NOW. (The Marines do, but that's the Marines.)

I like the idea of reversing the bureaucratic resistance to armed citizens. They don't have to help, just get the hell out of the way. Cancelling all gun law Miller-to-present and enforcing the Second Amendment whenever someone objects to ownership, possession, range placement, et.

The ATF could be put to work guarding the Mexican Border. Make them the ATM.

Just quit hassling gun owners as a POLICY.

Two Cold Soakers
April 21, 2007, 10:33 AM
HiroProX

Any nation that does not inspire it's men and women to fight to preserve it willingly has no right to exist... and will cease to exist.

You cannot make a man lay down his life for another. He has to be willing to do so on his own accord.

Did you come up with that yourself?
That's very good. Can I use that? (I won't take credit)

Kentak
April 21, 2007, 10:37 AM
Good points, but no on the compulsory military training.

Encouraging more people to become firearms and tactically trained, yes.

K

The Viking
April 21, 2007, 11:36 AM
Compulsory my a$$. Might have been while we still had the Soviet Union to worry about, but not anymore. I actually WANTED to to military service, but I was told I couldn't. I believe that maybe 20% of the 19 year olds will do military service this year. It ain't compulsory anymore. Just say "I don't wanna do it", and you're off.

longeyes
April 21, 2007, 11:47 AM
I would be in favor of this if we were using the original state-based "militia"
system that the Founding Fathers envisioned. Not the current one that is
developing where the State governors are out of the loop and one man (or
future woman) in DC gets to make the sole decision of where to enforce the
globalist empire on any given day.

My view as well. Another way of saying RKBA's future is entwined with a cultural transformation.

wingman
April 21, 2007, 11:57 AM
Conscription = slavery.

Bull, poor comparison. We need the draft now more then any time in history,
our schools, homes have very little discipline. People fear order and discipline
and because of that fact alone this country will not maintain it's freedom.
People look to someone for protection, police, military but most do not want to serve.
At the very least stop the slavery comparison it is silly and juvenile.

LoneCoon
April 21, 2007, 12:04 PM
So it would be a government of the military and not a government of the people? I'll pass.

Heinlein's idea was that people who wanted to be part of the national service were willing to put other ahead of themselves. Thus, they were superior voters as they would often choose what was best for the people rather than the people ignorantly giving up rights to anyone who asked.

That said, while military experience might be enlightening, mandating it for all persons turning 18 is a perfectly terrible idea. Lets take citizens who have never even gotten a chance to vote on something and put them into a high stress environment because we think "it will be good for them?"

Seems to me that we're against people telling us they they know what's best for us.

FeebMaster
April 21, 2007, 12:35 PM
lol. You Starship Troopers guys need to read more Heinlein.


Seems to me that we're against people telling us they they know what's best for us.

Think again. There are plenty of nanny statists on the pro-gun side. At least they claim to be on the pro-gun side.

ExtremeDooty
April 21, 2007, 01:47 PM
I think there should be a distinction made between what we owe our government and what we owe our country. I pay enough in taxes every year to know that, if anything, the government owes me.

What we owe our country and our way of life is a different matter. I see it slowly slipping away. And in the coming years, Islamist fanatics are going to bring the fight to American streets. The military and the police are not going to be able to protect us everywhere at all times.

If we don't have some sort of mandatory service to teach the next generation basic self defense, armed and unarmed, and situational awareness, where will they learn it? College? I think that question has already been answered.

Soybomb
April 21, 2007, 02:48 PM
If we don't have some sort of mandatory service to teach the next generation basic self defense, armed and unarmed, and situational awareness, where will they learn it? College? I think that question has already been answered.
Why not learn it on their own if they are so inclined? Thats what I've done. Back to the nanny government....

This whole thread reminds of the terrible kennedy quote I hate so much that seems so unamerican.
ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country :barf:

Autolycus
April 21, 2007, 04:07 PM
I agree with Soybomb on this one. Forcing people into service does not seem to be condusive to freedom. Just because guns are involved does not mean that everyone will start voting pro-gun.

What if we did pass a law that says "no military = no vote"? How many of you are not veterans? Guess what no vote.

Did anyone actually think about the cost of this program and the magnitude of logistics it would take? You complain about taxes now...

And I seem to here everyone complaining about how kids lack discipline and are crazy nowadays, so in the 60's and 70's they were not? No crazy people then? Nobody did anything crazy?

What happens now is the media blows everything out of proportion. The fact is that the internet allows us to know what is going on in another part of the country or world instantly. So it seems like every little incident gets made into a national one.

But making conscription does not necessarily help our cause. If anything it may hurt it. If the government can justify taking our freedom for a few years it can easily continue to justify it. Military service is good for us, right? What if they say guns are bad for us? What then?

