To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-H5741/text

Thoughts?

Should the government be allowed to force 18-42 year olds to serve?

 

Wow.

So much potential for abuse, I don't know where to begin.

Government apparently isn't happy with only taking over the car companies, healthcare system, financial system, etc.... etc....

Now they want to take over our children and force them to do the government's bidding.

We used to call this stuff Facism. Now we call it Universal National Service.

 

Bringing the draft back

 

That's what I got out of it, but I just briefly skimmed through the link.

 

You could look at it that way...but then again, for over 50 years there was a draft. Most American men served at a time of war or in peace time. I guess they forced the children back then to join up---count my Dad as one of them---he was drafted during Korea. Was it Fascism then? With our military being stretched thin, perhaps it is time to consider restarting the draft.
And yes, there was and still is potential for abuse..just ask all of those who "served" that had the proverbial silver spoon.

TSC

 

I attended a meeting of various law enforcement agencys at one of the LEOs "cult" organizations. This was about 5 years ago and they said that the Gov't would be trying to pass a bill like this. According to this group of apparently paranoid law enforcement morons, the Gov't would be expecting the civilian population under the guise of public service, to obtain and confiscate all firearms in the US as being mandated by the UN. They're doing it this way because the LEOs have already stated publicly that they will not take the firearms of any citizen that has the right to have arms. They will lay down their badges first. But then again, this is probably just a few thousand freedom loving law enforcement nutcakes like those of the OathKeepers.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

 

Freedom loving nutcakes? hmmm. im pretty it was the 'freedom loving nutcakes' that made our nation who/what it is today..and look at countries like Greece or Israel. They have the same thing. Ever able-bodied person from whatever age to whatever age has to serve..

Our military has been a 100% volunteer military since vietnam.

ya'll are complaining about your 'kids' having to serve.. Hmmm. Im pretty sure that a little discipline and a Job for that matter would prob. serve a lot of people good.. would get kids off the streets for a while atleast.. hell might cut down on the drug/crime rate who knows..

 

Folks, this is way more than a 'draft'.

The President will have the power to tell every American what he wants them to do for 2 years. Read Section 102 (2) ...

...in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

This is WAY too vague and ripe for government abuse.

 

I've been to Greece. Let's not model our country after theirs, mmmmkay?

Israel is surrounded by enemies sworn to their extermination. If the Israelis deem it an issue of national survival, that is their prerogative. Our situation is MUCH different.

My children are well disciplined, thanks to good parenting, and will no doubt serve their communities in their own way. BTW, if I add up their share of the national debt and unfunded obligations, it is more than they can ever hope to pay.

The government is already planning on taking my children's work product via taxes. I think 2 years of their life is a bit much.

 

Hmm, I guess this does lack even the fine print. Either way, given the circumstances of what is asked of me, I'm actually fine with helping defend homeland security. It just seems like the right thing to me. If events were ever bad enough to where my country called upon me to help with a defense issue, I'd be all for it. Until then, I'll sit back in my cushy desk job and discuss it with you fine folks on here.

 

I'm all for giving back, etc..., but you guys are WAY too trusting of the government.

I'm telling you, this thing exploits your good intentions and gives way too much power to the government, specifically the executive branch.

 

Agreed. I can't argue that. I'm thinking the Govt is much different from the days of the draft. And, it's (the govt) much to weak to enforce Homeland security the way I'd like to see it done (ie: Securing the borders). But then again, I watch wayyy to many action movies, so maybe my expectations are a bit high and aggressive.

 

Let's look at the timeline.....

2003 Congressman(D) introduces this Bill to embarrass 'The Bush War' knowing it wouldn't pass.

2006 Congressman(D) re-introduces, reason above.

2007 Congressman(D) re-introduces, reason (see 2003).

2008 & 2009 Obama elected, no bill introduced - no attempted embarrassment.

2010 Congressman(D) gets into ethics trouble and is going down in flames.
Congressman(D) launches all boats...jettisons all cargo...fires all guns...
and re-introduces on July 15th 2010.

Congressman(D) = Charlie Rangel

 

A draft is one thing but this is way overboard. It sounds very much to me like the old U.S.S.R. that used to assign you a job at the factory of their choosing. I seriously doubt this will pass though.

 

Looks like the draft all over again to me. "During times of war" or not, compulsory service for the gov't is wrong IMO.

Whenever this nation has been attacked, there has never been a shortage of the willing and able.