User Panel
[#2]
|
|
[#3]
What if obongo started drafting people to invade Israel and hand it over to the Paleshitians?
Are people who dodge that draft a bunch of un-American faggot traitors? |
|
[#4]
Quoted:
Lol. America where everyone should be forced to kill folks they don't know because a politician says they should. Let freedom ring. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Polls says OP is a tard. What do you expect from a person who's user name is a Stinky oil. That hippies used to think was great in the late 60's 70's. Some old hippies still wear that shit. Just means Drug User to me ! Oh they were fucking cowards, and Carter should have been crucified for pardoning them! Lol. America where everyone should be forced to kill folks they don't know because a politician says they should. Let freedom ring. By the way, I wasn't insinuating that you are a drug user. Thre user name just cracks me up, that's all.! But am still pissed off at Carter for that BS. |
|
[#5]
Quoted:
By the way, I wasn't insinuating that you are a drug user. Thre user name just cracks me up, that's all.! But am still pissed off at Carter for that BS. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Polls says OP is a tard. What do you expect from a person who's user name is a Stinky oil. That hippies used to think was great in the late 60's 70's. Some old hippies still wear that shit. Just means Drug User to me ! Oh they were fucking cowards, and Carter should have been crucified for pardoning them! Lol. America where everyone should be forced to kill folks they don't know because a politician says they should. Let freedom ring. By the way, I wasn't insinuating that you are a drug user. Thre user name just cracks me up, that's all.! But am still pissed off at Carter for that BS. Good, cause I'm not a drug user. You wanna go grab a beer? |
|
[#6]
|
|
[#7]
Quoted:
In another of my epic threads that challenge your very ethos...it was generally agreed that compulsory service to the State was unamerican and antithetical to freedom. What then of drafts in a free country? Just because a government says it is ok, does that mean it is? Shall you all fight Obama's wars at his whim or would you refuse because of free will? What about Vietnam Era draft dodgers? View Quote Conscription in some cases is quite acceptable. It is not inherently un-American, and it is not in any and all cases contrary to liberal principles. In fact it is essential to having an effective liberal defensive institution. You have exceptional circumstances which require exceptional measures for the defence of the polity, such as World War II, the Civil War, and the Cold War. You also need conscription to have an effective militia system, which is, as the 2nd Amendment states, essential to the security of a free state, from both external and internal threats to both the state and the freedom of its inhabitants (to include, at times, defence from the acts of the state itself). Conscription in America predates independence. Colonial militias, when well-regulated, were based on the principle of universal obligation just as their counterparts in the metropolitan UK were. The principle of conscription for militia service goes back to the 8th century in Anglo-American civilization. Conscription for standing armies, regular or reserve, on the other hand, is something to be avoided absent real necessity; it should not be a permanent condition, and really, it was never a constant feature in the English-speaking world; it was always temporary, even if some contingencies did last decades such as the Cold War, which came immediately after a world war. It should also be noted that the Constitution is silent in terms of how armies and navies must be raised; it is left for Congress to decide, within the bounds of what is necessary and proper, and thus in at least some cases conscription is a completely constitutional method for doing so; it's always been constitutional with respect to militias, although no State in the Union has both employed and enforced universal obligation since 1860 even though it was mandated by Federal law for some time past that time (and the last State to have it, South Carolina, was forced to stop as a condition of rejoining the Union IIRC, as well as changing how it chose Presidential Electors, being the last State to use the legislature to do that). There is nothing honourable about being a Vietnam-era draft dodger, and they should have been punished. Men fulfilled their obligations even if they didn't want to do so, or volunteered and went to die while the draft dodgers shirked their duties. They should be viewed and treated with the utmost contempt by state and society. It is unfortunate that they are not. If the war is not against our people, it matters not who the President is at the time of a war. Duty is duty, and the quote comes to mind from Decatur, "Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!" |
|
[#8]
Quoted:
Conscription in some cases is quite acceptable. It is not inherently un-American, and it is not in any and all cases contrary to liberal principles. In fact it is essential to having an effective liberal defensive institution. You have exceptional circumstances which require exceptional measures for the defence of the polity, such as World War II, the Civil War, and the Cold War. You also need conscription to have an effective militia system, which is, as the 2nd Amendment states, essential to the security of a free state, from both external and internal threats to both the state and the freedom of its inhabitants (to include, at times, defence from the acts of the state itself). Conscription in America predates independence. Colonial militias, when well-regulated, were based on the principle of universal obligation just as their counterparts in the metropolitan UK were. The principle of conscription for militia service goes back to the 8th century in Anglo-American civilization. Conscription for standing armies, regular or reserve, on the other hand, is something to be avoided absent real necessity; it should not be a permanent condition, and really, it was never a constant feature in the English-speaking world; it was always temporary, even if some contingencies did last decades such as the Cold War, which came immediately after a world war. It should also be noted that the Constitution is silent in terms of how armies and navies must be raised; it is left for Congress to decide, within the bounds of what is necessary and proper, and thus in at least some cases conscription is a completely constitutional method for doing so; it's always been constitutional with respect to militias, although no State in the Union has both employed and enforced universal obligation since 1860 even though it was mandated by Federal law for some time past that time (and the last State to have it, South Carolina, was forced to stop as a condition of rejoining the Union IIRC, as well as changing how it chose Presidential Electors, being the last State to use the legislature to do that). There is nothing honourable about being a Vietnam-era draft dodger, and they should have been punished. Men fulfilled their obligations even if they didn't want to do so, or volunteered and went to die while the draft dodgers shirked their duties. They should be viewed and treated with the utmost contempt by state and society. It is unfortunate that they are not. If the war is not against our people, it matters not who the President is at the time of a war. Duty is duty, and the quote comes to mind from Decatur, "Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
In another of my epic threads that challenge your very ethos...it was generally agreed that compulsory service to the State was unamerican and antithetical to freedom. What then of drafts in a free country? Just because a government says it is ok, does that mean it is? Shall you all fight Obama's wars at his whim or would you refuse because of free will? What about Vietnam Era draft dodgers? Conscription in some cases is quite acceptable. It is not inherently un-American, and it is not in any and all cases contrary to liberal principles. In fact it is essential to having an effective liberal defensive institution. You have exceptional circumstances which require exceptional measures for the defence of the polity, such as World War II, the Civil War, and the Cold War. You also need conscription to have an effective militia system, which is, as the 2nd Amendment states, essential to the security of a free state, from both external and internal threats to both the state and the freedom of its inhabitants (to include, at times, defence from the acts of the state itself). Conscription in America predates independence. Colonial militias, when well-regulated, were based on the principle of universal obligation just as their counterparts in the metropolitan UK were. The principle of conscription for militia service goes back to the 8th century in Anglo-American civilization. Conscription for standing armies, regular or reserve, on the other hand, is something to be avoided absent real necessity; it should not be a permanent condition, and really, it was never a constant feature in the English-speaking world; it was always temporary, even if some contingencies did last decades such as the Cold War, which came immediately after a world war. It should also be noted that the Constitution is silent in terms of how armies and navies must be raised; it is left for Congress to decide, within the bounds of what is necessary and proper, and thus in at least some cases conscription is a completely constitutional method for doing so; it's always been constitutional with respect to militias, although no State in the Union has both employed and enforced universal obligation since 1860 even though it was mandated by Federal law for some time past that time (and the last State to have it, South Carolina, was forced to stop as a condition of rejoining the Union IIRC, as well as changing how it chose Presidential Electors, being the last State to use the legislature to do that). There is nothing honourable about being a Vietnam-era draft dodger, and they should have been punished. Men fulfilled their obligations even if they didn't want to do so, or volunteered and went to die while the draft dodgers shirked their duties. They should be viewed and treated with the utmost contempt by state and society. It is unfortunate that they are not. If the war is not against our people, it matters not who the President is at the time of a war. Duty is duty, and the quote comes to mind from Decatur, "Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!" That's a whole lot of statist koolaid. A strong leader could do wonders with you. |
|
[#9]
|
|
[#10]
Quoted:
