Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: blueunicorn6

“You may not want your petite daughter in the Infantry, but you can thank your cousin Suzie and your sister Ann for forcing them to be there”

Then Suzie and Ann can volunteer. The answer isn’t for a man to support drafting Americas petite daughters. And a trite response isn’t changing a thing, it’s a hard leftist position to support it. Its shameful for a conservative to support that petite girl and pretend they deserved it.

If they go that route, ill undermine it, help with draft dodging, and monkeywrench sabotage it everyway I can thing of. And anyone who knocks at the door about it... gets what a kidnapper would normally get.


41 posted on 10/27/2017 7:53:48 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: DesertRhino

My personal feeling is that females shouldn’t be in the Combat Arms.

It’s bad enough that young men die in combat, but killing young women is killing the future.

That said, there is no reason to preclude females from the draft if they can serve in every job in the military.

You can huff and puff about what you’ll do, but your daughter’s fellow females demanded this.


47 posted on 10/27/2017 8:02:13 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: DesertRhino; blueunicorn6; C19fan; Chainmail; Nifster; Gay State Conservative; Gen.Blather; ...
blueunicorn6: "You may not want your petite daughter in the Infantry, but you can thank your cousin Suzie and your sister Ann for forcing them to be there."

DesertRhino: "Then Suzie and Ann can volunteer.
The answer isn’t for a man to support drafting Americas petite daughters.
And a trite response isn’t changing a thing..."
I'm seeing a lot of trite responses here, and nobody seems to "get" the real issue.

As conservatives we believe in Founders' Original Intent, as modified by ratified amendments.
In the case of our military, what Founders indented was that every full-citizen had as duties of citizenship the following obligations & rights:

  1. To obey duly passed laws.

  2. To vote in lawful elections.

  3. To pay lawful taxes.

  4. To serve on juries, when called.

  5. To serve in the military, if called.

You may add to this list (i.e., respond to census), but these are the basics.

The issue here is that at the time of our Founding, not every American was considered a full voting citizen.
Those who could not vote included the poor, women, slaves, native Americans & others.
But beginning almost immediately, the pool of voters expanded, first by eliminating property ownership requirements, then racial & gender discriminations.

And, as each new group was added to the list of full-voting citizens, each was also, by implication, added to the list of those to be called for military service if required.

Note here, I'm not saying young women should be drafted into the infantry -- that's insane, period.
I am saying that as full citizens, they can and should, in time of need be drafted into such services as they were fit to perform.

And the list of such services is both long and honorable.
Not every young man is fit for the infantry, and very few women are -- but most anyone can well perform other military-related duties no less honorable.

That's what this whole issue is about: our Founders' original intent regarding the duties of full citizenship.
Those who want the privileges & rights of full-citizenship must also be prepared to bear its burdens, including military service, if needed.

80 posted on 10/27/2017 9:20:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson