Gun Control

[evcake]

Elessar makes so many interesting suggestions, and the quotes have gotten so numerous, I'm just going to use the block that intrigued me most.

To try and assuage Jadzia's misgivings of the idea, we can generalize "required service" to include plenty of things not even close to combat. I mean this is a pretty outmoded example, but for instance the nurses in the Navy in WW2, or the women working in factories making warheads. I mean some women would want to serve, do want to serve, DO serve; and that should be allowed. But no, I don't think every woman should be forced to serve, in a combat capacity, because I don't think every woman can. Indeed many people don't believe any woman can. But I think there are plent of "Federal service" jobs that a person, not just women, who didn't wish to be employed in any kind of combat or military capacity could fulfill.

Being a mailman, working in a tax office, teaching WIC courses to expecting mothers, doing clerical work at ANY concievable government office, working in any number of what are currently volunteer government programs, like taking meals to old people on social security benefits programs, stuff like that. There would be tons and tons and tons of varied jobs that people could do to "serve their country", and I personally think it would work out fantastically. Like BnB suggested, it would be every so many years, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be for the rest of your life, like Guard duty isn't... it could just have a required term of like 3 or 4 years where you have to go and do whatever job you are signed up for, one weekend a month and two weeks a year, or something of that nature. I think it would tremendously help the government's ability to produce in all manner of programs and services, give people a strong patriotic sense of accomplishment even without any kind of GRRR marines kind of thing, and legitamize how sacred we hold American citizenship.

This might give us a certain...commonality we lack. Even as diverse as the services might be.

[blacknblue]

I was just thinking, that's all. The gun control liberals are constantly harping on the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment. So why not bring it back? In actual fact the country began on the premise that every citizen bore a responsibility to help defend his country in time of need. Even now, every able bodied male is supposed to register for the draft, just in case. So why not give the idea some reality again. Make it a civic responsibility for every citizen to put in some time, even if it is just a nominal period of time at some type of community service as Ellessar suggested. Some people will recognize (Rigil for one) that Heinlein proposed this in his book Starship Troopers. But the basic idea was already in place from the very beginning of the country, with the Minutemen and Paul Revere's ride. It would settle the controversy. Nobody could argue about the "well regulated militia" language in the second amendment anymore if everyone was automatically a member of the militia or its social equivalent.

[evcake]

Then again, it might end up being a combination of high school and boot camp.

[JadziaKathryn]

Oh, well, I'd be okay with mandatory community service of some type. A bunch of European countries do that already - a year in the military, or a year of community service.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Oh, well, I'd be okay with mandatory community service of some type. A bunch of European countries do that already - a year in the military, or a year of community service.

Well, speaking for Sweden, in theory we have a mandatory draft. But due to recent disarmaments over the past 15-20 years, only 10 per cent of young men actually do military service nowadays (we don't have community service per se). I did mine for a year in 1989-90, but not long after that the begun the drastic post-cold war cuts.

[CX]

I'm not a big fan of double standards, and to me the first thing that should happen is that women should have to register for the draft the same way men do in order to receive the same federal benefits. If I hadn't registered, while they couldn't come arrest me, I would be SOL when it came to school because I wouldn't get any of the federal grants or loans that I get to pay for that. I think women should have to go through the same process. I also think that women should be up for the same duty as men, because guess what - not all men are capable of being the grunt on the front line with a rifle either. People are assigned according to their abilities and the needs of the service, and that should extend to women, and not on a voluntary basis. If you join the military, you accept the risks involved with doing that, including being sent to the two-way shooting range.

[Elessar]

I'm not a big fan of double standards, and to me the first thing that should happen is that women should have to register for the draft the same way men do in order to receive the same federal benefits. If I hadn't registered, while they couldn't come arrest me, I would be SOL when it came to school because I wouldn't get any of the federal grants or loans that I get to pay for that. I think women should have to go through the same process. I also think that women should be up for the same duty as men, because guess what - not all men are capable of being the grunt on the front line with a rifle either. People are assigned according to their abilities and the needs of the service, and that should extend to women, and not on a voluntary basis. If you join the military, you accept the risks involved with doing that, including being sent to the two-way shooting range.

Back to your first comment about Libertarianism first -- I'm not confusing them, there's a different ordering that I'm arguing for. I know that they're not the same, what I am arguing is that pure libertarianism would LEAD to anarchism, which is not the same thing as saying they are one and the same. Libertarianism, like any other political ideology, can be included into a political system by picking and choosing what you want from it, just like we actually do with everything -- and that presents no problems... I mean you could say we ARE part libertarian already because we so highly value freedom. What I was arguing was that if we truly allowed anyone to own any weapon because we valued freedom to do so above all else, then that is a pure libertarian society, and it would lead to anarchism (not anarCHY) and vigiliantism, which I'm not condemning, I'm just making an impartial observation that one would lead to the other. You've got to understand that I'm not critcisizing libertarianism, I'm just arguing that psychologically, the state of mind that MY liberty, MY Freedom is worth more than anything else, is completely at odds with a group-society working together in common cause, unless you have some other principles to counteract them, like we do. Our government is always a balance between fascism, libertarianism and socialism... really what everyone argues about each day are just the relative proportions.

