Gun Control

[TPoptarts]

Uh... because I can lift heavy stuff they can't? I know guys who can't even lift a bike while I can carry a bike like a purse or something (I don't carry purses though I'm a backpack person. )

I'm kinda muscular for my size. Even though I don't work out

[Elessar]

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.

It clouds the real issues you're talking about when you say both parties are forcing more control, because they are attempting control on different issues. The Dems want more control on gun laws, yes, but they're a hell of a lot more concerned right now with restoring the civil liberties that have been curtailed. You may disagree with both situations, but they are different. Don't loose perspective on how much MORE freedom we have than many other cultures. To speak so offhandedly about how much freedom we're losing every day to these parties forcing more and more control on us is to forget that. "We're a liberty people", it IS important to us.

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...

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.

I know what the physical fitness standards are in the Marines, as well, and YES there is a double standard, but you're not getting the point. The term "double standard" is not inherently negative, it just means there are two standards. Sometimes there are SUPPOSED to be two standards because two things are different enough such that they call for two standards... like the sexes. For example, would you call it a "double standard" if a new economy mileage legislation came out (which they are doing) which held hatchbacks to at least 28 MPG and SUVs to 20 MPG, as if to imply they ought to be the same? No, because everyone knows an SUV fundamentally cannot get hte same mileage as a hatchback because it's built differently, it's not as equipped to perform to that standard. There are different standards for women because women perform differently, plain and simple. These other women here who HAVE served are telling you the exact same thing.

Another thing I can tell you for a fact is this: the attrition rate at USMC OCS is triple for women what it is for men. Why? Because they injure more easily. That's not a sexist comment it's a fact right out of the mouth of a girl I've know who's been to OCS twice and NPQ'd both times for injuries.

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.

That wasn't a yes or no question. The first option and the second option are different.

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.

You can accuse all you want but the female body is different than a man's, plain and simple. They don't produce as much growth hormone, without testosterone supplements they have a very hard time building muscle mass, they have a higher body fat % which is directly related to the presence of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies, there are more. It's not outdated sexism, it's a fact combined with experience of people who know.

There ARE girls who run like the wind, but it's not the rule. The Marine Corps standard PFT has a perfect score of running 3 miles in 18 minutes, performing 20 pullups, and 100 crunches in 2 minutes or less. Right now I'm running a mile in about 6:00, two miles in about 13:30 and 3 miles in about 21:00. I'm up to the 100 crunches mark but only about 10 pullups. At OCS they don't test pushups because they make you do plenty of them on a daily basis, but I know they test them at enlisted boot." The women have their own standards which is a 70 second flexed arm hang instead of pullups and a 21:00 best for the 3-mile run. And there are women who can perform to the Marine Corps standards, which for men are equal-to-or-greater-than the "Recommended" capabilities for entrants to the Army Rangers. The physical standards at the Marines are higher than any other branch and as high as most special operations units, so even the women's standards are pretty high up there, so I'm sure those women who can do that, could do others.

However, I wouldn't be against them abolishing the two-fold standard in the Marines between men and women. That would be perfectly fine with me because it would produce a more uniformly effective fighting force. But I guarantee you you'll see a lot fewer women in the Marines if they did that. You may still contend that it's some kind of medical propaganda, but there will not be the same % of women who can perform to a given physical standard as there will be men, taken as a sample out of the general population. I will argue that's a fact.

[CX]

It clouds the real issues you're talking about when you say both parties are forcing more control, because they are attempting control on different issues. The Dems want more control on gun laws, yes, but they're a hell of a lot more concerned right now with restoring the civil liberties that have been curtailed. You may disagree with both situations, but they are different. Don't loose perspective on how much MORE freedom we have than many other cultures. To speak so offhandedly about how much freedom we're losing every day to these parties forcing more and more control on us is to forget that. "We're a liberty people", it IS important to us.

The Dems just want to curtail different liberties, that's the only difference. And as the two parties become more and more polarized...

I know what the physical fitness standards are in the Marines, as well, and YES there is a double standard, but you're not getting the point. The term "double standard" is not inherently negative, it just means there are two standards. Sometimes there are SUPPOSED to be two standards because two things are different enough such that they call for two standards... like the sexes. For example, would you call it a "double standard" if a new economy mileage legislation came out (which they are doing) which held hatchbacks to at least 28 MPG and SUVs to 20 MPG, as if to imply they ought to be the same? No, because everyone knows an SUV fundamentally cannot get hte same mileage as a hatchback because it's built differently, it's not as equipped to perform to that standard. There are different standards for women because women perform differently, plain and simple. These other women here who HAVE served are telling you the exact same thing.

I guess I've seen differently, though in the Air Force our standards weren't as strenuous for the PFT. And none of these women were really "built".