That's a whole lot of statist koolaid. A strong leader could do wonders with you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In another of my epic threads that challenge your very ethos...it was generally agreed that compulsory service to the State was unamerican and antithetical to freedom. What then of drafts in a free country? Just because a government says it is ok, does that mean it is? Shall you all fight Obama's wars at his whim or would you refuse because of free will? What about Vietnam Era draft dodgers? Conscription in some cases is quite acceptable. It is not inherently un-American, and it is not in any and all cases contrary to liberal principles. In fact it is essential to having an effective liberal defensive institution. You have exceptional circumstances which require exceptional measures for the defence of the polity, such as World War II, the Civil War, and the Cold War. You also need conscription to have an effective militia system, which is, as the 2nd Amendment states, essential to the security of a free state, from both external and internal threats to both the state and the freedom of its inhabitants (to include, at times, defence from the acts of the state itself). Conscription in America predates independence. Colonial militias, when well-regulated, were based on the principle of universal obligation just as their counterparts in the metropolitan UK were. The principle of conscription for militia service goes back to the 8th century in Anglo-American civilization. Conscription for standing armies, regular or reserve, on the other hand, is something to be avoided absent real necessity; it should not be a permanent condition, and really, it was never a constant feature in the English-speaking world; it was always temporary, even if some contingencies did last decades such as the Cold War, which came immediately after a world war. It should also be noted that the Constitution is silent in terms of how armies and navies must be raised; it is left for Congress to decide, within the bounds of what is necessary and proper, and thus in at least some cases conscription is a completely constitutional method for doing so; it's always been constitutional with respect to militias, although no State in the Union has both employed and enforced universal obligation since 1860 even though it was mandated by Federal law for some time past that time (and the last State to have it, South Carolina, was forced to stop as a condition of rejoining the Union IIRC, as well as changing how it chose Presidential Electors, being the last State to use the legislature to do that). There is nothing honourable about being a Vietnam-era draft dodger, and they should have been punished. Men fulfilled their obligations even if they didn't want to do so, or volunteered and went to die while the draft dodgers shirked their duties. They should be viewed and treated with the utmost contempt by state and society. It is unfortunate that they are not. If the war is not against our people, it matters not who the President is at the time of a war. Duty is duty, and the quote comes to mind from Decatur, "Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!" That's a whole lot of statist koolaid. A strong leader could do wonders with you. If you think that, you must have had some Kool-Aid, because you don't seem to know what statism actually means. There is nothing statist about what I typed. Please show me the examples of well-regulated militias of effective fighting strength that were entirely volunteer-based. Please explain how to counter the massive conscript armies of the communists without using conscription. Please tell me how statist the Founders were to believe in conscription for militia service. This all should be interesting. |
|
[#11]
Quoted: So, you'd trust the current crop of reality TV addicted, borderline retarded SJW's and entitled crybabies to cover your ass behind enemy lines? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back Oh bullshit..... WWII had plenty of draftees who were real heroes....hard fighters.... Some 17yr old enlistee full of delusions of grandeur is more likely to piss his pants and hide....an older guy with a wife and kids at home knows what he is fighting for and his maturity held many units together in WW2 Korea and Vietnam So, you'd trust the current crop of reality TV addicted, borderline retarded SJW's and entitled crybabies to cover your ass behind enemy lines? The weak ones will die, go AWOL or eat a bullet. Either way the one who survive will be fighters who I can trust. Give me 30 of your biggest turds and I will make them killers if I can have Free reign to train and crush them as I see fit. And give me one LT with a Tab that can drink and survive a bar fight And we will be perfect. And no females, or gays Ok one female if she comes to work in a rebel flag bikini, she can be my RTO |
|
[#13]
Quoted: Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back View Quote Yeah, and the "All Volunteer" is just chalk full of blood thirsty killers. There is a shit ton of a "FSA" types in the Army because they want the Army to pay for college or because they cannot get a job at home. This whole idea that the military is way more bad ass because it's all volunteer is completely false. There aren't anywhere near as many people who take their jobs very seriously in the military, as you guys seem to think. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all had plenty of conscripts that kicked some ass. I know a WW2 vet who got drafted instead of volunteering, because as he put it "no sense in volunteering when you were going to get drafted anyway". |
|
[#14]
Draft dodgers are not heroes. If your country calls it is your responsibility to help protect it. IMO of course.