But back to the latter statement. I agree that women should have to register for Selective Service, if that's what you mean. But when you say "I don't agree with double standards", that implies that there's an improper double standard being exacted between men and women in uniform... Now, are you saying that's wrong because they should both be required to register for SS, or are you saying it's wrong because you favor a completely even playing field across the board with regard to men and women in uniform as is depicted in Starship Troopers? Because the latter idea is absolutely bunk: there is a reason there's a "double standard" in this paricular case, and that is that men and women do not perform physically to the same "standard" on average. And before I'm attacked for it (if I am), let me say that it's not an outdated chauvenistic stereotype, it's a physiological and psychological reality. Women can serve, and I'm willing to bet some women can serve in combat, but it's not scientifically valid to suggest that ALL women can serve in combat, because on average, a woman is not built physically and psychologically like a man is, on average. Yes, there are men who can't handle combat either, so by saying that combat is the average man's job and not the average woman's job, I'm not saying it's ALL men's job, I'm just saying it's not ALL women's job.

Another comment worth making is that it should be noted that most positions in the military -- conventionally, prior to the War in Iraq -- were non-combat oriented. What I mean by that is, prior to 2003, if you enlisted in the Army, you could go and 94P (MLRS repairer), or 98G (Cryptologic Linguist), or 52D (Power Generation Equipment Repairer) and in a European-Theatre type battlefield, you would be almost as far from combat as possible, in other words, relatively safe. In an asymmetric battlefield like Iraq, however, that is no longer the case. There is no front line anymore, so there is no combat zone to be far from, it's just all around you. Which is exceptionally frightening to those who enlisted or commissioned under the auspices of a non-combat oriented job prior to 2003. So I just want to emphasize that in most combat zones, or perhaps it's more accurate to say conventional combat zones, there are plenty of military positions to take that do not involve firint your weapon, yet still require the enlistee/candidate to accept a certain level of risk. Naturally, if you're going in as a water reclamation specialist, you are going to be expecting a lower level of danger than someone going in as a special operations weapons sergeant. But still, I can agree with CX in that, those who go Guard or Reserve and then whine when they are deployed, should have been more introspective about their decision.

[CX]

Libertarianism, like any other political ideology, can be included into a political system by picking and choosing what you want from it, just like we actually do with everything -- and that presents no problems... I mean you could say we ARE part libertarian already because we so highly value freedom.

No we're not. Both of the major political parties are forcing more and more control on the American public at large. There are things that are restricted that ought not to be. There is talk of restricting things that ought not to be. And when I say that, I mean within reasonable limits. I do not subscribe to the ideal that people are too stupid to know what's best for them. That is the way to tyranny. My ideal is that individual rights stop only where they interfer with the rights of others. That wouldn't lead to anarchy, if anything it would lead to people being forced to take more personal responsibility.

ut when you say "I don't agree with double standards", that implies that there's an improper double standard being exacted between men and women in uniform...

That's because there is. I've been in uniform and I know plenty of men and women who have also been in uniform or still are. I've seen what the standards are in even the physical fitness test we all had to take every semester.

Now, are you saying that's wrong because they should both be required to register for SS, or are you saying it's wrong because you favor a completely even playing field across the board with regard to men and women in uniform as is depicted in Starship Troopers?

Yes.

Because the latter idea is absolutely bunk:

Only in the completeness of the integration.

there is a reason there's a "double standard" in this paricular case, and that is that men and women do not perform physically to the same "standard" on average.

With all due respect, bullshit. Every woman that was in my home detachment at the frakkin' University of North Dakota, could do more than the minimum required pushups for men when my sorry ass always had a had time of it, and almost all of them could do the run in the maximum allowable time for men too. The standards back then for men were 30 pushups and a mile and a half in 12 minutes or less. The female standards were 9 pushups and the run in 16 minutes (IIRC). Women, if properly trained and motivated, can perform as much as they would realistically have to in a combat situation as Joe Shmoe could. Tell you what, there was a friend of mine here at UND, who was maybe 5 foot tall if she wore heels, and weighed maybe 90 to 100 pounds, and she laid me on my back in the time it took me to blink, and I was ready for her, or at least I thought I was. I'm just over 6 foot tall and back then I was still a good 190 pounds back when I was in fighting condition, and I've been in my fair share of fights. You need to get over these old outdated so-called "facts" that say women are less capable than they are. Like a character on GI Jane said, women are just the new nigger as far as the military is concerned. Back in the day they had scientific data that "proved" how inferior the black man was, which is why he couldn't fight even if he could be in the military. The Navy was especially bad about that, but the Army wasn't much better. Minorities in the military were called all manner of names too for wanting the chance to fight for their country, and "selfish" was one of them. The same thing is happening right now to women. Somehow men who want to fight are seen as heroes, but women who want to fight are thought of as strange, or selfish for demanding the right to fight for their country.

