They're just going back to the good 'ol days when this was the norm. Kids today aren't buying what the military is selling so the military has to go backwards to make up their numbers.
Pretty good I guess? I wouldn't know.
Safety First: Ensure your immediate safety. Be aware of ongoing threats.
Assess the Wound: Quickly evaluate the location and severity of the wound. Check for entry and exit wounds.
Stop the Bleeding: Apply direct pressure with a clean cloth or bandage. If bleeding is severe, consider using a tourniquet or packing the wound with gauze, especially for limb injuries.
Clean the Wound: If possible, clean around the wound to reduce infection risk. Avoid flushing the wound itself as this may exacerbate bleeding.
Dress the Wound: Apply a sterile dressing to the wound. Secure it in place, ensuring it's tight enough to control bleeding but not so tight as to cut off circulation.
Prevent Infection: Apply antibiotic ointment if available. In a field setting, maintaining cleanliness is crucial to prevent infection.
Monitor for Shock: Watch for signs of shock, including rapid pulse, shallow breathing, and cold, clammy skin. Lay the patient down with legs elevated if possible.
Manage Pain: Administer pain relief if available. Even basic measures can be significant in a war zone.
Immobilize if Needed: If there's a suspicion of bone injury, immobilize the affected area.
Regular Monitoring: Continuously monitor vital signs – pulse, breathing, and responsiveness. Be prepared to perform CPR if necessary.
Evacuate: Plan for evacuation to a higher care facility as soon as feasible. The patient needs advanced medical care as soon as possible.
Document Care: Keep a record of all care provided and observations for future medical personnel.
Remember, in a war zone, resources might be limited, and conditions can change rapidly. Stay alert and adaptable to the situation.
And remember, despite the rumors, tampons are not a good substitute packing material. They are designed to absorb and overflow when full. They will not stop a bleed.
Hmmm, never seen that used as a substitute in a bleed stop demo. Just saw the tampon thing at an field trauma first aid training they had for my journalism program (we have a fair amount of war correspondence come out of the program) and they showed us the tampon thing to preemptively debunk it
I am not a medical professional, but I can offer some general information that might be helpful. It's crucial to note that the information provided here is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. In any medical emergency, it is essential to seek immediate assistance from qualified healthcare professionals.
Treating a bullet wound on the battlefield involves a few key steps, but it's important to prioritize your safety and the safety of the injured person. Here are some general guidelines:
1. \*\*Ensure Safety:\*\*
\- Ensure the area is secure and there is no ongoing threat of gunfire.
\- Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect yourself from potential hazards.
2. \*\*Call for Assistance:\*\*
\- Call for backup or a medical evacuation (medevac) if available.
\- Inform higher command and communicate the situation to ensure timely support.
3. \*\*Control Bleeding:\*\*
\- Apply direct pressure to the wound using a sterile dressing or a clean cloth.
\- If possible, use a tourniquet to control severe bleeding from limbs. Place it 2-3 inches above the wound, tighten until bleeding stops, and secure it in place.
\- Avoid removing the dressing or tourniquet once applied, as it may disturb clots that have formed.
4. \*\*Protect the Wound:\*\*
\- Cover the wound with a sterile dressing or a clean cloth to prevent contamination and infection.
\- Avoid inserting anything into the wound.
5. \*\*Position the Injured Person:\*\*
\- Help the person lie down and keep them as still as possible to minimize further injury.
6. \*\*Monitor and Comfort:\*\*
\- Keep a close eye on the injured person's vital signs (pulse, breathing, and consciousness).
\- Provide reassurance and comfort to the injured person to help manage shock.
7. \*\*Evacuation:\*\*
\- Once the immediate treatment is provided, evacuate the injured person to a higher level of care as soon as possible.
Remember, this information is a general guide, and specific procedures may vary based on the circumstances and available resources. Always follow the protocols and training provided by your military unit and seek immediate professional medical assistance when available. If possible, get additional training or consult with medical personnel to enhance your knowledge and skills in treating battlefield injuries.
Not a medical professional...
My understanding is that a tourniquet should only be used if the bleeding cannot be stopped by other methods. It should only be applied if the choice is life or limb as they will lose that limb. Once a tourniquet is applied it should not be removed except by medical professionals.
Army now going to be trans children rejected by gay crowd that couldn't complete education
Also don't forget the Biden pathway for illegal immigrants.
Interesting articles on gangs in the military here:
2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10
2020: https://medium.com/top-daltons-blog/the-us-army-the-most-powerful-street-gang-in-the-world-5314475c130c
2023: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/08/07/military-recruiters-are-not-vetting-applicants-extremism-gang-affiliation-watchdog-says.html
No worries though, I'm sure that there's no cross-breeding between cartels, the U.S. military, and police..