Would you get to choose the branch you serve in? Would the peace corps be a choice?

And what of people who are disqualified for military duty? Or what about people who are consciencous objectors? Pacifists? Or cant train to kill someone beause of religious objections? What then? Why should they be forced to serve when it is against their beliefs? Does this not violate their rights? The Constitution and Bill of Rights still applies here in the United States of America, right?

Robert Heinlein was an early pioneer of Libertarianism and no way believed in conscription. "Starship Troopers" is probably his best known book but its just a book not his personal beliefs.

RealGun
April 21, 2007, 04:35 PM
Dr. Laura mentions "two years of military service". That is now another anti-draft thread, a topic that gets closed when standing on its own.

I know Dr. Laura well enough to think what she really means is socialized parenting (by her rules) with a bonus of learning to shoot.

Elza
April 21, 2007, 04:50 PM
rhinov: I could see some kind of draft if and only if the country was in a situation where it may be totally overpowered by an outside force. Not before that.There is a small flaw in your logic: it would take waaayy too long. You donít put an army together over night. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor it took a good year before our military was anywhere near going to war. If the Japs had wanted to they could have gone to the Mississippi river and never broken a sweat. It just wasnít (fortunately for us) part of their game plan. Our current military is only marginally better that it was prior to WW II.

Art Eatman
April 21, 2007, 05:33 PM
TBL, if we followed some system like Arfin's, combined with your general view, we wouldn't have a bunch of guys stressed out by long-term overseas deployments.

That's almost a separate subject, though, considering the "peace dividend" drawdown of our active military. IMO, way too much of our present burden is borned by the National Guard/Reserve types, and by second- and third-deployment troops. We're too cheesy to budget the money for personnel. Pretty much like cities and police force budgets, seems like.

I don't follow the thoughts of those who equate some minimal training period with any long-term service such as two years or more. Nor do I see why it would be assumed that weapons training would be no more than at present, when weapons training seems to be the thrust of Dr. Laura's idea. IOW, less emphasis on marching, and more on shooting.

I dunno. I got my "Greetings!" from Ike in late 1953. Probably a good thing, given how much of a screwed up guy I was. They gave me a socially-acceptable way to drop out. Darned sure made me grow up. So, looking back, these "involuntary servitude" arguments have little merit to me. Other folks think differently, and that's fine; it's just that their arguments are irrelevant to me. Most folks spend too much time looking for the bad side of anything, though...

:), Art

Jerry Morris
April 21, 2007, 05:39 PM
I got called up for the draft. I lucked out and got a 1Y deferment. That is medical for those not familiar. Bad hearing.

Now, I can shoot. I can shoot well. But, I did miss out on a lot. Tactical discipline is not my forte. I have read Small Unit Tactics, but reading is not the same as doing. If the Militia is ever called up, I want to be in a more professional outfit. Militias generally get pretty badly mauled.

Point is, Dr Laura is right about one thing. There were a whole lot of sheep standing around doing nothing, but getting ready to bleed out, when they should have been looking for opportunity. When the 9 is empty, risk the .22 and go for the shooter. Three jocks should have nailed him easily. When his hand was jammed in a door jamb, I would have armed myself with HIS gun! People were dying there. They actually did not try to grab the GUN!!!! One, or two hard lunges at the door and a jerking twist and the gun is coming out of his hand.

Dr. Laura may be going a little too far. But she is not really wrong. The sheep need some horns.

Jerry

Kentak
April 22, 2007, 11:28 PM
It's one thing to decide you want to devote a few years of your life to military service, either out of patriotism, the challenge, the need to "find yourself," a desire to be part of a great tradition, to become a professional soldier, or to answer a specific call to arms, such the the WOT.

It's a very different thing to say you have a duty to serve when your government wants cannon fodder for whatever reason it deems important to it's political goals. If you've joined up, well, you made a commitment to serve and be at the govt's beck and call. So, when Clinton sends you to stop genocide in the Balkans, you go.

How many joined up just for that mission? How would you feel if your kid was drafted to put down tribal massacre in Africa because some UN-loving administration wanted to do "our" part in one-world policing?

Draft = Slavery. Does your life belong to you, or your government?

K

Autolycus
April 22, 2007, 11:44 PM
Exactly. When Bush sends US soldiers to die for oil, dont you feel like that is a waste? Or going to Afhgnistan when the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally in the region?

Sorry but we dont need a draft so we can send our boys to go fight in some useless place like Iraq.

TEX
April 23, 2007, 03:57 AM
I believe compulsory military service might be a good idea if it consisted of 1 year of training and then 3 years of Active Reserve or National Guard type duty, and another 6 year of inactive reserve. Total 10-year obligation. For those that objected for religious reasons, etc. Every effort should be made to find a job within the military that would suit them or even something in the public service arena. In exchange for this service the government would pay for 2 years of college or trade school, and make available loans at a very low interest rate for further education. This would accomplish two things; first at any given time we would be able to field a huge military force in a dire emergency and this would be a big problem for any potential enemy to content with, secondly, it would perhaps reduce unemployment because the schooling would increase their chances of having employable skills. An added benefit would be that everyone would be under a watchful eye for a time and potential full blown nut cases would likely be detected. During the time in the active or inactive reserve anyone would wanted to keep their weapon at home, could, and be given a monthly ammo allowance and access to a supervised range and instruction. I also think that perhaps voting right should be attached to this service and that a national level CHL program could be worked into all this.

obmax1212
April 23, 2007, 04:14 AM
Mandatory military service probably wouldn't hurt, but it is still compulsory. Besides the fact that a draft army usually is poor quality in comparison to an all volunteer army, and even ignoring the cost of funding such a venture, mandatory service defies the idea of liberty. However, I have always thought that there should be two classes: residents and citizens. Both enjoy the same rights with the exception of citizens who can vote. In order to vote you must enroll in some type of military training. I think that at the very least these individuals would advocate for war far more carefully than the average joe.

gunsmith
April 23, 2007, 04:21 AM
I think the underlying point of the good doctor was that people need to learn to fight back.
The whole do not resist notion seems to be failing

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 07:20 AM
Sorry but we dont need a draft so we can send our boys to go fight in some useless place like Iraq.

Whether you like it,or not, we have a draft. It is only in Limbo. Awaiting time for reactivation. The draft never was abolished. It still is in effect.

Ever since the War Between the States, drafts have been instituted. It is a part of American life. Just like paying taxes, it is a duty, deny this all you wish. It speaks volumes.

Jerry

Thin Black Line
April 23, 2007, 07:55 AM
Just like paying taxes, it is a duty, deny this all you wish. It speaks volumes.


The flip side of this is how far does the government take things and how har
would military force be used beyond the intentions of the American people.
If we were "paying taxes" as originally intended, it would be a 1% federal tax
on earnings above $62,000.

Some of the posters here are simply concerned about how they would be used
while in government service. And during a draft politics certainly become involved
and people can find a way out of that service while others bear more of the
burden. This is why we went to the all volunteer military, but it's now breaking
down due to repeated deployments for the same people --people who have
families and other obligations. This is why I had to say goodbye to the reserves.

JJY
April 23, 2007, 08:41 AM
What??! You actually believe yourself to be free?

You may want to think about this a bit more. Things like: if you don't pay the car tax, who gets the car? If you don't pay the land tax, who gets the land? If you want to buy a gun, who do you have to ask? If you wish to get married, who grants permission? If you want to drive around in a car, who do you ask? Who watches your bank account for "odd transactions"? If you wish to speak about a politician two months befoore an election, who do you call to get permission to do so?

This is true ... but not a reason to give up as some have interpreted it ... but rather a reason to act.

ZeSpectre
April 23, 2007, 09:06 AM
I realize mandatory service is an extremely touchy issue but I really do wish something (civil training or something) had been around when I graduated from high school. I was under ENORMOUS pressure at the time to choose a college and attend and, to be blunt, I wasn't quite ready. As a result I screwed around for almost two years before I hit the maturity level to focus and dig in. I could have really used that extra time (and discipline to be honest).

Another thought is that if everyone were required to train in firearms I'd bet the anti stance would fall apart pretty damn quick because all the misinformation would be exposed for what it is.

Also I agree with this statement by extremedooty
If we don't have some sort of mandatory service to teach the next generation basic self defense, armed and unarmed, and situational awareness, where will they learn it? College? I think that question has already been answered.

Just a thought.

Autolycus
April 23, 2007, 09:25 AM
How many of the draft supporters would be eligible to be drafted now? I would also ask why you all dont go reenlist or enlist if you have no prior service?

Ian
April 23, 2007, 10:29 AM
I'm sorry for you guys who were in bad shape when they were of draftable age, but don't project that onto everyone else. I'm still of prime military age, and I've got my life going very well, thank you. I in no way need the feds to come in and get me killed in some 3rd world craphole for my own good.

kfranz
April 23, 2007, 10:31 AM
ZeSpectre, why should the rest of us be forced to fund your "service" while you mature enough to move on with your life? Not to mention that whole "Peace Corps" thing that's out there

ZeSpectre
April 23, 2007, 10:55 AM
kfranz,
No need to lean into a personal attack. We're exchanging ideas here.

