Considering joining the service?

[jonmyrlebailey]

Do you know anybody who is considering military service?

 

Well, here are some caveats about going into the service voluntarilly:

 

 

1. you relinquish all your rights under the Bill of Rights when you sign up for service under this "dictatorship"

 

2. military recruiters are renowned liars who will promise you "the Brooklin Bridge deed' for signing up

 

3. the US military is super ANTI-GUN (much. much more than the civilian sector): if you value your gun rights, you might want to think twice about volunteering for that crap

 

4. you give up much when you sign up, to say the very least: if you want college money, try grants, scholarships and federal student aid first

 

5. enlisting into the service is stipulated in the form of a legal contract with highly complex fine print: it is not printed in BOLD PRINT on a military enlistment contract that you relinquish virtually all your rights as an American citizen!!!

 

This is something I know firsthand, because I was stupid enough to have been there and done it myself. I think this is something everybody should know before signing up.

 

"For warned, is for armed".

 

 

A Concerned Citizen

[NBVegita]

Soldiers are not civilians.

 

Military forces can be good if you like your life run for you.

 

If you like to think for yourself...well I wouldn't recommend it.

[jonmyrlebailey]

Soldiers are not civilians.

 

Military forces can be good if you like your life run for you.

 

If you like to think for yourself...well I wouldn't recommend it.

 

 

Absolutely: individual FREE thinking is a super NO-NO in the service!!!

 

Soldiers, esp. at the lower ranks, are not even regarded as 1st-class US citizens, but PROPERTY of Uncle Sam.

 

Many convicted felons in US federal pens have more rights than the average rank-and-file American GI.

[Samapico]

Do you ever speak of anything besides guns and military? ... ô.o

[PoLiX]

You must of just !@#$%^&*ed up. Or been one of the ones who just enlisted without reading over everything. Something I know many people spend weeks doing here, !@#$%^&*, a friend of mine spent a month fine-tuning his contract with his enlister, just to make sure he only went to Korea, or got a huge payoff for going to Iraq.

 

I have between 15 and 20 friends in the military, and I have never heard a single one say they we're !@#$%^&*ed over in their contracts, or have complained in any nature you have.

 

4 Naval Bases, 2 Airforce Bases, and 1 Military Base within 2hrs driving of my house, so don't even tell me I don't know that many, and that is just the ones I consider friends. I work with 3 retired military, 4 active duty, and 1 who got out, and all have their quirks, but none have ever gone to the extremes you have.

[11___________]

The military has fixed alot of my friends and family that were "screw ups"

[Falcoknight]

If you're trying to play this "scorned victim of the military's brutal dictatorship qualities" you're failing pretty badly at this point.

 

Seems to me you're more of a "I got into the military without knowing what the !@#$%^&* was in store for me, and now I'm going to whine and moan about how mean they were to me."

[jonmyrlebailey]

Some of you have sorely missed the point:

 

 

1. this is not a complaint against the military

 

2. this is only ADVICE for those considering joining (it is not lies, but firsthand knowledge)

 

3. I am not telling anybody not to join, that is your own business

 

 

 

this thread was only meant to offer "a few words to the wise", the decision to seek enlistment is purely between you and the military

 

 

If I had my way, every US soldier, sailor, marine, airman and coast guard personnel would be permitted to keep personal weapons at will at all times under these strict conditions:

 

1. no convictions of any crime violent in nature (probably should not be in military if this is the case)

2. not medically/psychiatrically deemed as a danger to him/herself or others (should not be kept in service anyway)

3. the possession of such weapons does not physically interfere w/ military duty or mission as the wearing of mission-oriented protective equipment

4. weapon may never be displayed in a threatening manner or otherwise used with intent of deadly force except as to protect oneself against an immediate unlawful threat to one's life, limb, liberty or property

5. if weapon is to be carried on post or at place of duty, it must be always concealed

6. if weapon is to be stored on post, it must be stored locked in a personal safe (at one's quarters when weapon owner is not present), locked in a personal automobile or at the unit's armory or, otherwise always kept within an arm's reach of its lawful owner