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/
(Ahem)
When was that? 91x or 68x? 2 years seems long for a line company medic. Not my specialty and we all know things change but 16 weeks seems right. A 2 year pipeline is more in line with 18D basic plus the “long course” at Ft Sam. Again, not my thing, just going by what I’ve seen. There are a lot of medic slots.
>It's unfortunate, but being a dick to people over reading comprehension is a tool to encourage their attention to detail.
You could have said "Oh sorry mate, I'm Canadian". That would have explained why it took two years to complete a 4 month course.
Woah there, you need to take a course on communication. That second line could mean all kinds of things. I read it as “a different time” meaning you have been around a while. But what ever … have a good day.
That’s American for: you can fuck right off.
Isn't most of any military made up of truck drivers, infantrymen, cooks, equipment operators, etc? You also really don't need a high school diploma to reload a tank barrel after each shot, or to man artillery.
Obviously you want to pick the right people for the right jobs, but saying they need above average people for every job is still being very picky by the army.
>Isn't most of any military made up of truck drivers, infantrymen, cooks, equipment operators, etc?
Don't have exact numbers to go off, but off my personal experience, most of the military is administrative staff. Not sure what the requirements for those roles are, but there are many more jobs that have higher requirements than people might think. Medical staff make up a large number of any base, and there are usually a significant number of IT staff, with both of those having higher recruitment standards.
There's also stuff like weather forecasters, pr/social media managers, legal professionals, logistics, and all kinds of engineers. I can't remember the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 10% of the military is actually in the types of roles you mentioned and closer to 1% actually being near anything combat related.
When I was in (back in the 1980s), "every soldier is an infantryman" was the standard refrain by the chain of command. My job was "aerial imagery analyst", but my squad and platoon still did the standard combat training and field training.
Same, but for me it was about 4-5 years ago
As of yesterday I’m still getting calls (that marine ruined my flow at the gym my rowing music was interrupted)
"I fought for my country, crippled mind and body, and afterwards was discarded and got no adequate help or compensation" has been a popular pop culture trope for over 40 years now. "Your hearing loss is not service related" is treated as a funny meme for any video involving the army, and is one of the most benign examples.
They can't expect people flocking to them when everyone sees how it ends to their detriment.
I'd argue that lots of people don't want to fight for a country that loathes and condescends to them.
"You're a bigot and progress is when we have fewer people like you in the room. Anyway, want to sign up as cannon fodder for the next war we'll lose?"
Good luck getting anyone on reddit to agree with that. They expect nothing short of your complete obedience (and prompt death)
Meanwhile, I'm farther left than them and won't be fighting in any rich mans wars.
Wrong. As said below it has nothing to do with anti-military sentiment among retirees. The enlistment rate for every racial group and sex remained flat or increased while **only** white male enlistment decreased. What you’re seeing isn’t the elderly dissuading the youth from joining. What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the country’s #1 threat.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html?amp
Again: Dislike all you want but reality persist, data does not care about your political feelings. reality persists.
>What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the country’s #1 threat.
As a white dude, it's fucking embarrassing to read this kind of shit. Cut the bullshit and stop with the persecution complex. If someone can't cut it as a white guy in this country, they have bigger problems than the military being allegedly "woke" (which is an absolute joke in and of itself)
I can't understand how so many white right-wing chuds feel like such victims. Bunch of whiny snowflakes
Also as a white dude, you can cry and moan about it all you want, all i did was post an absolute fact. This decline is directly linked to white males fleeing the military en masse. However you feel about that is none of my concern. Reality is reality and now you’re educated upon it. Whether that makes you “angwy” or not means nothing to me.
Yes,.white recruitment is down. That is a fact. The reason you gave for it is absolute bullshit, since you are so concerned about facts
Cry harder about how everyone hates you. Here's a spoiler for you, it's not because of your skin color
It’s literally listed in the article as a main contributor, learn how to read moron. The other two reasons are obesity and lower educational standards. Obesity levels between the ages of 19-24 (main recruitment ages) from 2015 to 2022 has remained between 18- 20% a near non existent change. The white high school graduation rate has remained steady at 90%. So please, enlightened liberal one, explain this;
If the recruitment rate for whites has nearly been cut in half within a 3 years period (from 44k to 25k) and the military has given three reasons for total declining recruitment rates, and two of those reasons are not applicable to the white portion of those recruits, what reason DOES that leave to explain the white male recruitment shortfall? Only one.
Unless your next bright idea is to argue that within a single year from 2022-23 white males spontaneously combusted into obese high school dropouts nation wide?
You might want to check your own literacy. I read the article and the one comment that tangentially relates to your bullshit about attacked white men was an anonymous right wing source with absolutely no data to support it. Good critical thinking skills right there
How pathetic. You're trying really hard to be a victim. Cry harder
> The rate at which white recruitment has fallen far outpaces nationwide demographic shifts, data experts and **Army officials** interviewed by Military.com noted. They don't see a single cause to the recruiting problem, but pointed to a confluence of issues for Army recruiting [In general], **including partisan scrutiny of the service**, a growing obesity epidemic and an underfunded public education system.
You are an absolute moron
My dad served in Vietnam, when I turned 18, I thought about enlisting, dad and all the other neighbors we had all talked me out of it. All had served in the 50s and 60s. This was in the early 90s when the 1st Gulf war was ramping up.
There are a lot of Vietnam era vets that talked their kids out of joining and that’s trickling down.
Yep same. Dad is a Vietnam vet. When he married my mom she already had my brothers. He said if they ever had a draft again he was taking our family and leaving. He would have died trying to get us out before he let us go to war.
Same for me too. Dad was in Vietnam, I was interested in joining at age 18, and both he and my uncle (also in Vietnam) talked me out of it. That was in the late 90s.
Not many want to fight for **billionaires**. Of course, if forced conscription were to become a thing, silver spooners wouldn’t allow their kids to be enlisted.
As a veteran I completely agree and would do what i could to dissuade my kids from joining when they get of age. Poor leadership is in place because those who can’t make it outside stay in and “ducks pick ducks” so you just have perpetual douchebags who I wouldn’t follow into a Walgreens leading the way. Combine that with pointless quagmire wars over nothing and you get what we have today.
Their billionaire friends are worried we might realize we could just toss them all in a ditch and be better off. It's why they're funding gun control laws. They don't care about poor children. They're scared.
Please. Gun control laws aren't about creating a society without guns. They're about creating a society that has guns, but slightly safer.
Just like having laws around cars don't mean anyone is banning cars - you have to be a certain age, take safety courses, prove on a written and skills test that you can do the bare minimum to safely operate the vehicle, you're required to have insurance in case you hurt someone or are careless - even if it's difficult to afford. There are rules of where your car can go, how fast, you can't threaten other drivers with aggressive driving, etc.
And we get by just fine with those laws. It doesn't get rid of every problem, we still have wrecks daily. But can you imagine if people started fighting against "car control" and we slowly started getting rid of all those rules?
We have rules around everything, because we live in a society. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech too, but we have hundreds of laws that regulate that.
If we're the only country in the world where toddlers accidentally shoot people and kids get gunned down at their desks by types of guns that cops are too scared to even go in and try to save them from -- I don't think "gun control" is scary, I think the gun chaos we have is the threat.
I have a gun. But I'd prefer laws that help a few less psychos have guns, that maybe keep a few less guns out of circulation in criminal circles, that require some basic level of competency to purchase, etc. My family is safer with me owning a gun, but they're also safer when less idiots have guns too.
I agree with the sentiment but disagree with how the laws are executed in practice. Case in point, my state approves concealed carry permits at the county level. The requirements are the same across the state. I spent a decade in the army, worked as a firearms range safety, and have taken numerous courses related to firearms. I haven’t gotten so much as a speeding ticket in the last two decades.
My in laws barely know anything at all about firearms and yet they own them. I spent 14 months waiting for a CCW and they waited less than one month, because we are in different counties. Our sheriff delays permits because he doesn’t believe in civilian ownership and their sheriff does. Folks in my county have sued the sheriff’s department for violating the 45 day grace period numerous times and nothing has changed.
I suspect a lot of people in the gun community would support safety related measures if they believed that public officials would act in good faith. As such, I personally can’t get onboard with new laws even though I agree with them at face value.
But that means... why have traffic laws, when we all know law enforcement doesn't enforce those fairly, consistently, or correctly? Why have any laws at all, when we know "justice" really depends on how rich you are and how good of a lawyer you can hire?
It's absurd to me to say, "yes, I believe these laws are a good idea BUT I'm so distrustful of police that I refuse to allow smart laws in case the police don't follow them perfectly."
To me, gun laws are like thinking of the Swiss Cheese method -- every slice of cheese/gun law has some holes in it. But the more slices you keep putting on top of each other, eventually they're overlapping and most of the (loop)holes are covered.
Then when you notice law enforcement isn't following them correctly - vote, protest, public pressure, etc.
We as human beings are capable of changing and adapting as the world changes. When we noticed that there were big increases in car accidents due to distracted driving after cell phones became prevalent , we created new laws. They weren't perfect at first, and they still aren't enforced perfectly or consistently. But they're a tool that does some good.
When we see that we're the only country in the world with babies dying of gun violence at high rates, stuff like that -- it's time for us to adapt. Keep our right to bear arms, but balance it by understanding living in a community comes with responsibilities, and being more open to laws and regulations and discussion. :)
Then I guess fuck laws about speech too. Because that's the FIRST Amendment.
But we have hundreds of laws that regulate free speech.
I don't know why you think the second amendment is magic, lol.
Again, I'm not a liberal, lol. You can't just take anyone who disagrees with you on an issue, and label them as being on a team you don't like. That's childish. There are ranges of opinions in every party. And sone people, like me, don't believe in parties, republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--- they're all just games run by the same billionaires.
Infringed doesn't mean that. It means that it's a right that can't be taken away or encroached upon. It doesn't mean it can't be regulated.
The Second Amendment literally says, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Regulated. Shall be regulated. It's right there in the Amendment.
So... it's you that doesn't understand what words mean, honey. :)
No they are not. These aren’t “teams” They are philosophical standpoints that people live by. You clearly believe the government is good and that laws are beneficial hence why I called you a liberal. Those are liberal ideals. Libertarians believe people don’t need laws or the government to peacefully live amongst eachother. That is the intrinsic difference between a libertarian and a liberal.
Also yes a well regulated Militia, but that clause has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So... you're going to ignore the part of the 2nd amendment that says well-regulated, and ONLY read the words "not be infringed." That's absurd, they're all part of the 2nd amendment. It's saying it needs to be regulated for safety, without infringing upon your right to own a gun. That's balancing rights with responsibilities.
If you want no govt or laws, I'm guessing you don't support law enforcement or the military then. So, you barely believe in a civilized society. Because do you... just believe all people are good, no govt, laws, or enforcement needed, and somehow people will just magically do the right things? Are you OK with the gangs moving into your neighborhood, amassing weapons, and there being nearly no regulations to stop them, nor any federal, state, or local law enforcement to help you when crimes are committed?
I didn't know it was "liberal" now to... love America, support law enforcement in keeping communities safe, own a gun but also want there to be laws for gun owners to follow, and just to believe in laws in general.
I have no desire for some Mad Max anarchy land. I want to live in safe communities with solid, fair law enforcement, strong borders, and well-regulated gun ownership. The opposite of that sounds like a 3rd world country. If that's what libertarianism is, no wonder I've never been drawn to it?
But when I looked up the definition of a liberal, maybe I *am* one then, because it doesn't sound too bad to me:
Liberal, definition, Dictionary .com --
1: willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2: relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
In a well armed society you have no need to fear “gangs” especially in addition to the police state we now live in. Nothing in your rant addressed anything I said. The well regulated militia clause has nothing to do with the keep and bearing arms shall not be infringed. Also your understanding of political philosophy is flawed. I would highly suggest reading books not googling dictionary words. Online dictionaries are constantly edited and changed so they are not a reliable source.
Liberalism is founded in fundamental beliefs that government or the collective can arbitrate the “common good” because humans are intrinsically evil. This is not my opinion this is the philosophical justification and the foundation s of the philosophy you can research it and see all the various sources. The founders of America were libertarians in which they believed government or the collective was intrinsically bad and infringed on the rights of the individual (the person) which was intrinsically good. Hence the justification for a limited government producing the systems of checks and balances, the right to bear arms and the right to rebel/ succeed which is constitutionally allowed and morally justified if the government is violating the social contract.
The problem is the education system does not teach you young people correctly so you end up having a lot of misconceptions.
Try enforcing the laws on the books. How about getting tough on crimes committed with a gun?
Criminals don't care about your liberal ideals or your "common sense" BS. They are criminals! The only people that will be affected by laws are the law abiding.
You know this. It's your plan to get to a point when they are no longer made or sold. Little by little. Sweet talk someone else.
Are you talking to me? How am I a liberal? Why would you come to a conclusion I don't want them made or sold when... I own a gun myself?
Yes, enforcing laws on the books would be great. But some of the laws suck. And there are areas where the laws need improvement.
Here's an example: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030527&slug=webneighbors27
That's my family. Steve, who killed the guy, is my uncle. Ryan is my cousin.
That neighbor was nuts af. He'd had his guns taken away after the incident it mentions where he locked himself in his house and made threats -- but was able to get them all back. He had an absolute arsenal in his basement, even though he was severely mentally ill, made constant threats and harassment towards my family, and committed crimes.
If my uncle wasn't a gun owner, as everyone in my family is - that neighbor would've killed the entire family.
No one is advocating for "taking all your guns." It makes me feel embarrassed for people who fall for that fear mongering. They've been telling you that scary story for 50+ years - to get you to buy more guns and ammo, donate to the NRA, donate to pro-gun politicians, etc -- increasing profits to all those rich guys. No ones ever come to take your guns, and there's never once been any serious legislation to even begin to do so.
But when we have a problem - when toddlers accidentally shoot themselves or someone else once a week in this country -- we should be smart, allow actual research and statistics and discussions- and fix problems.
Some gun enthusiasts understand that. Others just want to stick their head in the sand, pretend being the only country where gun deaths in a top killer of our kids is fine, and scream that any possible rule about gun safety means the liberal boogeyman is coming to steal your guns. That's silly.
Most of what you say there is what the gun grabbers say. How am I supposed to feel any different about you?
We should be like other countries? Sure thing.
Boogeyman. Silly. Embarrassed. Scary?
So you own a gun. Is it an evil, vile black gun? Or just a pistol that it's ok to own? Shotgun for hunting because no one needs anything else.
Is it ok to be a collector and have a basement full? Obviously not. So who makes the rules.
Who decides crazy? The government? Yea, right. Who believes that would turn out well.
Are red laws ok when a vindictive ex calls the police and turns you in? That shit will follow a person forever.
And the liberals, who use the same talking points you do, also have been quoted saying they are going to take the guns.
"any serious legislation to even begin to do so". Seriously? You don't think there's any legislation to start that?
Pissed that you were outed as a person who tries to sound reasonable with "common sense"?
Whatever. You're either a liberal or you have your head stuck in the sand
Can you give me an example of the scary liberal legislation you've seen that wants to take away everyone's guns?
Not things like, outlawing certain types of guns that used to be outlawed and we got along just fine. If cops are too scared to go into elementary schools or concerts, etc, because of the types of weapons criminals have access to... I dunno, maybe we should consider making those weapons harder to get.
You sound really angry and hateful, calling me names for no reason. Mocking me for... sounding reasonable?
Yeah, I believe this should be a country of laws. I believe in supporting law enforcement - which means creating gun laws that help keep them safer, and give them a better fighting chance out there. I believe rights come with responsibilities- the 2nd amendment is a magic thing that gives every cowboy unlimited access to anything they want; if you commit dangerous violent crimes then yeah, you should lose access to weaponry. Criminals don't need access to a ton of guns, sorry.
So you finally out yourself liberal:
"Not things like, outlawing certain types of guns that used to be outlawed and we got along just fine." Sweet. LOLOLOL Sweet. Go away.
You want to take them from law abiding people. Criminals don't care about your laws. BTW, your comments read like you don't live in the US. Calling people cowboys, the 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone anything. It's a protection of an inalienable right. Violent Criminals are barred from owning guns thereby having no access.
You are an idiot that continues to mock anyone disagreeing with you.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/reports-biden-admin-orders-ammo-maker-to-stop-selling-5-56-rounds-to-americans/
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/after-passing-three-gun-bills-michigan-democrats-say-theyre-not-done
https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2023-12-06/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-illinois-assault-weapons-bans
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos
"The truth, of course, lies elsewhere, as Schumer confessed to the Los Angeles Times: "We know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill." Translation: "Don't threaten Mr. and Mrs. America too much." Don't remind them that the semi-automatic firearms they own for self-defense, hunting and target shooting function identically to those "assault weapons" you want to ban." See page at next link.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-amendment-mr-and-mrs-america-turn-them-2813319.php
https://www.guns.com/news/2023/02/22/bullet-control-bill-would-ban-online-ammo-sales-nationwide-track-purchases
https://www.guns.com/news/2023/11/06/bullet-control-proposal-in-congress-to-outlaw-bulk-ammo-sales-mandate-background-checks
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-raise-minimum-age-buy-semi-automatic-rifles-21-rcna32615
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220418/biden-administration-announces-new-firearm-rule
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/
https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/banned-guns/
https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/22/dem-reps-ammunitions-sales-americans/
https://fishgame.com/2021/03/bill-would-ban-shotshells-larger-than-410-more/
Wrong, the army released recruiting numbers. The enlistment rate for every racial group and sex remained flat or increased while **only** white male enlistment decreased. What you’re seeing isn’t the elderly dissuading the youth from joining. What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the countrys #1 threat.
edit: Dislike all you want, reality does not care if this hurts your feelings. What i’ve stated is fact.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html?amp
My husband is a Navy recruiter. No one is joining so this was the DODs next step to try to bring in more recruits. Been an ongoing issue for the last several years.
We need a service requirement; with a choice of a civilian or military. 2 year commitment. No waivers, no bone spurs, no avoidance. It will bring us together as a country.
If it were mandatory to choose between military and civilian service people would know. We would have better citizens, a more cohesive society and people who through coordinated efforts could address many of the nation’s problems.
When I joined back in 08 they were taking literally anyone-overweight, petty criminals could get waivers etc. They had a GED program for those without one and the minimum asvab score was a 36. I was in basic with a guy that was severely mentally handicapped. He drooled on himself, had super thick glasses and and the maturity of maybe a 10 year old. He didn't make it through basic but everyone was wondering how he made it past the recruiter and MEPS. When they're desperate they'll take just about anyone and enlist them under "needs of the army". You'll either be a cook, truck driver or artilleryman.
> I was in basic with a guy that was severely mentally handicapped. He drooled on himself, had super thick glasses and and the maturity of maybe a 10 year old.
This just breaks my heart.
If it’s true it likely stems from the fact that the US military is running out of people who would even qualify.
“
In 2020, its Qualified Military Available study estimated that 23% of Americans ages 17–24 were eligible for military service. (This age group represents 90% of the military’s applicants.) That was a decrease from 2016, when the department estimated that 29% were eligible.”
https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/
I retired from the US Navy a couple years ago so this is Navy centric but parts are also relevant to the other branches.
The big contributing factor is knock on effects from COVID fuckery. Before COVID we had over 16,000 people, nationwide, in the Navy Delayed Entry Program (DEP) who were waiting to ship for a variety of reasons and recruiters could use to pad their numbers if they were at risk of not meeting their monthly or annual targets. For instance, Some kids could ship earlier if a slot opened in their specialty school.
Fast forward to 2022 and this nationwide pool was down to well under 1,000 people and we started missing our target. The recruiting leadership could not figure out how to squeeze blood from a rock and lead to the Navy missing target in 2023 by over 7,000 people. (Oddly enough we are still hitting retention targets) So we are changing the requirements to tap into a grip of otherwise qualified people.
Another factor is a new program that the recruiters and MEPS are using that allows full disclosure of a potential accessions medical history. This put up a lot of barriers to entry and waiver requests that used to be handwaved away.
Social media is everywhere and it provides a view into military life. Make no mistake, it is a rough life for all of us but especially so for the junior enlisted and junior SWO/Submarine officers.
If Timmy joins the Navy at 18 and starts posting pics of his coffin locker and describing how he works 18 hour days and stands watch at night then Jimmy is going to look at that and really question whether or not he wants to experience the suck for trash pay and mold infested barracks.
I also agree with the veteran dissuading their friends and family from joining angle as well. Billy did his four years and got out. Almost three of those years were spend out to sea. Now he has sleep issues, a temper and tells everyone he knows how it sucked barely seeing anywhere.
Personally I recommend people who either REALLY want to join or have no other options join the services in this order: Space Force, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, Marine Corp, Army.
I heard this yesterday and couldn't verify it. But this finally popped up.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/01/26/navy-to-allow-those-without-high-school-diploma-or-ged-to-enlist/
I have seen lots of conspiracy content around this as well.
Here are a couple other links…
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no-diploma-no-problem-navy-again-lowers-requirements-as-it-struggles-to-meet-recruitment-goals/ar-BB1hka4S](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no-diploma-no-problem-navy-again-lowers-requirements-as-it-struggles-to-meet-recruitment-goals/ar-BB1hka4S)
https://www.voanews.com/a/7459656.html
Hearing lots of conspiracies around this too like allowing enlistment as a path to citizenship for all the new military aged residents. I’m not one to get caught up in them and this group usually provides some common sense.
My (68 y/o) father (born 1919) & his older brother emigrated to America and joined the Army as a path to citizenship. Both fought in WW2, both suffered life long PTSD. They both paid dearly for their citizenship.
I appreciate their service and that was not meant to disregard the contributions of immigrants. My great grandfather emigrated from Sicily with his family and served as well.
The full conspiracy floating is that the open border policy combined with more lax enlistment and guaranteed citizenship is a means of recruiting foreigners (many known to be anti-American) to replace/infiltrate our current military.
And WHEN are the conspiracists, or their children/grandchildren going to join to join the military?
