Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft?
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That may be a difficult question from a societal standpoint, but the answer is straightforward, according to a legal analysis. On Thursday, the Pentagon will lift its ban on women in combat.
By Anna Mulrine

Christian Science Monitor

Now that the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat, does this mean that women could potentially be drafted, too?

And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?

It’s a thorny question, raising what may be a difficult prospect societally. But the legal implications are obvious, analysts argue.

“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”

-------------------------------------------

This seems interesting in many ways and here are just a few.

So women will be made more free by being forced to go into combat like the men are, or they get to go to jail. It seems like the more free and safe Obama tries to make us, the more we are being criminalized.

The President who never served and who may have had his Selective Service registration illegally backdated is now going to be the one who forces women to register for the draft.

Even some liberals who are all for equal rights apparently have their limits and this brushes up against them very closely and for some even crosses the line.

While many conservatives are against this in principle they see and can't help but be morbidly amused by the obvious train wreck that is coming culturally and militarily if this is implemented and we really draft women purposefully for front line combat. I guess those bringing it into play figure they will be long gone by then and it will help in the next few election cycles though so it's worth it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would be very surprised, indeed, if women were added to Selective Service. I consider it more likely that SS would be eliminated altogether.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the way many of the liberals now in charge were so heated up about the draft for the Vietnam War, yes you might think they'd do away with it especially since we're supposed to start enjoying that peace dividend any time now that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has taken command of the situation.

On the other hand, one of the liberals' main beefs seems to be that the elites are able to wiggle out of the draft while the poor have to go serve so if they throw the women in there maybe they figure that would make it easier to force the rich kids to go fight as well. To be honest I'm not quite sure what the thought process behind this is.

In a way, I'm for it. I might even go further and suggest that if we really want fairness, we would draft ONLY women for the next few wars since men have had to shoulder that burden in all the wars up to now.

If they are really the equal of men, they should do fine.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In a way, I'm for it. I might even go further and suggest that if we really want fairness, we would draft ONLY women for the next few wars since men have had to shoulder that burden in all the wars up to now."

If your horror at the idea of women fighting would make you less willing to start another stupid war like Bush (beer guzzling goldbrick) and Cheney (3 wartime deferments: "I had better things to do") started that killed thousands of US fine young soldiers, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and costs trillions of $$, then this would be a phenomenally good idea.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, maybe that's the idea then Al. Have a female army that they figure the American people won't want to send anywhere to fight.

But mightn't that embolden aggressive nations?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, one of the reasons I am fond of you (quite sincerely), is that you have a remarkable ability to jump up and hide behind a new and ever smaller bush when the one you're hiding behind is cut down.

I think those other countries would be even more squeamish about fighting women (I mean fighting against women, not a bunch of naked women mud wrestling for men's amusement - now that's the kind of combat I'm talking about, bro!) that they too would shrink in horror from the very notion. Imagine drafting all of the Miss America contestants right after the final ceremony into a platoon called Company "B" (for beautiful). That would be a nice complement to the negro regiments of WWII.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have a problem with this. If they can vote the same as I do, and get paid the same money for the same work, then I reckon they can take the same risk of taking a bullet or getting blown up.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason women are being allowed in combat is to provide them equal access to higher ranks, something like 80 percent being limited to those in combat positions. The fact that women may now be drafted is the classic "unintended consequence."

So drop the meme that this is all some sort of liberal plan to get women drafted. It is obviously false.

It is also not much of a danger. With the current mood in the country, the draft will only reappear when the entire country is in actual danger (as it did when we joined WWII). And in that case, we will want as many soldiers as we can get. There will be no outcry about women being drafted, because if we lost that next war, the women would be part of the casualties anyway. Being civilian casualties instead of military doesn't make it better for them or anyone.

And, as Al and Tom pointed out, it will make it less likely that we will have a draft for a less-serious war. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As soon as everyone gets used to the idea of women in combat, it will cease to have any deterrent effect. I don't think it will take very long for that to happen.

[ January 24, 2013, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll venture to say that the US will never again be involved in a major ground war on foreign soil in response to a declaration of war against the US. The last time we *were* in a ground war against a declared enemy was (I think) WWII. We sent troops to N. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) to fight undeclared wars against the governments (and to some degree the populations) of those countries and to defend US "interests", not to defend our homeland from attack. If you consider Bosnia, Libya and our present drone force, we've heavily engaged in military operations with almost no troops on the ground at all. There will never be another draft.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I'll venture to say that the US will never again be involved in a major ground war on foreign soil in response to a declaration of war against the US. The last time we *were* in a ground war against a declared enemy was (I think) WWII. We sent troops to N. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) to fight undeclared wars against the governments (and to some degree the populations) of those countries and to defend US "interests", not to defend our homeland from attack. If you consider Bosnia, Libya and our present drone force, we've heavily engaged in military operations with almost no troops on the ground at all. There will never be another draft.

Vietnam was an undeclared war and we had a draft.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be interesting to see what our Israeli members have to say about this.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The SS registration requirement comes most directly from tying registration to eligibility for Student Aide. I'd imagine that that can only be adjusted in any direction by congress, and isn't in the hands of DoD or the Executive.

I don't see the SS going away, in and of itself, and I don't think it's likely that the current shape of Congress would be very condusive to discussing changing the Student Aide requirements, either to extend it to everyone or to get rid of it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with the execution of this are the physical requirement aspects. I hate to say it but very few women are capable of carrying a full combat kit, weapon, and possibly a fellow wounded soldier on top of it all. We're talking a couple hundred kilos potentially.

I served in Desert Storm and I can tell you, walking in the hot desert sun with combat gear on and taking down gallons of water a day to stay hydrated are not optimal conditions.

If there are some women out there who can make these physical demands then I am cautiously optimistic, but I seriously hope they don't lower the physical requirements to engage in "affirmative action" on the battlefield. When you're under fire you need to be able to count on your squad-mates to do what it takes and possibly carry you out.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree, Seneca. The standards should not be lowered, and the military has a year to define those standards and defend them.

The only thing I worry about (and the only thing that would make such standards discriminatory) is when they are lowered to allow males to fill those positions. There are a lot of guys who can't carry a full combat kit, weapon and possibily a fellow soldier any appreciable distance. Hopefully after boot camp all combat soldiers are capable, but some won't make the cut no matter how hard you drill them. I expect those soldiers are assigned other positions.

If, however, some combat soldiers can't perform to this (or whatever) minimum and are still deployed in those roles, then that means those minimum standards are not really necessary and should be redefined.

Either way, any woman that can fulfill those minimum standards should be allowed to fill those combat positions. Although most women may not be able to do such feats of strength, I pretty sure that there are some who can.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

what makes you think they will end up in positions that involve carrying a full kit.

Tank drivers, pilots, and lots of other combat specialists don't carry packs.

Ie

http://wreg.com/2013/01/23/first-female-f-14-fighter-pilot-reacts-to-pentagon-lifting-combat-ban/

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

what makes you think they will end up in positions that involve carrying a full kit.

Tank drivers, pilots, and lots of other combat specialists don't carry packs.

Ie

http://wreg.com/2013/01/23/first-female-f-14-fighter-pilot-reacts-to-pentagon-lifting-combat-ban/

I submit that there aren't enough of those roles to satisfy what seems to be the driving factor here -- that women are suing to be more included and they seem to want a place in the normal fighting infantry and the regular roles there.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the experience of the marines are any indication - you are mistaken in your assumptions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/?page=all

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you're confused about my point, this is a political and PR issue now so there will be any number of women used as political tools.

Also, the marines tend to be a bit tougher than the Army, where I think the bulk of this lawsuit is aimed at as it is the largest branch and has the most combat roles of the branches.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AFAIK, the combat training requirements are not going to be lowered.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it hard to imagine that there will be "any number of women" who will risk death and dismemberment just to be "used as political tools." [Smile]

A few might, but after a few months of hardship, they'll split if their hearts aren't in it. Then all that'll be left are the one who want to be there.