Pilgrim
April 23, 2007, 11:01 AM
So it would be a government of the military and not a government of the people? I'll pass.
In the Heinlein model, the ability to vote was not granted until government service was completed. Veterans could vote, no one else.

Government service was not just military service. For those unable to be soldiers, something was found for the volunteer to do.
How many of the draft supporters would be eligible to be drafted now?
I'm a little old for military service now, but I would be happy to volunteer to provide armed security service for a local school.

Pilgrim

kfranz
April 23, 2007, 11:12 AM
No need to lean into a personal attack. We're exchanging ideas here.

ZeSpectre, I intended no personal attack.

I think that taxpayer funded "maturity" programs are an improper use of my money. I don't know when you graduated from High School, but there are (and have been for some time) a variety of programs other than the military that offer service opportunities for young people, the Peace Corps perhaps being the most well known.

It sounds to me like you were too immature (and I know the feeling having lived it myself) to take advantage of the opportunities that were available at the time.

ZeSpectre
April 23, 2007, 11:18 AM
ZeSpectre, I intended no personal attack.

I think that taxpayer funded "maturity" programs are an improper use of my money. I don't know when you graduated from High School, but there are (and have been for some time) a variety of programs other than the military that offer service opportunities for young people, the Peace Corps perhaps being the most well known.

It sounds to me like you were too immature (and I know the feeling having lived it myself) to take advantage of the opportunities that were available at the time.

Okay, I probably misread the tone of your reply. Sorry if I overreacted.

MarshallDodge
April 23, 2007, 11:46 AM
When I read and posted Dr. Laura's statement I did not see it as a some of you that thought it was aimed at mandatory military service. I thought that her idea to use the military to turn sheeple into someone that can at least defend themself was a step in the right direction. Should it be mandatory? Probably not but the people that our society is turning out could use some discipline and training in self defense.

Some of you have posted some pretty selfish posts in my opinion, posts that come across to me that you enjoy the freedom of this country but would be unwilling to fight for it.

Personally, I wish I had joined the military as a young man. While I was in college I took a test at the Marine recruiting center and they wanted me pretty bad. My father talked me out of it. If I had been recruited I probably would have fought in Desert Storm.

Deavis
April 23, 2007, 01:22 PM
Part of the whole purpose behind the 2nd amendment was from the framers natural disdain for a standing army. And now we want not only a standing army but to force everyone into it?

Yet there were laws requiring the militia to train and for citizens to own firearms fromt he beginning of our country. Further, the law provided punishment for citizens who did not keep the proper firearm and the ammunition (powder and ball) required on hand. How is it that back then it was ok to call up people for militia training but to call them into the military of today is somehow different? Why can't it be considered the same thing?

I see no issue with requiring people to train and be part of the military of the country, standing or militia. We have been fortunate as of late that we aren't called up for training, but such a calling has plenty of precedent from our beginnings. I agree that your country should be worth fighting for but that doesn't mean that your country can't ask you to be trained to do it.

Cosmoline
April 23, 2007, 01:42 PM
Since when was the purpose of the military to "whip the kids into shape"? It seems to me the purpose of the military is to fight wars and slaughter the enemy, PERIOD. The further we get from that, the more we dilute the armed forces and weaken them.

I also find it ironic that folks who would otherwise decry the imposition of draconian federal power over the states see nothing wrong with a proposal allowing the same feds to hijack the young for several years. I've read the Constitution, and I don't see anything allowing a socialist style national service program.

But getting back to topic, nobody has answered my question--what DOES national service have to do with the RKBA? How would it help the RKBA to teach the young that arms are ISSUED BY THE STATE and may be TAKEN BACK by the state? It seems to me that's the reverse of what should be taught. The reason the socialist nations of Europe have long had mandatory service is because it teaches the people to be good subjects. They learn early on that they have no rights which can't be taken by the state, and they learn that refusal to obey the state will result in serious punishment. They also learn to depend on the state for three square a day and a paycheck. It's a way of teaching them to be children of the nanny state.

Michigander
April 23, 2007, 01:59 PM
I wonder how many more Cho would have been able to take out if he had two years of military training?

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 02:29 PM
I wonder how many more Cho would have been able to take out if he had two years of military training?

How many think he could have made it through basic training? He was a sociopath, a complete rebel. Can you see him ignoring a drill instructor and getting away with it?

Jerry

Soybomb
April 23, 2007, 03:01 PM
Some of you have posted some pretty selfish posts in my opinion, posts that come across to me that you enjoy the freedom of this country but would be unwilling to fight for it.
Could you point out a few of these posts for me? I don't think I've seen anyone yet say they wouldn't serve their country if there was a need, just that "the kids need discipline" isn't need or pretecting this country's freedom. Thats nothing more than encouraging the nanny state philosophy.

High Planes Drifter
April 23, 2007, 03:34 PM
I also find it ironic that folks who would otherwise decry the imposition of draconian federal power over the states see nothing wrong with a proposal allowing the same feds to hijack the young for several years.

You read my mind. I am firmly against the idea of our youth being shipped off against thier will to carry out an administrations foriegn policy. That has absolutely nothing to do with "service to country", and everything to do with "service to government". Soooooo many times our government gets us bogged down in situations we have no business getting involved in. We never learn do we.(?):uhoh:

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 03:43 PM
Could you point out a few of these posts for me? I don't think I've seen anyone yet say they wouldn't serve their country if there was a need, just that "the kids need discipline" isn't need or pretecting this country's freedom. Thats nothing more than encouraging the nanny state philosophy.

I suppose everyones personal definition of need to going to trump the social need, if it exists? Sort of like, "Yeah, it ought to be done, maybe, but I will lose a lot of money if I go!"? As for the nanny state, I don't think the military applies. At least it did not when I was subject to call.

Dam few went out of their way to show up at Ruby Ridge, or Waco. I don't think I want to rely on the moral courage of the masses to defend this country from foreign powers. From this angle, I figure many will answer the call and grumble about it. They won't want to flee the Nation and they sure won't want to set in prison.

Jerry

Igloodude
April 23, 2007, 03:48 PM
Roughly a week after the first boot camp class shows up, it'll get politically-corrected to include nap time, lullabies, and opt-in PT. Y'all advocating it to shape up the country's youth are kidding yourselves.

That said, I can't conceive of it being implemented as a truly mandatory act in peacetime :barf: , and if this country cannot get enough volunteers in a legitimate emergency to defend the union, then the union is clearly no longer worth defending.

earplug
April 23, 2007, 03:49 PM
What A farce, forced schooling/training by the government, then we are still denied access to the weapons we need.
Its not free. The same problem with being certified/permited or allowed.
Free access is denied.

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 03:49 PM
I am firmly against the idea of our youth being shipped off against thier will to carry out an administrations foriegn policy. That has absolutely nothing to do with "service to country", and everything to do with "service to government". Soooooo many times our government gets us bogged down in situations we have no business getting involved in. We never learn do we.(?)

What is your suggested alternative? The Vote seems to be working in a certain manner to me. Do you support the business' that tend to get us into these messes?

Voting at the ballot box and the cash register seems to work well enough. I am not prone to hamstring the Nation with silly limitations on defense.

Jerry

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 03:53 PM
earplug; Freedom is not "free". The price of Liberty is paid in blood.

Jerry

Cosmoline
April 23, 2007, 04:12 PM
Would that include shooting the draft board and bombing Congress?

WeThePeople
April 23, 2007, 04:39 PM
I'm in. Sign 'em up.

For those en route to college or trade school, send them to Basic Training/Boot Camp between high school and the first semester and then defer the active duty until graduation and they can serve as officers/warrant officers/NCOs based on their training.

For those without a plan, they can knock out their two years right after high school and figure out what they want to do and end up with some possibly transferable job-training to use, or the GI Bill to use for college or trade school. Or maybe become lifers.

We would be adding to the military and encouraging job skills. Those veterans would have a healthier respect for their freedom (since the military takes a lot of it away) and will have helped to ensure its continuation.

Of course, for the hippies, there would be something like two years in the peace corps or something.

Soybomb
April 23, 2007, 04:42 PM
I suppose everyones personal definition of need to going to trump the social need, if it exists? Sort of like, "Yeah, it ought to be done, maybe, but I will lose a lot of money if I go!"? As for the nanny state, I don't think the military applies. At least it did not when I was subject to call.
I actually have remarkable faith in the people of the US to have the drive to defend their freedoms when necessary. For that to happen though people's freedoms have to be truly threatened. In one paragraph you're talking about freedom isn't free, liberty is paid with blood, and the next you're talking about social need. Are we talking about defending our country against those who wish us harm or are we talking about forcing everyone into the military to build homes and give them "discipline?"

How is the nanny state not apply? Isn't the central discussion in this thread that kids aren't being raised right and we need the government to do it for us?

Those veterans would have a healthier respect for their freedom (since the military takes a lot of it away)
I think we need more gun control so we appreciate guns more!

whited
April 23, 2007, 04:45 PM
I believe every young person between 18 and 20 years of age should be required to receive compulsory military training.

-1

I generally consider SLAVERY to be a bad thing.

fletcher
April 23, 2007, 04:45 PM
I am against compulsory military service, but I do believe some sort of basic firearms training (familiarity with a couple current US Military small arms) would be nice to have integrated into high school somewhere.

