Republican Rep Lauren Boebert or is it Annie Oakley?

[7thKeeper]

You would of course want conscription for females as well as males, right?

That is a bit more nuanced question. We have voluntary service for women currently and there has been some discussion about making it mandatory for women as well, but currently the SDF stance is against it due to practical reasons that I agree with.

If women had mandatory service, it would about double the amount of people arriving for basic training every half year. This would mean the need to double the living quarters , food supplies... well everything basically. So it would be extremely costly.

Second point is that the defence forces simply don't need that amount of people. The current service requirements train enough people to service all required jobs in the reserves a few times over (needed for covering losses during a war). Increasing more people would just give us more bodies than needed. So it would essentially be a waste for all involved. Also this point covers a fact that I don't think many people think of as war is always something waged far from where you live. When a good portion of the population leaves to serve during a crisis, someone has to pick up what those people leave open. There's a civil society that needs to function during a war as well. The current reserves in total number around 280000 IIRC with a total depth of somewhere over 900000 people.

So while on principle I am not against it, I wouldn't advocate for it due to practical reasons.

 

[7thKeeper]

Truth is truth no matter where one is. Government does not have the right to confiscate my person any more than a plantation owner would.

Yet those two concepts are utterly different. Slaves are owned, conscripts are not. And like I said, our geographical locations seem to colour our opinions. Truth is truth is a fine sentiment, but that assumes what you are saying is a universal truth.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Military conscription is as immoral as slavery.

...and yet, when I talk to pro gun folks, one of the first places they point too that is a low gun violence culture where everyone owns guns, they point to switzerland.

They don't fight wars like us, yet their are a conscripted culture. Why do you think that is? What are they doing that's so much worse than us? Where's this evil; this slavery?

 

[SigurdReginson]

That is a bit more nuanced question. We have voluntary service for women currently and there has been some discussion about making it mandatory for women as well, but currently the SDF stance is against it due to practical reasons that I agree with.

If women had mandatory service, it would about double the amount of people arriving for basic training every half year. This would mean the need to double the living quarters , food supplies... well everything basically. So it would be extremely costly.

Second point is that the defence forces simply don't need that amount of people. The current service requirements train enough people to service all required jobs in the reserves a few times over (needed for covering losses during a war). Increasing more people would just give us more bodies than needed. So it would essentially be a waste for all involved. Also this point covers a fact that I don't think many people think of as war is always something waged far from where you live. When a good portion of the population leaves to serve during a crisis, someone has to pick up what those people leave open. There's a civil society that needs to function during a war as well. The current reserves in total number around 280000 IIRC with a total depth of somewhere over 900000 people.

So while on principle I am not against it, I wouldn't advocate for it due to practical reasons.

I just think about how much money is wasted in the united states on our bloated military. We could definitely use the bulk of that to support a conscripted force instead of fancy technology that other countries are catching up to us with anyways.

I think it would even save us money in the long run, imo.

 

[Albion]

That is a bit more nuanced question.

It is not. If the justification for male conscription is as you said--the need for learning a brutal kind of discipline as an unfree possession of the state--is called for, it is something that transcends sex and gender. All are equal, etc. etc.

We have voluntary service for women currently and there has been some discussion about making it mandatory for women as well, but currently the SDF stance is against it due to practical reasons that I agree with.

If so, I cannot take seriously your original proposition that justified conscription for males.

Thank you for your reply.

If women had mandatory service, it would about double the amount of people arriving for basic training every half year. This would mean the need to double the living quarters , food supplies... well everything basically. So it would be extremely costly.

As if a standing army in which all healthy males who reach age 18 are required to be in service would not do that as well. (!)

Second point is that the defence forces simply don't need that amount of people.

Then we don't need conscription.

 

[7thKeeper]

It is not. If the justification for male conscription is as you said--the need for learning a brutal kind of discipline as an unfree possession of the state--is called for, it is something that transcends sex and gender. All are equal, etc. etc.