Another thing I can tell you for a fact is this: the attrition rate at USMC OCS is triple for women what it is for men. Why? Because they injure more easily. That's not a sexist comment it's a fact right out of the mouth of a girl I've know who's been to OCS twice and NPQ'd both times for injuries.

You know how close I came to a medical discharge after injuring my ankle at Field Training? And the female cadet that helped me off the of the obsticle course had stress fractures in her legs, but she was still on her feet again before I was.

That wasn't a yes or no question. The first option and the second option are different.

Not really. I think women should have to register for the draft, and I think it should be more equal across the board.

You can accuse all you want but the female body is different than a man's, plain and simple. They don't produce as much growth hormone, without testosterone supplements they have a very hard time building muscle mass, they have a higher body fat % which is directly related to the presence of estrogen and progesterone in their bodies, there are more. It's not outdated sexism, it's a fact combined with experience of people who know.

Did you even read any of what I said? I was talking about my experiance with people I know.

However, I wouldn't be against them abolishing the two-fold standard in the Marines between men and women. That would be perfectly fine with me because it would produce a more uniformly effective fighting force. But I guarantee you you'll see a lot fewer women in the Marines if they did that. You may still contend that it's some kind of medical propaganda, but there will not be the same % of women who can perform to a given physical standard as there will be men, taken as a sample out of the general population. I will argue that's a fact.

"You may be whatever you resolve to be." - Stonewall Jackson

[enterprikayak]

physically and psychologically like a man is, on average.

I think before we worry overmuch about the physical side, we should also think about the psychology. Psychologically, there are SO MANY women who would find the idea of the armed forces abhorrent. Not because we're weak willed and hysterical, but because there are (I think) many MORE women than men who would disagree with the violence and the killing on principle.

And as for the argument that we're just as strong, I agree that a woman can be waaay stronger than a man, especially if she works out like crazy, and the man is a cream puff. I know lotsa cream puff males just asking for a muscly lady to smack 'em into shape.

However....a woman having her period while out on duty in Iraq or something would be an extreme disadvantage to her compared to her male buddies. Obviously, there are woman combatants who deal with this. I'm just saying. If you're bleeding for a week and you're out actually being a soldier and in the thick of things....where you gonna go to change your tampon? Leave a tampon alone long enough, you've got Toxic Shock Syndrome and you can die. Something the men don't have to think about.

Also, I used to be a good runner. Now I have these D cup milk factories clinging to my front and no matter what sports bra I wear, they just bounce and boing. (Bra technology begins to fail rapidly as you move out of a C and towards DD). Running is extremely hard for me.

What do the men think of this?

[evcake]

That reminds me. Women perform a service to the state that no man can. And it is long forgotten that they used to do this a great risk. Apologies if this has already been mentioned.

[CoffeeCat]

^ I hope your not referring to child birth because I didn't do that for the fakking state. Nor does the state own my children, Nor does the state own me. If you're an American it's supposed to be vice versa: We The People own the state. don't forget it.

[TSara]

That would be perfectly fine with me because it would produce a more uniformly effective fighting force. But I guarantee you you'll see a lot fewer women in the Marines if they did that. You may still contend that it's some kind of medical propaganda, but there will not be the same % of women who can perform to a given physical standard as there will be men, taken as a sample out of the general population. I will argue that's a fact.

I don't agree with the 1st sentence on a personal level,but I do agree that if the standards were changed you'd see a lot less woman in.

I'll guess and say most of the woman that are in today would be kicked out if the standards be changed.

I know that the women Air-force Capitan, Staff Sergent and Airman I work with would no longer be allowed in....that would be true for most woman I served with/work with.

As it is right now...The Army is working on changing it's weight standard and how they tape people. A friend of mine who was passing the old tape standard is now having a very hard time passing the new standard...and she is IN a combat zone...working her forth point of contact off. I have heard that they are so many woman having issues that the Army may scrap the plan.....but nothing is solid as of yet.

I've worked with the Navy and Air-Force and our barracks were next door to the Marines....I've seen the different walks of military life at least on some levels.....I can only tell you about what I saw. Not many service members get the opportunity to serve on a joint service post. More do now because of the war....but I believe the odds are still kinda small.




Ok another question...What about those that are on perminate profiles because they can not run due to Asthma or another injury....so they walk for the FPT. Should they be discharged?

[evcake]

I trust I forget no pearl of wisdom gently offered.

[Elessar]

"You may be whatever you resolve to be." - Stonewall Jackson

That's a romantic idea to be sure, unfortunately Stonewall didn't have any medical background... there are real limitations, even regardless of mental strength. I realize you were talking about people you know your own experience, and obviously I can't contend against that, I'm just arguing about the general population, the science behind the physical capability of men and women worldwide.