WeThePeople
April 23, 2007, 04:53 PM
By the way, I lived in Germany for a few years. They have mandatory service. I'll tell you what, there are some seriously squared away people in Germany. Yes, they have their nut-bags, but every yard is dress-right-dress, there is NO litter, and they freakin' love their country.
Of course they have something like a 50% income tax, a police force that will (lawfully) hit you with a baton for very little reason, and a draconian government but mandatory service certainly hasn't hurt.

WeThePeople
April 23, 2007, 04:56 PM
SoyBomb:

Quote:
Those veterans would have a healthier respect for their freedom (since the military takes a lot of it away)

I think we need more gun control so we appreciate guns more!

I respectfully disagree with the analogy. After the military, you get your freedom back. After gun control, you don't get your guns back.

Soybomb
April 23, 2007, 05:00 PM
After the military, you get your freedom back. After gun control, you don't get your guns back.
We'll just make it for a couple years. There's nothing wrong with taking someone's freedoms as long as its just for a little while, especially if we know its for their own good right?

WeThePeople
April 23, 2007, 05:04 PM
We'll just make it for a couple years. There's nothing wrong with taking someone's freedoms as long as its just for a little while, especially if we know its for their own good right?

I see your point and respect your opinion but really disagree that the two things are even remotely similar. Military service is what the country is built upon. Without it, the U.S.A. simply wouldn't exist.

Gun control is an elitest, socialist, and probably fascist ideal to create a subservient class of people.

Jerry Morris
April 23, 2007, 05:12 PM
In one paragraph you're talking about freedom isn't free, liberty is paid with blood, and the next you're talking about social need.

If you fail to grasp the interconnect here, there is no use in trying further.

Jerry

calsdad
April 23, 2007, 05:47 PM
A lot of the replies to this thread are actually rather sad if you think about it. It seems like most of them are written by people who are so indoctrinated by the nationalistic welfare-nanny state that we currently have that they can't even see their way thru to something better.

Compulsory military training does not have to entail involuntary servitude to the federal govt. . It could in fact be an antidote to the current overreach of the federal govt. into state and local affairs that we currently have now.

I can't remember what the exact law says - but somewhere in U.S Code it states that the militia is all of the citizens between the ages of 16 and 45 I believe.

Then we have the U.S. Constitution - which talks about a well regulated militia. Which is what we actually used to have - and rely on - in this country way back around the time the Constitution was written. It could be that way again. It is very close to being that way in Switzerland.


Re-instituting the militia - and making it so that members of that militia were beholden not to the federal govt. but to their local and state govt.'s - and were trained (well-regulated) to properly deal with situations - like the one at Virginia Tech - would go a long ways towards making us safer in a society where we have these wackos going on shooting rampages - and may well have much worse if the predictions of organized terrorist attacks against our schools have any validity whatsoever.

Read the book " Terror at Beslan" and then tell me if anything other than armed people being present in the school - AT THE TIME THE INCIDENT HAPPENED , would have made that slaughter turn out any better.

To anybody with a brain it has become completely obvious that the police and the govt. will not protect you if a shooter comes into your school - it's basically a race against time for how long you can hide from him/her before they decide to shoot themselves in the head.

If say 25 Islamic terrorists on a one-way suicide mission had shown up at Virginia Tech that morning with the sole intent of killing as many people as possible - what do you think the outcome would have been? You would have seen hundreds - if not thousands dead - and the police would have sat outside and setup a perimeter - just like they did with Cho. Meanwhile if you had two shooters with semi or full auto weapons shooting up big lecture halls full of unarmed students - how many do you think would be dead before it was all over?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that even a few students carrying concealed pistols with a extra magazine or two - who had been thru active shooter training and were certified to deal with situations like this - could put a serious dent in a plan such as this.

Re-institute the militia. Make them accountable only to local and state authorities ( no hijacking of militia members to send them off to fight foreign wars like we do with the National Guard). There can be multiple levels of militia, armed, medical, disaster relief, etc. But every citizen must be trained - and must serve a short refresher period every year - or go thru more training.
Get rid of the National Guard. Let militia members who are properly trained (well-regulated) carry concealed in ALL situations. Let militia members who are part of the armed militia keep their weapons at home - so they can respond to incidents post haste - running down to the armory doesn't cut it. Having your M4 in the trunk of your car lets you run out and get it and respond to a terrorist incident right then and there.

Mental defectives would be weeded out like they always are in any close knit organization like this. People would serve with their fellow citizens from their area. Not with a bunch of people lumped together like the govt. does with the federal military.