If so, I cannot take seriously your original proposition that justified conscription for males.

Thank you for your reply.


As if a standing army in which all healthy males who reach age 18 are required to be in service would not do that as well. (!)


Then we don't need conscription.

I'll try to parse this "rebuttal" of yours somewhat as it's mostly nonsensical rhetoric without a look at reality of things.

"the need for learning a brutal kind of discipline as an unfree possession of the state"

Well now if you think this is what conscript service is then I can see where the problem lies in you. Though I partially blame also the culture as far as military goes there. Conscript service is a needed part of society as it's the only plausible way to field a military large enough to be able to defend your homeland in the case of an invasion by a larger power. It's needed so you can learn the skills you need to defend your home and family. Now funny that you bring up the freedom part. That training is for that you can keep your freedom.

Quite frankly I'm suspecting that you have no idea what conscript service entitles. So as a rhetorical question, let's say that you arrive in the military as a conscript and begin your basic. After you've finished that and training for the specific job in the military you've chosen or been assigned to, what exactly do you think happens after that?


"If so, I cannot take seriously your original proposition that justified conscription for males."

Why is that? Practical reasons rule reality. Why wouldn't conscription for males only be justified, if it serves the purpose needed (fielding a large enough military) and leaves enough people in civil society to run it in case of war?

"As if a standing army in which all healthy males who reach age 18 are required to be in service would not do that as well. (!)"

Be expensive? Of course it is. Guess what making it double the size is? Even more expensive. I salute your deductive skills. So what exactly was the point you were trying to make?

"Then we don't need conscription."

Yes we do, as with the same amount of funds in our possession, the size of the military would be much much smaller if it was a purely professional and not up to defending the land mass required, especially when you start taking losses during war. And like I said, including everyone would result in too many to be trained for the amount of equipment possessed and the requirements of regular society to be run.

Like I said, your points are mainly empty rhetoric. But I suspect mainly having to do with where you happen to live. Different realities of life and I don't really blame you for your ignorance regarding that.

 

[Albion]

I'll try to parse this "rebuttal" of yours somewhat as it's mostly nonsensical rhetoric without a look at reality of things..

Apparently, this is not going to be a reply that is meant to convince me of anything, so I'll just pass on what follows.

 

[Speedwell]

Then perhaps countries ought to refrain from engaging in war altogether if the people in charge of government do not believe their citizens are invested enough in their country to defend it voluntarily?

That's the idea. With universal military training there would always be plenty of civilians who could be readily assembled into an army to actually defend the country. But not having a large standing army of volunteers would put a check on foreign adventurism.

 

[7thKeeper]

Apparently, this is not going to be a reply that is meant to convince me of anything, so I'll just pass on what follows.

No, what you mean is, you cannot argue it. I mean, you couldn't with your original post. All it was was a bunch of strawman arguement and seeming to argue points not made. But then again, I have watched your defense of your former president so that didn't come as a surprise.

 

[disciple Clint]

You use a vaccine to prevent someone from dying. That is what it is designed to do.
You use a gun to kill someone. That is what it is designed to do.

If that is what you believe then you should never ever have a gun, BUT there are millions of people who own guns and never kill anyone, how do you explain that? There are also many people walking around today alive and well thanks to the fact that they did have a gun. The concept that we should defund the police, let criminals out of jail without posting bail or being held even when they are a known danger to the public, and take away the only protection that many people have is beyond foolish. Any police officer will tell you that 90+ percent of the time when they arrive a truly critical event is over and done.

 

[durangodawood]

...BUT there are millions of people who own guns and never kill anyone, how do you explain that?...

The opportunity to use as intended hasnt arisen yet.

I agree with the right to bear certain small arms. But denying that these guns were designed to be deadly force doesnt help the discussion at all.

 

[Albion]

No, what you mean is, you cannot argue it. I mean, you couldn't with your original post. All it was was a bunch of strawman arguement and seeming to argue points not made. But then again, I have watched your defense of your former president so that didn't come as a surprise.