T'Sara, I didn't mean to be saying we'd have a much more uniformly effective fighting force if we got rid of women -- if that's what you thought I was saying that wasn't what I meant. What I meant was, regardless of the sex of the person, if we took the higher of the two standards we have today (which happens to be for the men) and universalized it to both sexes, then when all is said and done, you'd have a more physically capable force all in all, regardless of what the sexes were. Because then to be IN, the women would be performing at that higher level, that's all I'm saying.

[blacknblue]

Right or wrong, the people we send into battle are facing male soldiers. What are the realities of combat today? (I am honestly asking. I am not a veteran.) If the soldiers we send into battle are facing male soldiers one on one in a test of brute strength against brute strength, then they need to be able to match them strength for strength. And to blazing hell with political correctness or equal employment opportunity. If we are sending soldiers into battle where physical strength, ability to absorb damage, ability to pick up a comrade and carry them at a dead run, etc. are no longer of serious importance (again, I do not know whether this is true or not. I am not a vet.) then I see no objection to allowing women into combat.

But plain and simple. Our soldiers need to be able to win the fight. If the women we send into combat can win, fine and dandy. NO problem. But watering down the requirements is not only unwise, it is criminally insane if it weakens our military to the point that we are unable to face the male enemy soldiers and kick their asses.

Again, and again, I DO NOT KNOW the answer to this. I am not a Veteran. I am ASKING whether this is the case. Do the current standards for women in the military allow them to be tough enough to meet male enemy soldier under realistic modern combat conditions and win? If so, then fine. If not, then dump them and make the women meet the same standards as the men do. Screw philosophical debates about what the world should or should not be like. The purpose of a military is to fight for its people AND WIN. If we can win with the current standards, great. NO problem. If not. BIG problem. Simple as that.

[CX]

I think before we worry overmuch about the physical side, we should also think about the psychology. Psychologically, there are SO MANY women who would find the idea of the armed forces abhorrent. Not because we're weak willed and hysterical, but because there are (I think) many MORE women than men who would disagree with the violence and the killing on principle.

If they join the military then they should come to accept that, or they have no business being in the military. The military's job is to kill people and break things, and if someone has a problem with that, then they better not join up. Remember, it's still an all volunteer force.

And as for the argument that we're just as strong, I agree that a woman can be waaay stronger than a man, especially if she works out like crazy, and the man is a cream puff. I know lotsa cream puff males just asking for a muscly lady to smack 'em into shape.

The woman that kicked my ass was built about like Linda Park, and this was before I got horribly out of shape. Women don't need to be Ms. Universe to compete with men, there just needs to be more realistic standards.

However....a woman having her period while out on duty in Iraq or something would be an extreme disadvantage to her compared to her male buddies. Obviously, there are woman combatants who deal with this. I'm just saying. If you're bleeding for a week and you're out actually being a soldier and in the thick of things....where you gonna go to change your tampon? Leave a tampon alone long enough, you've got Toxic Shock Syndrome and you can die. Something the men don't have to think about.

No, we just have to put up with our female comrade during her period. I guess what it comes down to is adaptability, and like anything else, you have to just deal with it. I guess women would have to carry her tampons with her and change them out in the field if that's what it takes.

Also, I used to be a good runner. Now I have these D cup milk factories clinging to my front and no matter what sports bra I wear, they just bounce and boing. (Bra technology begins to fail rapidly as you move out of a C and towards DD). Running is extremely hard for me.

Which is probably why there aren't too many women built like Pamela Anderson in the military.

Ok another question...What about those that are on perminate profiles because they can not run due to Asthma or another injury....so they walk for the FPT. Should they be discharged?

Yes. Don't they already? I nearly didn't get in because of my lungs and my flat feet, but I don't need a breather or any special footwear for those conditions either.

That's a romantic idea to be sure, unfortunately Stonewall didn't have any medical background... there are real limitations, even regardless of mental strength. I realize you were talking about people you know your own experience, and obviously I can't contend against that, I'm just arguing about the general population, the science behind the physical capability of men and women worldwide.

What it comes down to to me is: who do I believe? Some statistics in some book or magazine no doubt published by the same people who gave of the gem "women don't belong in combat because they'll catch infections from sitting in ditches", or my own two eyes?

What I meant was, regardless of the sex of the person, if we took the higher of the two standards we have today (which happens to be for the men) and universalized it to both sexes, then when all is said and done, you'd have a more physically capable force all in all, regardless of what the sexes were.

Or a more realistic middle ground could be found.