|
|
[#15]
|
|
[#17]
As my esteemed colleague, America-First, once said:
.. Quoted:
The state is all. All must serve the state. For the good of the state. View Quote |
|
[#18]
Quoted:
Oh bullshit..... WWII had plenty of draftees who were real heroes....hard fighters.... Some 17yr old enlistee full of delusions of grandeur is more likely to piss his pants and hide....an older guy with a wife and kids at home knows what he is fighting for and his maturity held many units together in WW2 Korea and Vietnam View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back Oh bullshit..... WWII had plenty of draftees who were real heroes....hard fighters.... Some 17yr old enlistee full of delusions of grandeur is more likely to piss his pants and hide....an older guy with a wife and kids at home knows what he is fighting for and his maturity held many units together in WW2 Korea and Vietnam The myth that conscripts fight less than volunteers is bullshit, plain and simple. A report by the national VFW indicated that during the period from Sept. 5, 1917 to Nov. 11, 1918, 2,810,296 American men were inducted into the U.S. Army. They constituted 72 percent of the entire service. Draftees supplied more than 50 percent of the soldiers of the American Expeditionary Force in France. Again, in World War II, the national conscription from November 1940 to October 1946 had 10,220,104 men called into military service. That number amounted to 63 percent of our World War II military. In our Army, 92 percent were draftees. The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard had a total of 1,730,194 draftees with 16,000 in the Marines. During the draft for Korean War military, August 1950 through July 1953, 1,569,141 men were called into military service. Draftees made up 30 percent of the Korean War servicemen. From August 1951 to October 1952, 83,858 Marines were drafted. In 1952, 12,220 Marines entered military service via the Selective Service system. By December 1952, 63 percent of soldiers serving in Korea were draftees. In 1953, 59 percent of the Army enlisted men were draftees. During the Cold War years (1954-1964) the Selective Service was again drafting men into military service. During that period 1,443,223 men were drafted, representing 41 percent of the Army. The Vietnam War, 1965-1973, produced 1,728,344 men being drafted into military service. Thirty-nine percent of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted at a time when 27 percent of the Army as a whole was draftee. The national VFW reported 648,500 draftees (25 percent of the total) were among the 2.6 million Americans who were actually stationed in Vietnam. Draftee hostile deaths totaled 15,458, or 32 percent of all American combat fatalities. http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?78191-Heroes-drafted-or-volunteer-are-made-not-born |
|
[#19]
Quoted:
I'm a Baby Boomer, born in 1946 and faced the draft just like everyone my age, when I got reclassified 1A the time from reclassification to draft notice was running about 2 weeks, so I promptly went in and joined, draftees were in a bad position, if you joined you were in a lot better position. I didn't know of anyone personally who dodged the draft, but in my opinion draft dodgers are the scum of the earth. There were a number of options available to anyone who didn't want to be in combat for religious reasons etc, no need to leave the country or anything like that. If they were just too chicken to face combat, all they had to do was volunteer and then choose a specialty that would keep them out of combat. View Quote Gee, why would anybody not want to have their life uprooted against their will because the government sent them a letter in the mail? Anybody who had a problem with that is obviously a piece of shit. |
|
[#20]
Quoted:
Lol. America where everyone should be forced to kill folks they don't know because a politician says they should. Let freedom ring. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Polls says OP is a tard. What do you expect from a person who's user name is a Stinky oil. That hippies used to think was great in the late 60's 70's. Some old hippies still wear that shit. Just means Drug User to me ! Oh they were fucking cowards, and Carter should have been crucified for pardoning them! Lol. America where everyone should be forced to kill folks they don't know because a politician says they should. Let freedom ring. Not everyone, just more than the enemy, so we win. |
|
[#21]
|
|
[#22]
Quoted:
Or just realize you're intellectually incongruent. Nobody should be forced to pick cotton, my friend. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FFS are all your threads like this? The other one you started, you wanted kids to do forced labor. Now, you're talking about draft dodgers as being heroes. Or just realize you're intellectually incongruent. Nobody should be forced to pick cotton, my friend. Incongruent with what? You stated that he was misaligned or incompatible... with what? |
|
[#23]
IMHO the draft should only be used in times of extreme peril where the existence of the US is threatened. Seems like a lot of draftees would just be fucking around and looking for a way out otherwise.
|
|
[#24]
"Politicians told me they own my labor and time for the next X number of years. I'd be a pussy if I said I wasn't excited about it."
|
|
[#25]
Quoted: No. Being a hero is about putting others before yourself. It is about doing something that most would never do, which is way outside your comfort zone and accepting the likelihood that you are probably going to die in the act of saving others fully aware that nobody might ever know about your sacrifice, fear, pain and emotional distress you may suffer as you commit yourself to the task at hand. Running away from something, because you can, does not a hero make. Not in by any measure. View Quote This Nick |
|
[#26]
Quoted:
Incongruent with what? You stated that he was misaligned or incompatible... with what? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FFS are all your threads like this? The other one you started, you wanted kids to do forced labor. Now, you're talking about draft dodgers as being heroes. Or just realize you're intellectually incongruent. Nobody should be forced to pick cotton, my friend. Incongruent with what? You stated that he was misaligned or incompatible... with what? His response in the other draft thread. |
|
[#27]
|
|
[#29]
Quoted:
In another of my epic threads that challenge your very ethos...it was generally agreed that compulsory service to the State was unamerican and antithetical to freedom. What then of drafts in a free country? <------- Oxymoron snip View Quote Would someone, anyone, please explain how a draft aligns with an individual’s right to “pursue happiness” and determine their own destiny? |
|
[#30]
There is nothing heroic about dodging a draft.
Heroes have to do something heroic, that shit is a lot more demanding than not showing up for something. |
|
[#31]
|
|
[#32]
They may just live longer then the guy who replaced them, but they are still going to die. Not heroes at all.
|
|
[#33]
You talkin' bout' Bill? He says he didn't dodge the draft.
So, where is the line? Aloha, Mark |
|
[#34]
Quoted:
If they dump the Sharp crap and we can crush them like in the early 90s yes. The weak ones will die, go AWOL or eat a bullet. Either way the one who survive will be fighters who I can trust. Give me 30 of your biggest turds and I will make them killers if I can have Free reign to train and crush them as I see fit. And give me one LT with a Tab that can drink and survive a bar fight And we will be perfect. And no females, or gays Ok one female if she comes to work in a rebel flag bikini, she can be my RTO View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back Oh bullshit..... WWII had plenty of draftees who were real heroes....hard fighters.... Some 17yr old enlistee full of delusions of grandeur is more likely to piss his pants and hide....an older guy with a wife and kids at home knows what he is fighting for and his maturity held many units together in WW2 Korea and Vietnam So, you'd trust the current crop of reality TV addicted, borderline retarded SJW's and entitled crybabies to cover your ass behind enemy lines? The weak ones will die, go AWOL or eat a bullet. Either way the one who survive will be fighters who I can trust. Give me 30 of your biggest turds and I will make them killers if I can have Free reign to train and crush them as I see fit. And give me one LT with a Tab that can drink and survive a bar fight And we will be perfect. And no females, or gays Ok one female if she comes to work in a rebel flag bikini, she can be my RTO How about pilots? I like your team. At least let me fly the herk on the way in. |
|
[#35]
Quoted:
What if obongo started drafting people to invade Israel and hand it over to the Paleshitians? Are people who dodge that draft a bunch of un-American faggot traitors? View Quote My son wants to join the US Military. I sort of asked him the same question. Using the example of OBAMA as Commander in Chief and having to follow the Glorious Leader's orders. LOL, we all know that in order to have a REAL WAR.......the vote of Congress counts. So anyway, confusion abounds as to what is a LEGAL WAR. LOL.....as if a POLICE ACTION or NATION BUILDING is any less of a WAR when people are shooting at you. Course, Politicians and the Rich Kids don't need to worry about stuff like that. Aloha, Mark |
|
[#36]
|
|
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back Pretty much sums it up. Vietnam vets have told me that draftees fought just as well as volunteers. |
|
[#38]
did Washington draft his soldiers? or did he promise them unfathomable wealth?
|
|
[#40]
Quoted:
My dad was failing college in late 1964 and he knew would be drafted into the army. He dodged the draft by joing the USMC. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote That's what my uncles did, and my sister-in-law's grandfather got drafted into the Army in Vietman, and when he went down to sign up, the USMC office was across from the Army office, so he joined the Marines instead. |
|
[#42]
Their country called and they ran away while better men rucked up and stood on the wall.
Fuck 'em, karma's a bitch. |
|
[#43]
Quoted:
Drafts makes for a lot of conscripts who don't want to be there... Not sure if I'd trust those people to cover my back View Quote Quite a few folks were drafted in my platoon in boot camp. A lot of them were retards and couldn't get their shit together if their life depended on it. 30% of my original paltoon was gone by graduation; that includes pick-ups. We started with 60 and ended up with 40. |
|
[#44]
Quoted:
Heroes to those who think the war is unjust or that war is evil. Traitors to those who are patriotic or believe that war is necessary to counter a threat (think Pearl Harbor) View Quote The ability to understand that war is necessary AND being able to come to the conclusion that conscription is against EVERYTHING the very document the conscripts are swearing to defend are not mutually exclusive. I'm patriotic and don't think dodging the draft is traitorous. You don't have to stop thinking logically to be a patriot, though it seems too common a theme. I value my rights as a free man more than the political decision to declare war knowing full well that those who make that decision will never suffer the hardships of war or wartime. You don't honestly believe that the federal politicians who conscripted all those young men to go fight for their country against their will were worrying about ration cards or getting themselves or their sons shipped off to the front, do you? |
|
[#46]
|
|
[#47]
Just my opinion, those who went to Canada should have never been allowed back in the country. Those who nutted up and went to prison, they stood for what they believed in and paid the price.