 

Moreover, If I had my way, federal regulations and international treaties would exist (superceding existing US federal, state, local firearms laws and the firearms laws of the nations in which US troops occupy) to permit US servicemen/women to carry personal guns (firearms) at will and concealed anywhere in the jurisdiction of the US and foreign nations occupied by US forces

[jonmyrlebailey]

Some of you have sorely missed the point:

 

 

1. this is not a complaint against the military

 

2. this is only ADVICE for those considering joining (it is not lies, but firsthand knowledge)

 

3. I am not telling anybody not to join, that is your own business

 

 

 

this thread was only meant to offer "a few words to the wise", the decision to seek enlistment is purely between you and the military

 

 

If I had my way, every US soldier, sailor, marine, airman and coast guard personnel would be permitted to keep personal weapons at will at all times under these strict conditions:

 

1. no convictions of any crime violent in nature (probably should not be in military if this is the case)

2. not medically/psychiatrically deemed as a danger to him/herself or others (should not be kept in service anyway)

3. the possession of such weapons does not physically interfere w/ military duty or mission as the wearing of mission-oriented protective equipment

4. weapon may never be displayed in a threatening manner or otherwise used with intent of deadly force except as to protect oneself against an immediate unlawful threat to one's life, limb, liberty or property

5. if weapon is to be carried on post or at place of duty, it must be always concealed

6. if weapon is to be stored on post, it must be stored locked in a personal safe (at one's quarters when weapon owner is not present), locked in a personal automobile or at the unit's armory or, otherwise always kept within an arm's reach of its lawful owner

 

Moreover, If I had my way, federal regulations and international treaties would exist (superceding existing US federal, state, local firearms laws and the firearms laws of the nations in which US troops occupy) to permit US servicemen/women to carry personal guns (firearms) at will and concealed anywhere in the jurisdiction of the US and foreign nations occupied by US forces

 

!@#$%^&*, we give diplomatic immunity for certain foreign individuals to carry guns in our country; let's demand of foreign nations which US troops occupy the same for American military personnel. And why are gun laws so restrictive on American citizens (civilians) to boot?

[AstroProdigy]

Because giving guns to a group of people trained to kill mindlessly for civilian use is psychotic?

[Aileron]

I can barely agree with any civilian gun law. Believe it or not, I'd venture to say if you want to own a tank and can afford it, you should be allowed to...just don't whine when the police are watching you like a hawk because of it.

 

 

As for the military, yes, its run like a dictatorship. It MUST be run like a dictatorship, because if an army doesn't run on one, it is infact a militia, in every sense of the word. More importantly, it could only function in battle like a militia...it might get a victory here and there but will never be the workhorse needed to win the war.

 

 

Actually, I think I know the problem here. I don't know you, so this is just a guess. I think you have a tunnel vision of sorts. Once you get your mind on something, you focus in on it and ignore everything else. In this case, you had a goal of joining the military, and focused in on it. After that point you ignored obvious problems with that goal until you were actually conscripted.

 

That mindset didn't work out for you this time, but it can be a strength if you use it properly. Strangely enough, the military still is a good career choice for you, because steadfast dedication towards one's objectives is one of their defining qualities. I'd suggest you go to college, and then re-enlist but as an officer next time. You'd probably feel better on the giving end rather than recieving end.

[jonmyrlebailey]

I can barely agree with any civilian gun law. Believe it or not, I'd venture to say if you want to own a tank and can afford it, you should be allowed to...just don't whine when the police are watching you like a hawk because of it.

 

 

As for the military, yes, its run like a dictatorship. It MUST be run like a dictatorship, because if an army doesn't run on one, it is infact a militia, in every sense of the word. More importantly, it could only function in battle like a militia...it might get a victory here and there but will never be the workhorse needed to win the war.

 

 

Actually, I think I know the problem here. I don't know you, so this is just a guess. I think you have a tunnel vision of sorts. Once you get your mind on something, you focus in on it and ignore everything else. In this case, you had a goal of joining the military, and focused in on it. After that point you ignored obvious problems with that goal until you were actually conscripted.