...which seems only to prove me correct in thinking that a real answer wasn't wanted but just an opportunity to vent.

I would recommend disciple Clint's reply in post #30 if you insist on having a sensible and persuasive response to rail against.

 

[Speedwell]

The concept that we should defund the police, let criminals out of jail without posting bail or being held even when they are a known danger to the public, and take away the only protection that many people have is beyond foolish. Any police officer will tell you that 90+ percent of the time when they arrive a truly critical event is over and done.

That's on the court system, not the police. The police do a pretty good job of bringing people in, it's the courts that let them go again. But that's not something that people on either side of the issue ever seem to want to talk about, so I'll let it go. My point is, that "defunding the police" is only thought to mean abolishing policing services entirely by extreme fringe loonies. Saner people are willing to consider re-imagining and restructuring police services before we give them any more money.

 

[Sketcher]

Republican Representative Lauren Boebert has posted a video of herself posing around Washinton carrying a weapon. viral digital ad
She also managed to get a mention during her city walkabout for the restaurant that she owns. Clever. The city's police chief has said that the department will be speaking to Boebert about her little stunt.
I just find it incredible that at a time when almost 4000 Americans are dying each day because of the covid virus that this woman's priority is about ensuring that people have something, which like covid, has form when it comes to killing Americans.

Gun ownership went up when the lockdowns began. More Americans without guns felt that obtaining guns would be a safer option.

Washington DC has a reputation for violent crime, and it makes sense to carry there. Its ban on handguns in the home was found to be unconstitutional, as handguns are commonly used for self-defense.

 

[disciple Clint]

The opportunity to use as intended hasnt arisen yet.

I agree with the right to bear certain small arms. But denying that these guns were designed to be deadly force doesnt help the discussion at all.

Ignoring that thousands of people use guns for hunting and shooting sports and trying to focus on a negative position that guns are for killing people is insincere at best.

 

[7thKeeper]

...which seems only to prove me correct in thinking that a real answer wasn't wanted but just an opportunity to vent.

I would recommend disciple Clint's reply in post #30 if you insist on having a sensible and persuasive response to rail against.

I could take that a bit more seriously if the answer to what I originally wrote was a bit more than just "No, there is no nuance to this" , ignore the arguements given for my position to show why there is nuance to the question answered and seeming to attribute things I never argued. Such as the "all are equal", which has nothing to do with what I said and was never mentioned. And the weird "the need for learning a brutal kind of discipline as an unfree possession of the state" , which is just disrespectful towards all militaries for the image it gives out as to what being a soldier means.

If he can't take having his arguements called empathy rhetoric, if thats too much, then perhaps a debate forum on the internet isn't the right place to be at. He could simply come back and argue his point. Yet he chose not to address anything.

 

[durangodawood]

Ignoring that thousands of people use guns for hunting and shooting sports and trying to focus on a negative position that guns are for killing people is insincere at best.

Guns for killing people is not "the negative position". Its the heart of pro gun justifications for a strong 2nd Amdmt: personal/home protection, and a bulwark against tyranny. Those require guns that are designed to kill people. If this is negative or embarrassing or morally intolerable, then perhaps you should consider a UK style regime that permits only a narrow range of tightly registered hunting arms.

 

[98cwitr]

Republican Representative Lauren Boebert has posted a video of herself posing around Washinton carrying a weapon. viral digital ad
She also managed to get a mention during her city walkabout for the restaurant that she owns. Clever. The city's police chief has said that the department will be speaking to Boebert about her little stunt.
I just find it incredible that at a time when almost 4000 Americans are dying each day because of the covid virus that this woman's priority is about ensuring that people have something, which like covid, has form when it comes to killing Americans.

Good for her. She has every right to her 2nd amendment and to defend herself. Unlike covid, a gun doesn't kill people, people kill people [with a variety of tools/weapons].