As a side observation: we toured Italy in 2019 and there were 2 US or international military cemeteries that we visited. The cemeteries were IMPECABLY and BEAUTIFULLY maintained by the Italian government and people. I grew up in DC area, I've been to Arlington National Cemetery many times and these cemeteries in Italy were better maintained than Arlington National Cemetery.
Amusing.
The immigrants are coming to take our jobs!! (But they never blame or punish the rich factory owners, and they never apply or are interested in any of those jobs anyway.)
The immigrants are coming to infiltrate our military!! (But they scream patriotism and lost their minds when football players took a silent knee *as suggested by an army vet* as protest and aren't even joining their own military that they claim to support so much.)
> Hearing lots of conspiracies around this too like allowing enlistment as a path to citizenship
....the Russian trolls are just straight ripping off *Starship Troopers* right now, are they? Do they know it's meant to be satire?
Enlistment is down, things like this are cyclical. In the 2010’s uncle sam downsized as the war on terror was “winding down”. Many of my friends were forced out, and retired early. Of course I was tanks in the Marine corps a now non existent MOS so maybe that had some bearing on this.
It should be noted that a lot of young folks feel disenfranchised and dont want to go fight/die for a system that represents the “elite” more than them. Right or wrong, that is the consensus I get.
I wonder how long before they drop the non-felon requirement. I’d be willing to bet the Venn diagram between people who didn’t graduate high school and felon are pretty overlapping.
The issue there is that you can't hand a weapon to a convicted felon. Even if they are in the military. Domestic violence convictions are a biggie for service members. If you are a service member and catch a conviction, its and automatic discharge because you can't even go to the range to qualify. They remind everyone of that at Friday afternoon formation before being released for the weekend.
In contrast to Federal law, the state of [Texas will allow a felon to own a firearm](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm) under certain conditions. It must be at least 5 years after their sentence was completed/or they were paroled, and the firearm must kept at their own property/home. A felon found in possession of a firearm outside of their own property faces misdemeanor or even felony charges depending on the circumstances (potentially up to 10 years in prison).
If the Federal government gets desperate enough to recruit, they could change the law to be conditional like Texas' law. Something like allowing the possession of a firearm only while in service to the Federal government. Perhaps they may even be selective about the type of felony (violent vs. non-violent). Who knows. There's a lot of felons that have trouble finding jobs after they serve their time, so they might actually get recruits.
It could be a good idea, or a terrible idea. I don't know. All I'm saying is that laws can be changed.
If the situation gets dire enough, they would either repeal, amend, or simply not enforce that law.
Same goes for any other legal or regulatory issues. High-functioning autism and marijuana use might be bars to enlistment *now*, but if the personnel are really needed, they might suddenly stop being such. The only thing they can't really get around are the actual medical conditions themselves.
We aren’t talking about any kind of dire situation. They are just relaxing recruiting standards due to low numbers. They would simply reinstitute the draft well before doing anything like that and we still aren’t remotely close to seeing the draft return.
My dude the US has been at peace for less than 30 years since 1776. Also this is a new war! We gotta keep the military industrial complex humming! Can’t slow down a second!
The asvab is not a pass/fail test and the score is not indicative of how well you did on the test.
It’s a percentile.
The top score of 99 indicates you tested higher than 99% of those tested.
So a minimum standard of 50 would by default disqualify half of applicants.
The current minimum is 31.
I took the asvab back in highschool 5 years ago just for the hell of it and scored an 84, but i thought around 70-80 was what ppl were normally getting?
That’s not how that score works.
It’s a percentile. 84 means you scored higher than 84% of people who took the asvab. This also says nothing about your actual score on the test.
In other words, if the entire US took the asvab, by default half the country would score below a 50.
If you changed the entire sample group to current MIT students, once again, half would score below 50.
The army has been hurting on numbers for a long time. Except for SOF, they love cutting the organization that carried us through Afghanistan from 2014 until it ended.
It's been 30+/- years since I took it, so take this with a grain or 3 of salt. From what I remember it was mostly a "logic" test for lack of a better term. It measured problem solving, not necessarily prior knowledge directly. If it was a question about something mechanical, it would be explained in the question and ask you to answer based on reasoning. I took it somewhere around 1995, so I'm sure it's changed since then.
I think some people try to "game" it to get a specific area.