 

That mindset didn't work out for you this time, but it can be a strength if you use it properly. Strangely enough, the military still is a good career choice for you, because steadfast dedication towards one's objectives is one of their defining qualities. I'd suggest you go to college, and then re-enlist but as an officer next time. You'd probably feel better on the giving end rather than recieving end.

 

 

There will be no "next time": I was an enlisted soldier in the US Army from 1988-1995. I volunteered for an early out when it was offered and heavy restriction of personal firearms possession by rank-and-file personnel was the major influence. I still got an honorable discharge and full VA benies. The military treats personal firearms possession as a PRIVILEGE (often !@#$%^&*ociated w/ rank) and not a fundamental right of enlisted men. Yes, I knew some YOUNG army sergeants (younger than I: I was a Spec4) who freely carried their personal pieces on base (with the unit commander's say-so)!!

 

I am not complaining, but warning most future young "would-be" volunteers to think twice before signing the dotted line and raising your right hand. Most young people have no concept of what they are signing up for when they join the service. Volunteering for military service is making a SUPREME SACRIFICE: is it worth it??

 

I am very adamant about my gun rights as an American. Hitler came to power through disarmament of the German citizenry. I INSIST on IMMEDIATE firearms availability for lawful sport shooting, hunting, collecting and self-protection from people who UNLAWFULLY threaten life, limb, liberty or property of individuals and /or their loved ones. I am a GOA member (Larry Pratt is the Executive Director) and proud of it.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

wow... people failed to look at his point view and take into consideration that it's based on firsthand experience/knowledge..

he didn't complain or do any of that, but he listed facts based on what he witnessed and is really giving advice.

[Gravitron]

Service of the nation is a right not an obligation in his country and he's crying over it? Sheesh.

[SeVeR]

Well if Hitler did it, it has to be wrong.....

[Aileron]

SeVeR, the statement he wrote actually requires the statement "The situations which allowed Hitler to rise to power should not be repeated." Sure he was evil, but if proper cons!@#$%^&*ional installments were in place at the time, he would have been irrelevant.

 

 

I agree with JPC that disarmament is an essential part of running a dictatorship. We also agree that the military is run like a dictatorship. I'm just trying to explain why. There are just fundimental things about an army that forces it to be run as such.

 

Truth be told however, college is almost as bad. I live off-campus and my apartment complex won't allow me to have a gun. They despicably put it right next to drugs in my lease. One's illegal and the other is cons!@#$%^&*utionally protected and the owners of my apartment complex can't tell the difference, and I'm not truly free to move to another apartment because ALL of the companies in my area do the same !@#$%^&* thing.

 

As bad as the army is, they have a right to do this stuff. Private companies should have no rights to tell people what to do.

[SeVeR]

The army has a right and a necessity to ban guns, agreed.

 

BTW i'm not saying civilians should be restricted from owning guns. All i'm saying is it's ridiculous to intepret a ban on guns as the onset of Naziism just because it's something Hitler did.

 

Hitler had the support of the people. He didn't need to ban guns to succeed. For example, what do you think all those people who smashed the windows of Jewish businesses would have done with guns? Alternately if the Jews were armed they might have defended themselves better. It works both ways as both the German majority and the Jewish minority would have been armed.

 

Hitler introduced other things like the Hitler Youth, reminiscent of boy-scouts, and that's not exactly a Nazi idea. Hitler banned many things aswell, things that civilisations have banned for centuries. You can't just say that banning or doing something is wrong just because Hitler did it. I could use the same "evil-link" to say that murderers use guns and therefore guns are bad and should be banned. You're guilty of the same jump in logic as those you criticise.

[Aileron]

I think he was just making an example.

 

I guess I'll write what I call the "Dummies Guide to Becoming the Totalitarian Dictator of a Country". The guide !@#$%^&*umes that you have some sort of authority to begin with. Maybe you are a president or prime minister. Maybe you are some kind of monarch. Maybe you are some sort of recently installed revolutionary leader. This guide deals with how to turn your limited authority into total control.

 

Step 1: Build your base of support. Even a dictator cannot run a country all by himself. You need a base which even in free elections would vote for you. You can form such a base merely by robbing the rest of the country to support them. The base will thus be really loyal to you. This base will form the recruitment pool for subordinates, will host the public relations events, and generally will be the people you can count on when things go pear-shaped. Popular divides for such a base are along racial or hereditary lines, though some dictators have had success using and invite-only faction.

 

Step 2: Stop all freedom of speech. If your rivals can speak, the people might realise that some of their ideas are better than your own. Besides, in order to be a rival to yourself, he has to be as popular as you are, and its impossible to be popular if nobody knows him because he has to shutup and be quite. Atfirst, you cannot start doing this outright. You will have to conjure up some justification for doing so. Falsely convicting them of treason is popular.

 

Step 3: Reorganize the government. You must change the government so that all positions are achieved and maintain by way of pleasing you. This does not have to be done in an official capacity. It is quite popular for instance to have a democracy but yet only one political party, and to be in total charge of that political party.

 

Step 4: Monopolize the tools of war. After you dominate the government, your rivals will attempt to go underground. They will hold speeches in private and plan their own replacement government. Such action is not a threat to you so long as these people lack the means to install that government. You need to solidify control over weapons, transportation, communications, medical care, fuel, food, water, and shelter. Such control is maintain respectively by: banning weapons, requiring permits to travel, monitering communications, making medical care public, rationing, and regular searches of all residences.

 

Step 5: Monopolize the tools of economics. At this point, you wish to solidify your control over success and failure. You wish to make it so that loyalty = financial success and opposing you = poverty. Over the short term this is done by controlling industry and utilities such as electricity. Over the long term, education is important. By now, your base of support will be silently demanding that now that they put you in charge you should do something for them, and you indeed should. You should give your base of support all kinds of social and economic privileges. This will cause the base to like you even more, which allows you to tighten your control by repeating the process from step 1.

 

 

 

Granted, even if we had government regulations upon firearms there are still numerous anti-dictatorship features in most western cons!@#$%^&*utions. However, you will note that a few private industry and media leaders could still slip past too many of them, and frankly the possible damage resulting from a dictatorship in a world with nuclear weapons justifies every anti-dictator feature we can think of.

[AstroProdigy]

Hitler was elected...He didn't come to power by disarming the German citizenry. He came to power because of the extreme poverty and extreme dissatisfaction to the way Germany was treated at the end of World War I. Hitler came to power legally. Creating an economically successful Germany would have prevented Hitler from taking power not giving everyone guns. That's a myth that NRA lovers use to justify all the murder perpetrated by the lack of gun control.

[SeVeR]

What Astro said.

 

Those steps are all well and good, and surely you notice (based on all you've written) that gun-control is one small part of what a dictator will do. But just because a dictator would do it, that still doesn't make it wrong. Dictators restrict freedoms, agree? So what do you think laws do in our every day life? We have hundreds of laws that restrict our freedoms for the good of society. A dictator might make some more restrictive laws, but who is to say which ones are wrong. For instance, in England we have banned guns and everyone seems happy with that; it's obviously not damaging our country or taking away our democracy in a way that any other law does. In fact the restriction of guns should be the publics decision! That's true democracy. When you think about it, a right that is impervious to change is more a sign of a dictatorship than anything. If the majority of the country swings over to the anti-gun side then what happens? Are you about to deny the majority in true dictatorship f!@#$%^&*ion, in order to maintain this "right"?

[Manus Celer Dei]

Spinsanity? is that you?

 

without the coloured text and half dozen text size changes I almost didn't recognise you.

[NBVegita]

Sever, so if the majority of people were against abortion we should take that away?

 

If the majority of people were against womens rights should we take that away?

 

If the majority of people decided lets inslave people again, should we let that happen?

 

I'm sick and tired of people !@#$%^&*ing about guns because they don't fit into their pansy !@#$%^&* padded idea of the world.

 

Not having guns won't stop people from killing each other. First off people who really want to kill people will get guns. Second we are killing machines. The human being can kill in thousands of ways. What's next? We're going to ban martial arts because people get killed when it is used out side of its intended purpose? Because someone learned it from an "uncertified" teacher, who normally teaches you worse things?