And as Viking hinted, we will not be the first nation with women fighting on the front lines. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Plus, women in uniform are sexy.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Republican opposition to this idea is gathering steam and may be reaching a climax after 2 days of relatively polite hands-off debate. Allen West (ex-GOP Rep from Florida who tracks Communist members of the Democratic Party and has asked both the Pentagon and his local militia to have drones pointed at their houses 24/7) has now intruded himself into the discussion without preamble or asking for permission by wondering tongue-in-cheek why aren't there women in the NHL? Why do they have to play in a different league when women can cavort in the same army as men? He fails to take into account that the NHL would have cheerleaders if it weren't so fricking cold on the ice, so the teams would be integrated if they could figure out a way to skate backwards on warm ice without getting their butts wet when they get forcibly pushed over. I may send my pigeon drone over to his house and have it leave a note about this on his car.

[ January 25, 2013, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Republican opposition to this idea is gathering steam and may be reaching a climax...
Oh, that would be hysterical. On one hand, it would be enormously convenient for Republicans to continue to paint themselves as a bunch of out-of-touch sexists, since that's a great way to guarantee that they lose 60% of the vote. On the other hand, it'd just be sad to watch.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see why signing women up for the draft would be a problem. If it's important enough to draft my husband, it's important enough to draft me. (Do I want to be drafted? Heck no. But I imagine most people who /want/ to be drafted have already entered the service.)

Logically, the only problem I can see is if drafting both parents in a household leaves no one to raise their children. Hopefully there would be exceptions in that case. Otherwise? Have at it.

Edited to add: Cherry, in response to your point about the possibility of increased criminalization.. that is a problem of the draft itself. We have a route for conscientous objectors. Otherwise, increased rights go hand in hand with increased responsibilities. Why on earth would we have it otherwise?

[ January 25, 2013, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If the experience of the marines are any indication - you are mistaken in your assumptions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/25/few-female-marines-step-forward-for-infantry/?page=all

The Marine test balloon was set up to be a dud, since experienced officers were not allowed in, only new ones.

With that said, having heard the stories of student and a close friend (both female) who washed out of the marines, that does sound like a particularly difficult branch for women. I also know men who left the marines and transferred to army infantry because it was less grilling. Have another close female friend who was talking about infantry, who enlisted this week but found that infantry was not available to her yet.

I don't think that women in combat is something we ever could or should "get used to." That doesn't mean that a society that professes our ideals can deny women the position, though.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My best friend enlisted today in Salt Lake city as an underwater specialist. I can't remember the exact term. Anyway part of your job is going to be defusing underwater mines. Viscerally, I'm okay with that. Even though intellectually I recognize that there's something of a disconnect, That's okay to allow women to risk getting blown up by enemy bombs, but not okay to put her in the infantry. It also helps that she's in a position where sexual dimorphism doesn't work against her.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Chael

> Edited to add: Cherry, in response to your point about the possibility of increased criminalization.

This made me curious about Muhammad Ali.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

"In 1967, three years after Ali had won the heavyweight championship, he was publicly vilified for his refusal to be conscripted into the U.S. military, based on his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War. Ali was eventually arrested and found guilty on draft evasion charges; he was stripped of his boxing title, and his boxing license was suspended. He was not imprisoned, but did not fight again for nearly four years while his appeal worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was eventually successful."

I had thought that he had gone to jail. I wonder about other conscientious objectors though who were found not to be qualified for that status and who did go to jail. I hear it's not as easy as just saying that's what you are.

Now just for fun let's tie it into gun control. Should you be able to qualify as a conscientious objector if you own a handgun for self-defense?

---------------------------------------------

And another angle of the woman draft is that even though I was very young at the time (like one or two), I seem to recall that there were some massive protests over the draft, and I don't seem to remember them being because women weren't being included. If there is another draft, shouldn't we expect similar civil unrest and wouldn't making women join multiply the severity of it several fold?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looking at conscientious objection I stumbled upon this interesting little piece of Swiss style gun law in the U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/18/us-usa-crime-shooting-town-idUSN1719257620070418

Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law

inShare
Share this
Email
Print

Related Topics

U.S. »

Police officer Skip Vaughn guards the perimeter of the Virginia Tech campus as students evacuate after a gunman shot dozens of people on the university campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, in this April 16, 2007 file photo. The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory. REUTERS/Brendan Bush

By Matthew Bigg

KENNESAW, Georgia | Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:17pm EDT

(Reuters) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

The town north of Atlanta had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.

Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.

But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.

The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom.

"There's been no move to get rid of the law. Why would you?" said Robert Jones, president of the Kennesaw Historical Society. "The law is a great tourist attraction. It's the town with the Gun Law.

"People in Europe feel they need to be protected by the government. People in the U.S. feel they need to be protected from the government," said Jones, the owner of a .357-caliber Magnum.

---------------------------------------

But don't fret if you are a pacifist:

"An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun. No one has ever been prosecuted for failure to own a firearm, Graydon said."

----------------------------------------

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looking at conscientious objection I stumbled upon this interesting little piece of Swiss style gun law in the U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/18/us-usa-crime-shooting-town-idUSN1719257620070418

Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law

Police officer Skip Vaughn guards the perimeter of the Virginia Tech campus as students evacuate after a gunman shot dozens of people on the university campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, in this April 16, 2007 file photo. The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory. REUTERS/Brendan Bush

By Matthew Bigg

KENNESAW, Georgia | Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:17pm EDT

(Reuters) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

The town north of Atlanta had little prominence until it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.

Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime.

But it also was an affirmation of what gun advocates say is a blanket U.S. constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, for citizens to keep and bear arms. Gun opponents challenge that right and say the language in the Constitution is open to interpretation.

The Kennesaw law has endured as the town's population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom.

"There's been no move to get rid of the law. Why would you?" said Robert Jones, president of the Kennesaw Historical Society. "The law is a great tourist attraction. It's the town with the Gun Law.

"People in Europe feel they need to be protected by the government. People in the U.S. feel they need to be protected from the government," said Jones, the owner of a .357-caliber Magnum.

---------------------------------------

But don't fret if you are a pacifist:

"An amendment to the gun ownership law grants exceptions to convicted felons, conscientious objectors and those who cannot afford a gun. No one has ever been prosecuted for failure to own a firearm, Graydon said."

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another slant:
quote:
The ordinance amounted to a pro-2nd Amendment rebuttal to Morton Grove, Ill., which had just banned handguns within its city limits. Because the Kennesaw City Council did not impose penalties, or order enforcement, the law remains mostly symbolic.

Still, the city's website today says that "after passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the city has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County," north of Atlanta. Gun rights advocates cite the benefits as an article of faith.

Today, Kennesaw maintains a low crime rate, but not remarkably so, compared with other Georgia towns of similar size. It reported 21 violent crimes in 2011, according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics database. That put it well below Douglasville, which recorded 179 violent crimes, but above Milton (14 violent crimes) and Peachtree City (eight violent crimes).

"It's a deterrent," Dent "Wildman" Myers, 81, said in an interview. "There has been a considerable lessening of any kind of criminal activity, that is for sure. That is what the statistics show."

Myers wears a pair of .45 automatics holstered on his belt while working at his shop, Wildman's Civil War Surplus. "I've been around weaponry since I was knee-high to a jack rabbit," he said, before belittling Australia for using the "excuse" of a 1996 mass shooting that left 16 dead to launch a sharp gun crackdown.

Gun control advocates, in contrast, cite the Australian reforms as a model. After banning automatic and semiautomatic rifles in 1996 and buying back 700,000 of the newly illegal weapons, the country saw gun-related murders drop 59% over a decade.

In Kennesaw, the city's regular spokesman on the gun issue doesn't make any big claims. "It's hard to say what impact the ordinance itself may have," Police Lt. Craig Graydon said. "It seems to help some, but we're not sure how much impact it has overall on crime."


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was under the impression that Obama is intending to set up a conscription service for all Americans, similar to Germany's, where all people are required to give so many years to public service of one type or another. He has announced this publically and it was part of Obama care to be set up under the DHS. I heard they were even beginning to buy weapons for the new civilian army already.

Of course women will have to sign up for the draft/conscription!

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/


"Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up."