|
|
[#48]
|
|
[#49]
Quoted:
If you think that, you must have had some Kool-Aid, because you don't seem to know what statism actually means. There is nothing statist about what I typed. Please show me the examples of well-regulated militias of effective fighting strength that were entirely volunteer-based. Please explain how to counter the massive conscript armies of the communists without using conscription. Please tell me how statist the Founders were to believe in conscription for militia service. This all should be interesting. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In another of my epic threads that challenge your very ethos...it was generally agreed that compulsory service to the State was unamerican and antithetical to freedom. What then of drafts in a free country? Just because a government says it is ok, does that mean it is? Shall you all fight Obama's wars at his whim or would you refuse because of free will? What about Vietnam Era draft dodgers? Conscription in some cases is quite acceptable. It is not inherently un-American, and it is not in any and all cases contrary to liberal principles. In fact it is essential to having an effective liberal defensive institution. You have exceptional circumstances which require exceptional measures for the defence of the polity, such as World War II, the Civil War, and the Cold War. You also need conscription to have an effective militia system, which is, as the 2nd Amendment states, essential to the security of a free state, from both external and internal threats to both the state and the freedom of its inhabitants (to include, at times, defence from the acts of the state itself). Conscription in America predates independence. Colonial militias, when well-regulated, were based on the principle of universal obligation just as their counterparts in the metropolitan UK were. The principle of conscription for militia service goes back to the 8th century in Anglo-American civilization. Conscription for standing armies, regular or reserve, on the other hand, is something to be avoided absent real necessity; it should not be a permanent condition, and really, it was never a constant feature in the English-speaking world; it was always temporary, even if some contingencies did last decades such as the Cold War, which came immediately after a world war. It should also be noted that the Constitution is silent in terms of how armies and navies must be raised; it is left for Congress to decide, within the bounds of what is necessary and proper, and thus in at least some cases conscription is a completely constitutional method for doing so; it's always been constitutional with respect to militias, although no State in the Union has both employed and enforced universal obligation since 1860 even though it was mandated by Federal law for some time past that time (and the last State to have it, South Carolina, was forced to stop as a condition of rejoining the Union IIRC, as well as changing how it chose Presidential Electors, being the last State to use the legislature to do that). There is nothing honourable about being a Vietnam-era draft dodger, and they should have been punished. Men fulfilled their obligations even if they didn't want to do so, or volunteered and went to die while the draft dodgers shirked their duties. They should be viewed and treated with the utmost contempt by state and society. It is unfortunate that they are not. If the war is not against our people, it matters not who the President is at the time of a war. Duty is duty, and the quote comes to mind from Decatur, "Our country...may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!" That's a whole lot of statist koolaid. A strong leader could do wonders with you. If you think that, you must have had some Kool-Aid, because you don't seem to know what statism actually means. There is nothing statist about what I typed. Please show me the examples of well-regulated militias of effective fighting strength that were entirely volunteer-based. Please explain how to counter the massive conscript armies of the communists without using conscription. Please tell me how statist the Founders were to believe in conscription for militia service. This all should be interesting. Why not just sink their transport ships before they make landing on US soil? |
|
[#50]
Quoted: The ability to understand that war is necessary AND being able to come to the conclusion that conscription is against EVERYTHING the very document the conscripts are swearing to defend are not mutually exclusive. I'm patriotic and don't think dodging the draft is traitorous. You don't have to stop thinking logically to be a patriot, though it seems too common a theme. I value my rights as a free man more than the political decision to declare war knowing full well that those who make that decision will never suffer the hardships of war or wartime. You don't honestly believe that the federal politicians who conscripted all those young men to go fight for their country against their will were worrying about ration cards or getting themselves or their sons shipped off to the front, do you? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Heroes to those who think the war is unjust or that war is evil. Traitors to those who are patriotic or believe that war is necessary to counter a threat (think Pearl Harbor) The ability to understand that war is necessary AND being able to come to the conclusion that conscription is against EVERYTHING the very document the conscripts are swearing to defend are not mutually exclusive. I'm patriotic and don't think dodging the draft is traitorous. You don't have to stop thinking logically to be a patriot, though it seems too common a theme. I value my rights as a free man more than the political decision to declare war knowing full well that those who make that decision will never suffer the hardships of war or wartime. You don't honestly believe that the federal politicians who conscripted all those young men to go fight for their country against their will were worrying about ration cards or getting themselves or their sons shipped off to the front, do you? Except that that very document explicitly authorizes conscription.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.