 

in 2001 42,116 people were killed in car accidents, and over 3.5 million were hurt. In that same year 29,573 people were killed by guns. Almost 17,000 of those were suicides and about 800 were accidental. So I say we should take away peoples right to drive cars and force them into public trasportation. There has yet to be a year in which the gun deaths have been higher then the car deaths. Yet why is that not an issue? Its much easier to get a car than it is to get a gun. You don't need character references and it doesn't matter what you've done in your past you can get your license. But you see that would inconvenience these people. Not having guns doesn't effect them, they don't want them anyway, so why not take them away? But if you try to take away something from them, oh wait we can't do that now. If you think about it, forcing everyone into public transportation would help for all you global warming activists too.

 

There is a reason why we're a democratic republic. People in the United States only think about what is best for themselves with no regard to how it effects their neighbors.

[larrythehamster]

Well i'm considering joining the army at officer entry...

 

But i'm English, so I'll just have to worry about you trigger happy yanks

[SeVeR]

Yea, if you're English you only have to worry about friendly fire. The SAS pwns everyone .

 

NBV, yes, if the majority of people in a country wanted to ban abortion i would go with it, even though i disagree. Democracy is more important. And yes, the same with all those other examples. Just don't expect a democratic decision, which includes women, to take away womens rights.

 

I'm sick and tired of people !@#$%^&*ing about guns because they don't fit into their pansy !@#$%^&* padded idea of the world.

I think i'm being quite considerate when i say "if Americans want guns, they can have them". Just don't !@#$%^&* with democracy by trying to use this "right" to oppress the majority.

 

Not having guns won't stop people from killing each other.

Still going with absolutes to justify your arguments? Fine, i'll just keep agreeing. Of course a lack of guns won't stop murder. That's not the point though is it.

 

So I say we should take away peoples right to drive cars and force them into public trasportation.

I hear this stupid argument more times than i care for. I always shoot it down with the basic knowledge that cars are used thousands, possibly even millions, of times more often than guns; so of course there will be more deaths. If you go by total deaths then you ignore any useful bit of information about an object. For instance, by your analogy, a test plane that has been flown 10 times and crashed 5 times, resulting in the deaths of 5 pilots is less dangerous than a ham sandwich or a bumble-bee, because those have killed more people. My point is obvious, you have to take usage into account and if you do, you end up seeing straight through the !@#$%^&*ing stupid arguments that most pro-gunners use.

 

People in the United States only think about what is best for themselves with no regard to how it effects their neighbors.

Exactly.

[MillenniumMan]

First of all, nothing but the best to you no matter your decision. But if you do join the service, join the navy, last I checked the army did all the grunt work by mowing lawns. The worst you would have to worry about is dynamite fishing for sharks and worrying about how short the fuse is. hehehe...

 

Joking aside, you hand over your rights as a citizen and become what your DS/MS tells you to be. You will be yelled at, pushed hard, have few comforts during your first two weeks in basic, maybe the next six will be better depending on how much you comply to your DS/MS's demands. If you don't have the need to do for yourself but have others dictate what they want you to do then by all means.

 

I've seen poor ASSS get far worse than yelled at. For instance, there was this guy named myers, he was always a dipship, never listened or anything. One night he had ordered five pizzas for himself and his battle buddies. Three seconds later the DS turns the corner and says WHAT THE F*** IS THIS? Before I knew it, the poor dumb!@#$%^&* was being marched into the dayroom right past me and another guy at CQ and he was made to eat ALL five of the pizzas, with no help. After that, he was forced onto a nighttime march around APG (didn't see that part) This was 00:30 in the morning. Later that morning (5:00) he had to get up and in formation with everyone else. He was paraded up in front of everyone and the sarge asked him in a knowing yet cynical tone out loud "Why are you so tired this morning Myers?" Then he was told to go through the entire sequence of events from the pizza to presentation. Then there was another 4 mile run.

 

So, whatever you decide, good luck to ya