This is not only a good idea as far as turning this country back to the ideals upon which it was founded - but it is pretty much the ONLY thing that will ever adequately deal with Virginia Tech type shootings - and with mass terrorist attacks like what happened at the school in Beslan.

The police, SWAT teams, feds of all stripes, etc. have provent themselves to not be up to the task over and over again - how long are we going to wait - and how many people are going to die before we pull our heads out of our asses and see what the solution to the problem is. Back to the future. Reinstitute the militia.

bearmgc
April 23, 2007, 05:55 PM
Ms. Laura, RIGHT ON SISTER!

Soybomb
April 23, 2007, 07:21 PM
Military service is what the country is built upon. Without it, the U.S.A. simply wouldn't exist.
I would say that voluntary service fighting for freedom is what our country is built on, not forcing people into the military for their own good with no genuine need to protect their liberty. Madison couldn't even get power to draft for the war of 1812, I just don't see forced service to give people "discipline" as something the framers seemed like they'd be in to.

If you fail to grasp the interconnect here, there is no use in trying further.
I wish you'd try because I really don't. I thought part of the great thing about the US was that we had the freedom to do largely whatever we want as long as it doesn't harm others. Sometimes this includes doing dumb things that aren't good for our own lives. I thought that blood spilled in the name of liberty was to give people the right to do whatever they want with their lives including wasting it, not the freedom to the owned by the government for a couple years for your own good.

TrybalRage
April 23, 2007, 07:55 PM
I think 2 years of military 'training' would be a good thing, with some limits on it.

1. Boot camp, then a reserves-type commitment (1 weekend a month, 2 weeks a year)

2. No deployment - this is not a military force, it's a training regiment. Any voluntary joining to a military branch within that 2 years would be acceptable, but no forced conscription.

Probably more on top of that, but you get the idea. Something to give people some values, and some toughness, and some skills (first aid, etc.)


Edit: Basically what calsdad said.

TimJim
April 23, 2007, 08:28 PM
Gee, perhaps if military recruiters were not so disdained on collage campuses this grand sceme of military(like) training would be accepted. I remember my dad who went to Colorado A&M (before it became Colorado State) had to be in the ROTC becuase it was a state school. He also had to perform forest fire duty becuase of his degree commitments to that school. In short, rather that forcing broad based conscription, the incentive was affordable tuition.

Like any other solution having its roots in requiring others to do something that would make us feel safer, (Nanny State?) this (forced conscription)ignores the objections of others. The incentive should usually be borne from the hearts of men (and women). Please let's not forget that the whole problem was the primary choice of the nasty killer, who, for lack of caring of his reasons, I blame entirely. Any reactive measures that seek prevent such rampages from occuring in the future cannot ignore the persistance of his kind of evil. I, for one, do not want my liberties or the liberties defined by his actions. Military service is a good thing, but especially when from the conviction one's own concience.

As for some remark two pages back that says that the Japaneese would have made it to the Missippi, and that the present military is akin to the one prior to WWII; IMO, the Japaneese would have never made it past Los Angeles county, and today's military is vastly more powerful, smarter, better equiped, and better trained, and more motivated than any military prior WWII. The lack of resolve at the highest levels is the limiting factor.

WeThePeople
April 23, 2007, 10:33 PM
...I just don't see forced service to give people "discipline" as something the framers seemed like they'd be in to.

Whoa there big fella. I didn't say that it would be a way to instill discipline, although it would. My argument is that it would be good for the country. It would bolster our military and provide job training and college money for many people who wouldn't otherwise get it.

And, as I said above, the peaceniks get a tour in a hospital or the peace corps.

When someone enters the military, the oath is to defend the Constitution, not the government. When Mr. Bush leaves the White House, a soldier's/sailor's/airman's/marine's loyalty does not disappear.

Art Eatman
April 24, 2007, 12:26 AM
this started out with Dr. Laura's views and some notions about some amount of the old UMT and Basic Training and suchlike.

It's wandered off into a full-bore draft and two years' worth of service and all manner of other stuff. Way OT.

I'm not gonna close it, having contributed much earlier on.

But I suggest it be left to quiver and die. "The Draft", per se, is a dead horse that ain't gonna come back to life. BTDT.

Art

SteveS
April 24, 2007, 09:02 AM
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but Switzerland is always held up as some kind of ideal when it comes to gun ownership. This survey seems to show that they may be changing their minds.

Ban on army firearms at home wins support (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/top_news/detail/Ban_on_army_firearms_at_home_wins_support.html?siteSect=106&sid=7740490&cKey=1177249045000)

ccw9mm
April 24, 2007, 09:26 AM
A small infringement on freedom still seems to be an infringement. How free is a nation where its citizens owe its government part of their life just because it wants it?
It can be thought of in two ways: (a) a commitment to a government; or, (b) merely an extension of school and a commitment to ourselves.

