Dr. Laura on the VT massacre

[Deavis]

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]

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]

I wonder how many more Cho would have been able to take out if he had two years of military training?

 

[Jerry Morris]

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]

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]

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.(?)

 

[Jerry Morris]

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]

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 , 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]

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]

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]

earplug; Freedom is not "free". The price of Liberty is paid in blood.

Jerry

 

[Cosmoline]

Would that include shooting the draft board and bombing Congress?

 

[WeThePeople]

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]

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]

.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ms. Laura, RIGHT ON SISTER!

 

[Soybomb]

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]

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.