Again, and again, I DO NOT KNOW the answer to this. I am not a Veteran. I am ASKING whether this is the case. Do the current standards for women in the military allow them to be tough enough to meet male enemy soldier under realistic modern combat conditions and win? If so, then fine. If not, then dump them and make the women meet the same standards as the men do. Screw philosophical debates about what the world should or should not be like. The purpose of a military is to fight for its people AND WIN. If we can win with the current standards, great. NO problem. If not. BIG problem. Simple as that.

Isreal seems to still be alive and kicking, and they field female soldiers, and they did during the Six Day War as well when they were fighting for their lives.

[JadziaKathryn]

I think before we worry overmuch about the physical side, we should also think about the psychology. Psychologically, there are SO MANY women who would find the idea of the armed forces abhorrent. Not because we're weak willed and hysterical, but because there are (I think) many MORE women than men who would disagree with the violence and the killing on principle.

If they join the military then they should come to accept that, or they have no business being in the military. The military's job is to kill people and break things, and if someone has a problem with that, then they better not join up. Remember, it's still an all volunteer force.

But you've said that you favor women being forced to register for the draft. That argument then goes out the window.

[prisocisor]

I find this all SO intriguing...

Although I work for Canada's Department of Nation Defense... am in superb physical shape... am not encumbered by bouncing bosoms, nor bleed several times a year, I:

have NO interest in owning/handling a gun,
have NO interest in all things military; and,
would be the first one running-for-the-hills, if Canada was ever so daft as to consider conscription again.

Am I wrong?

[TSara]

I find this all SO intriguing...

Although I, work for Canada's Department of Nation Defense... am in superb physical shape... am not encumbered by bouncing bosoms, nor bleed several times a year, I:

have NO interest in owning/handling a gun,
have NO interest in all things military; and,
would be the first one running-for-the-hills, if Canada was ever so daft as to consider conscription again.

Am I wrong?

To each his own as I always say.

What works for you may not work for me and vica versa.

*nods*

[Elessar]

I think before we worry overmuch about the physical side, we should also think about the psychology. Psychologically, there are SO MANY women who would find the idea of the armed forces abhorrent. Not because we're weak willed and hysterical, but because there are (I think) many MORE women than men who would disagree with the violence and the killing on principle.

If they join the military then they should come to accept that, or they have no business being in the military. The military's job is to kill people and break things, and if someone has a problem with that, then they better not join up. Remember, it's still an all volunteer force.

But you've said that you favor women being forced to register for the draft. That argument then goes out the window.

Not to mention, the argument here still being made is that women have no biological limitations to match the physical conditioning of men and that therefore if you tested 1000 average males and 1000 average females at a certain physical level, men would not significantly out perform women on the average. Just saying that women who enter the armed forces should be prepared to kill and break things does not support the argument that ALL women are capable of making that choice or adopting that mental state, and all you've really said is that you think all women should be drafted equally viably as men. Here's the problem: you're thinking that all women really ARE the way Heinlein portrays them, or the way Aeryn Sun portrays them, or maybe the way a few specific women you know or knew in the armed forces represent them. But that's not the rule. Go to a mall and hang out outide a DEB, and you'll see the average woman, and that's not a derogatory statement.

I mean in Nature we see gender roles in a given species all the time. In lions, the women actually do the hunting while the men just lay around and relax. What I'm driving at here is that every species has roles for the sexes and Nature has built them biologically with those roles in mind, in no species on the planet that produce sexually the way we do, do we see symmetry of physical prowess or, I'm doubting, any other trait for that matter. Humans are no different in that respect than animals: we were built by nature, and men and women were built by nature for different things.



NOW! Before the feminists absolutely tear me to shreds for saying women aren't built for some things, or that women aren't "supposed" to be strong or in the military, that's totally not what I'm saying. For a woman to work out and build muscle mass is a process that is hindered by her biology and therefore, "against Nature", but normally a person makes that statement with a kind of sanctity attached to the concept of Nature and what Nature dictates and all that garb but I don't. If we didn't go "against Nature", we'd still be clubbing each other over the heads for dinging our side mirrors. And even though some people DO behave that way, our entire way of life is proof that in many ways, we humans are already behaving "against Nature" in that we are attempting to evolve away from what we have been in the past by biological compulsion, into something different by our own psychological and social compulsion. So there is nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with something being done "against Nature". In fact, to villify such a description as "against God" or some other irrelevant euphemism is to completely abandon any hope or attempt at understanding how we have evolved as animal creatures and how we continue to evolve as social and psychological creatures. We're the first creature on the planet to become capable of moving away from our biological compulsions by psychological will -- and that's what allows us to DECIDE not to simply yield to are basic biological compulsions.

For example, I'd like to sleep, my body is telling me to sleep... but I have to drive to the airport in 2 hours