I fully realize the infringement aspect. Sure, it is, to a kid who doesn't have the real-world depth of experience or understanding to appreciate the life-long value such training will have. The point is, as a People, the USA is soft, inexperienced, untutored in the real world; it is a country of merchants and clerks minus the seasoning that simpler living provided in centuries past. This 2yr commitment is about getting that back. Forcibly, sure. But getting it back with a minimum of fuss, at a time when many (most?) kids need formal guidance and direction. I'm not for a draft of any sort. I'm not for a 6-yr or 8-yr type commitment that's normal in the military. However, I'm all for a 2yr training stint, fully military though it be.

As for the caliber of training, there isn't anything comparable.

It seems like more "I know whats best for you" thinking that gun owners seem to dislike when it comes from the other side. In the end we don't owe our government anything, it exists to serve us.
Schooling serves all of us. Considered as a 2yr extension on formal basic education, it's just one more item added to the curriculum. Real-world, in the streets, possibly on the battlefield ... it's the first "course" where the rubber meets the road, in terms of practical, life-or-death experience that will last a lifetime. It's the one part of a person's training that can't be found in a book.

Owe something to the government? Nah. We owe it to ourselves and our future. 'Cause what we're doing right now surely isn't working.

rmurfster
April 24, 2007, 10:29 AM
Isn't the central discussion in this thread that kids aren't being raised right and we need the government to do it for us?
+1

Those of you who are proposing we have compulsory military training for the reason of "shaping up" our youth are approaching this problem from the wrong direction. There may be other reasons for serving our country, but this isn't one of them.

Oleg Volk
April 24, 2007, 10:33 AM
Compulsory things by government tend to work out poorly. They tend to involve being forced to kill those who don't need killing or, conversely, being sent into harm's way without ammunition.

whited
April 24, 2007, 11:03 AM
Owe something to the government? Nah. We owe it to ourselves and our future. 'Cause what we're doing right now surely isn't working.

This is the kind of well-wishing strings and ribbon packaging that slavery
and statism comes in these days. Beware. This kind of thinking is faulty.

It flies in the face of natural libertarian perspectives and attempts to
shift responsibility to the state. Which as we all know is folly.

bowfin
April 24, 2007, 11:16 AM
Part of the whole purpose behind the 2nd amendment was from the framers natural disdain for a standing army. And now we want not only a standing army

Of course we don't need a standing army. Just build the SSBNs and B-2 bombers and park them with a couple of very comprehensive manuals in the driver's seats, and first militia guys there just take off in them and go to war, picking up the fine points as you go...

deltacharlie
April 24, 2007, 11:48 AM
Doctor Laura is Jewish. Just pointing out a little obvious bias she may have for the way Israel does things. I like what she says; mostly, I just find her impractical but her moral compass is clear and true.

Compulsary service here in the States, though?
I don't know about that.

On the one hand, freedom isn't free, and everyone should (to borrow a phrase from our socialistas) "contribute" to securing it. Or at the very least, stay the F! outta the way of those who have the nads to go forth and make sure the rest of us are free!


That said; I always go back to my standard quote when some young person asks my advice about joining the service, "I served so you could be free to choose for youself."

Seminole
April 24, 2007, 11:51 AM
Universal military service seems to work well in many places. It is no more 'involuntary servitude' than the hours I spent last year to earn the money to pay my taxes.

If that line of reasoning is correct, it looks like an argument for abolishing the income tax--not reinstituting the draft.

High Planes Drifter
April 24, 2007, 01:09 PM
It can be thought of in two ways: (a) a commitment to a government; or, (b) merely an extension of school and a commitment to ourselves.


So then the government would force us to have a commitment to ourselves.(?) Oh how nice! Really, I think I'll pass, Im doing fine on my own thanks.:)

Cosmoline
April 24, 2007, 01:19 PM
The point is, as a People, the USA is soft, inexperienced, untutored in the real world; it is a country of merchants and clerks minus the seasoning that simpler living provided in centuries past.

This is almost word-for-word exactly what the Kaiser thought about us in the runup to WWI and what Hitler thought about us in the runup to WWII. Not to mention the Spanish, the Japanese, and pretty much everybody else we've fought.

On top of all the other problems, the cost of a universal two year service system would run to the trillions of dollars. In addition, it would remove all the young from the ranks of productive taxpayers and put them two years behind in making money. This is why the only nations that have such programs also have incredibly nasty income taxes.

BobTheTomato
April 24, 2007, 01:19 PM
If our military was like the Swiss (100% defensive) and not an imperialist one I would support the idea. Till then hell no.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dr. Laura on the VT massacre" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!