(01-01-2020, 12:05 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-31-2019, 10:35 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]That's not true. I was 20 when I went in and there were a few other girls in my boot camp unit who were 20-21.
I don't know their reason for going in later. Mine was family stuff that needed to be taken care of before I felt I could enlist. I'd always wanted to serve so....
And that's about 30% of recruits.
The rest are all fresh out of High School that don't know what they want to do in life or just want to get the hell out of town.
Dude, most people don't know what they want to do with their lives until they're in their 30s. The military is not the worst option for most. It teaches discipline and accountability, how to cope in stressful situations, the importance of fitness, camaraderie, how to adapt to people, places and things at any given time, etc. And that's all just in boot camp.
I've always felt the youth of this country would benefit from a 2 year enlistment minimum (not counting boot camp and the training for the actual job), straight out of high school. I was never a "bad kid" or anything but I needed direction and confidence moving into adulthood and I feel it was a great experience for me, plus I'd always wanted to serve. Many kids benefit from playing sports in high school and already have direction and confidence but not everyone has those opportunities.
(01-01-2020, 01:17 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2020, 12:05 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]And that's about 30% of recruits.
The rest are all fresh out of High School that don't know what they want to do in life or just want to get the hell out of town.
Dude, most people don't know what they want to do with their lives until they're in their 30s. The military is not the worst option for most. It teaches discipline and accountability, how to cope in stressful situations, the importance of fitness, camaraderie, how to adapt to people, places and things at any given time, etc. And that's all just in boot camp.
I've always felt the youth of this country would benefit from a 2 year enlistment minimum (not counting boot camp and the training for the actual job), straight out of high school. I was never a "bad kid" or anything but I needed direction and confidence moving into adulthood and I feel it was a great experience for me, plus I'd always wanted to serve. Many kids benefit from playing sports in high school and already have direction and confidence but not everyone has those opportunities.
Where did I say that was a negative?
I'm not saying it's a bad option, just pointing out why the government will never raise the enlistment age to 21.
(12-30-2019, 08:56 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I only have issues with it on either federal level, where Does the fed get constitutional authority to dictate commerce restrictions in all states?
This is a state issue at best, why stop at 21? Isn’t the purpose to discourage cigarettes so at 22 are we saying it’s ok to smoke but not at 18? Why not just raise the age to 30 or ban it all together?
Prohibition works so well after all
How do you feel about Dick's Sporting Goods refusing to sell rifles to 20 year olds? Is that a civil rights violation or the property right of the store owner to refuse the transaction?
(01-04-2020, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-30-2019, 08:56 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I only have issues with it on either federal level, where Does the fed get constitutional authority to dictate commerce restrictions in all states?
This is a state issue at best, why stop at 21? Isn’t the purpose to discourage cigarettes so at 22 are we saying it’s ok to smoke but not at 18? Why not just raise the age to 30 or ban it all together?
Prohibition works so well after all
How do you feel about Dick's Sporting Goods refusing to sell rifles to 20 year olds? Is that a civil rights violation or the property right of the store owner to refuse the transaction?
Property rights of the owner I can’t force a private company to sell products they choose not to sell.
That said there’s an argument that there is precedent for the state to force commerce in private enterprise under the justification of civil rights, I don’t agree with it but I acknowledged the argument.
(01-04-2020, 11:09 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]How do you feel about Dick's Sporting Goods refusing to sell rifles to 20 year olds? Is that a civil rights violation or the property right of the store owner to refuse the transaction?
Property rights of the owner I can’t force a private company to sell products they choose not to sell.
That said there’s an argument that there is precedent for the state to force commerce in private enterprise under the justification of civil rights, I don’t agree with it but I acknowledged the argument.
Oh, they'll sell me the product. It's your ilk they won't do business with.
(01-04-2020, 11:32 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 11:09 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Property rights of the owner I can’t force a private company to sell products they choose not to sell.
That said there’s an argument that there is precedent for the state to force commerce in private enterprise under the justification of civil rights, I don’t agree with it but I acknowledged the argument.
Oh, they'll sell me the product. It's your ilk they won't do business with.
I know where your going with it and I disagree with it. As a libertarian I argue state enforcement of commerce in the private sector is out of bounds. Yes that means if the hillbilly in Kentucky what’s to only serve whites at his dinner or the barber shop in queens only want to cut black peoples hair or the Christian in Denver doesn’t want to bake a gay themed cake I support the rights of those business owners to choose their own business model. All anti discrimination laws should only be enforced in the public sector, schools, courts, government programs, anything tax payers founded absolutely 100%.
That said under our current law of someone wants to challenge [BLEEP] policy i don’t think it will hold up in court. It’s age discrimination and that was established in the civil rights act. Doesn’t mean I agree with it
(01-04-2020, 01:05 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 11:32 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, they'll sell me the product. It's your ilk they won't do business with.
I know where your going with it and I disagree with it. As a libertarian I argue state enforcement of commerce in the private sector is out of bounds. Yes that means if the hillbilly in Kentucky what’s to only serve whites at his dinner or the barber shop in queens only want to cut black peoples hair or the Christian in Denver doesn’t want to bake a gay themed cake I support the rights of those business owners to choose their own business model. All anti discrimination laws should only be enforced in the public sector, schools, courts, government programs, anything tax payers founded absolutely 100%.
That said under our current law of someone wants to challenge [BLEEP] policy i don’t think it will hold up in court. It’s age discrimination and that was established in the civil rights act. Doesn’t mean I agree with it
Sounds ike you were never restricted to the Coloreds Only water fountain.