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ

According to Rahm Emanual as published in his book, "The Plan", Obama does mean mandatory conscription for all American citizens between the ages of 18-25 to serve.

That Fact Checkers site is also known to skew things considerably left.

The Annenberg Foundation that funds the site was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it has since taken a turn to the left. Just a few years ago they employed individuals such as Bill Ayers and his good friend Barack Obama, so I seriously wonder about their non-partisan nature.

Obama is a smooth talker and you need to read between the lines on that speech. Keep in mind that the Obama administration is doing everything in their power to destroy the success of the volunteer armed services (to staff the military)that we currently have. I believe that they are planning to use that future failure to replace the existing system with a European like conscription service, similar to Germany's Wehrpflicht (that would include the military).

CHERRYPOPTART, please don't use fact checkers to prove a point; they have an agenda to promote. If you post a long quote like that, could you please point out your interpretation of how that relates to another post or thread. It’s very difficult to hold a discussion on a forum when people just throw out information with no explanation or relevance.

[ February 05, 2013, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is difficult to skew a direct quote, no matter what agenda one might have. And it answers the question as to what this "civilian army" will consist of. Of course, cherry has his own liberal agenda to pursue and has to be watched very closely. [Wink]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
please don't use fact checkers to prove a point; they have an agenda to promote
Specifically, facts.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was pretty funny Funean. [Smile]

Yeah, Bud I guess you don't know me very well (channeling Bugs Bunny a little).

I just wanted to put the whole quote out there and give it time to settle in before I provided my take on it. I believe that is just more of Obama trying to get the camel's nose in the tent by saying whatever it takes to get things started. He lied so much about transparency, Gitmo, taxes, Obamacare not needing an individual mandate in his debate against Hillary, and so much more it just goes on and on and on.

His quote points in one direction but there is plenty of wiggle room there for him to get it going whichever way he pleases, not that he even needs that wiggle room since he is a proven unabashed bald faced liar anyway.

He's had too much on his plate though to make a move on this so I don't expect it to go anywhere any time soon, but with the way he likes to issue those executive imperial orders you never know.

And my confession in this case is that I wouldn't even think it would be a bad idea to have a voluntary national service like Obama is talking about which provides education, training, and job experience to people who don't necessarily want to join the military in return for a term of service in the public sector which provides real return on investment for the tax payer and gives people the skills and experience they need for a successful transition into the private sector when their time is up.

But, having Obama in charge of it makes me very leery, especially with the narcissistic way he likes to focus everything on himself.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
with the way he likes to issue those executive imperial orders you never know
Rest easy. Since executive orders cannot provide funding that does not exist, Obama would require legislative action in order to fund any expansion of the volunteer corps.

quote:
especially with the narcissistic way he likes to focus everything on himself
You know, Republicans have been saying this since Day One, but I still have yet to see any evidence of it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bud Martin
Member
Member # 6796

 - posted      Profile for Bud Martin   Email Bud Martin       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Posted by TomDavidson,
_”Rest easy. Since executive orders cannot provide funding that does not exist, Obama would require legislative action in order to fund any expansion of the volunteer corps.”_

I’m not sure you’re correct about that, but I read somewhere that there were some provisions attached to Obama-care that funded the DHS purchasing of some weapons and pilot training programs for inner-city kids as the seed for this civilian military force. I can also see Obama using funds from the stimulus that are left over for this program.

Back to the thread topic, if you see warnings that the military is not meeting its recruiting goals or there are huge numbers of military personnel not re-enlisting, watch Obama closely and see if he doesn't bring up the national conscription used in some European countries. BTW, they've announced a reduction of 20,000 for the Marine Corps already.

[ February 05, 2013, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Bud Martin ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I’m not sure you’re correct about that, but I read somewhere that there were some provisions attached to Obama-care that funded the DHS purchasing of some weapons and pilot training programs for inner-city kids as the seed for this civilian military force.
You might want to double-check that claim. The only articles I can find regarding weapons and Obamacare are ones about doctors asking patients if they have guns, which is about the polar opposite of arming inner-city youths. [Smile]

The far Right reads a lot of stuff between the lines--most of which isn't there. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1