Oh, and yes, this is a very personal thing for me.


The only thing that should matter is if a person is able to do the job itself, and if they can't, then they have no business in the military, period.

[JadziaKathryn]

With all due respect, CX, you're only talking about some women who could perform physically. Of course some can, but I will be so bold as to posit that most can't. I surely can't. Honestly, some things just don't work. Have you ever considered that it is hard and somewhat painful to run if a woman's chest is large?

Besides, you mentioned that there were different standards for women in the military. I say if women want to be in the military, that's completely their choice but they should be able to fulfill the same physical requirements as the men. Otherwise, it's putting her and others in danger. Just my opinion.

[TSara]

[q]Besides, you mentioned that there were different standards for women in the military. I say if women want to be in the military, that's completely their choice but they should be able to fulfill the same physical requirements as the men. Otherwise, it's putting her and others in danger. Just my opinion.[/q]

I was in the military....I am a woman.

Let me just say that in my years in I only met one woman who could run 2 miles and keep up with the guys. The guys have to run two miles in NO more than 15:12 for a 17-21 male in order to pass.....I have seen a woman do it in about 15:30ish...but she was built. Most of us could do it in 16 or 17 minutes. http://military.plainfacts.net/category/fitness/



Most of us COULD make the standard.....BUT It was OUR standard that was set for us woman.



The Army knows that most woman are physically not able to meet or exceed the standards set by a man....BUT WE DO HOLD OUR OWN.

Just my experience.

[blacknblue]

I have a question that relates to this, and also relates (in a distant way) to an old thread that got eaten in the crash. It has to do with the relative strength of a woman versus a man.

You said:

I was in the military....I am a woman.

Let me just say that in my years in I only met one woman who could run 2 miles and keep up with the guys. The guys have to run two miles in NO more than 15:12 for a 17-21 male in order to pass.....I have seen a woman do it in about 15:30ish...but she was built. Most of us could do it in 16 or 17 minutes. http://military.plainfacts.net/category/fitness/



Most of us COULD make the standard.....BUT It was OUR standard that was set for us woman.



The Army knows that most woman are physically not able to meet or exceed the standards set by a man....BUT WE DO HOLD OUR OWN.

Just my experience.

Based on your own experience, as a female military veteran, what would you estimate that ratio of strength between men and women to be? I have seen estimates that range from 30% all the way up to 300%.

I am not after an authoritarian decree or anything. Just your best guess based on your opinion. How much stronger do you think men are then women? On average?

No offense intended BTW. I am just curious.

[TSara]

I have a question that relates to this, and also relates (in a distant way) to an old thread that got eaten in the crash. It has to do with the relative strength of a woman versus a man.

You said:

I was in the military....I am a woman.

Let me just say that in my years in I only met one woman who could run 2 miles and keep up with the guys. The guys have to run two miles in NO more than 15:12 for a 17-21 male in order to pass.....I have seen a woman do it in about 15:30ish...but she was built. Most of us could do it in 16 or 17 minutes. http://military.plainfacts.net/category/fitness/



Most of us COULD make the standard.....BUT It was OUR standard that was set for us woman.



The Army knows that most woman are physically not able to meet or exceed the standards set by a man....BUT WE DO HOLD OUR OWN.

Just my experience.

Based on your own experience, as a female military veteran, what would you estimate that ratio of strength between men and women to be? I have seen estimates that range from 30% all the way up to 300%.

I am not after an authoritarian decree or anything. Just your best guess based on your opinion. How much stronger do you think men are then women? On average?

No offense intended BTW. I am just curious.

It's been a few years so bear with me....I'd say at least 60% of the guys I served with were stronger than I was....But than again I'm also a wee thing. 5 feet 1 inch.

Based on what I saw I'd say this was true for most woman that I served with.

This is only what I saw. Someone else's experience may be different from mine.

No offense taken by the way....from anyone.

[blacknblue]

What do think the ratio would be, given approximately equal size and body type?

For example, if a man was your height and about the same type of build, about how much stronger in terms of brute muscle mass would you expect him to be? If any?

[TPoptarts]

I'm a girl 5'0" average build I guess. And I don't work out. I don't know any guys like my size and build only bigger and taller. I'm stronger than some of them and I match some others and well obviously some of them are stronger than me. Especially those who actually work out a lot. (Well it's a beach town in California, the Gym State )

[blacknblue]

I'm a girl 5'0" average build I guess. And I don't work out. I don't know any guys like my size and build only bigger and taller. I'm stronger than some of them and I match some others and well obviously some of them are stronger than me. Especially those who actually work out a lot. (Well it's a beach town in California, the Gym State )

Are you actually stronger than some of them? How do you know?