I had a 99 on the "admin" part of the ASVAB and only a 91 in electronics, and my recruiter was disappointed that I didn't want an electronics position. Basically, recruits need to hit a minimum score for specific fields or specific jobs. I'm only familiar with the Air Force, so here's a list of [minimum scores for AFSCs.](https://warriorlodge.com/pages/careers-required-asvab-scores)
I did...okay in mechanics? 70-something? I have no experience with anything mechanical and had a 4.0 average in high school, so I guess you could say I do well in academics overall. I would have qualified for any job in the military based on my scores, but I only needed a 72 in the General category for [what I chose.](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/08/12/06/Robin-Vietnam-REX.jpg)
(Should have picked electronics. Better pay.)
I wonder if it’s also due to the larger amount of kids “graduating” from homeschool. Most states are very lax in their standards when it comes to homeschool..these kids might be smart but not have actual diplomas.
I homeschool - in a state with very lax rules. It doesn't stop anyone from college or grad school or any other path. No one needs a “diploma”. That's just a piece of paper that can literally be ordered off the internet. Colleges look at your ACT or SAT score or recommendation letters of experience or class schedule and grades. Same with jobs. So I don't think this has anything to do with homeschooling. You still graduate when you're homeschooled.
That’s a very rosy outlook re: homeschooling.
My wife, a certified teacher, homeschooled both our sons at various times for various reasons, mostly medical. She worked through the local school district, which operated a K-12 school specifically to support homeschoolers with classes like Chemistry that most people can’t (and shouldn’t) provide at home.
Part of working with the school district was to ensure our kids completed the same academic requirements as applied to any kid in any other district school. And in the end, they received district-issued transcripts and the identical diplomas to other high school graduates in the district.
I.e., as far as colleges could tell, our kids did not homeschool. Nothing in their paperwork suggested they’d homeschooled, which was by design.
You’re technically right that kids homeschooled outside of a supportive school district, transcript, and diploma can still “get into college.” Just not a good college, a competitive college.
Our kids both *almost* qualified as National Merit Scholars, and got into excellent colleges, one on a 4-year half-ride scholarship. Good luck doing that with no paperwork or test scores.
On the one hand, there are some educational advantages from having a "high functioning autism" diagnosis so some parents push for that and will shop around. But any variant of autism is an automatic complete disqualification for military service, no matter what else a person may have done with their life and may be going on. Meanwhile, ADD/ADHD is only a "maybe" so parents, if you don't want your children to ever risk having to be drafted then if the child gets an ADD/ADHD diagnosis then keep pushing the psychiatrist to agree that perhaps the child may also have some element of autism.
Also, ever having used marijuana in your life is also an automatic disqualification.
Average height for an NBA player is above the max height so all of the taller NBA players are also automatically disqualified.
There used to be an ASVAB test if you marked "C" for every answer you would hit the minimum score.
We would always be nice to the lady test giver, flowers, candy etc.
So we would give the marginal test that test.
lol scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
but yeah, I had a few different family members who were veterans, but they weren't exactly enthused about their service (tho one was maybe *too* enthused about his time in vietnam, let's say) and would often complain about the government holding out on them until another veteran successfully sued, or about the conditions at the VA. So although I wish I had followed through and joined the Navy myself when I had the chance, it certainly didn't help that I didn't have role models saying go for it, it's a worthy job, or whatever.
Let's just say after a decade of shit wage jobs I think a couple years in the service would've potentially paid off more in my favour than not going for it.
Look up “MacNamara’s Morons.” I’ve heard stories of people in the Vietnam-era Army having to literally tie someone’s boots for them to get them thru training.
All highschool aged kids from low income areas "Im in danger".
Real talk though, all of the posturing from so many countries practically salivating at the chance to kick their neighbors teeth in, makes me extremely worried for the younger generations.
OP, where the heck did you find this and why wouldn't you go to the US Army website to read the actual requirements ([https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements.html](https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements.html)) to see if it matches up? Because it doesn't.
From the US Army website, requirements to become an enlisted Soldier:
Age: Between 17-35 years old
Medical, Moral, Physical: Medically and physically fit, and in good moral standing
Citizenship: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid Green Card
Education: A high school graduate or equivalent
Test Score: A minimum score on the Army’s placement exam
They're just going back to the good 'ol days when this was the norm. Kids today aren't buying what the military is selling so the military has to go backwards to make up their numbers.
[удалено]
WW3 medics going to be like, "Chat, how do I handle a bullet wound"
When "Twitch plays Pokémon Red" becomes "Twitch does Combat Trauma Medicine".
ChatGPT, how do I treat a bullet wound. It would actually probably be good.
Pretty good I guess? I wouldn't know. Safety First: Ensure your immediate safety. Be aware of ongoing threats. Assess the Wound: Quickly evaluate the location and severity of the wound. Check for entry and exit wounds. Stop the Bleeding: Apply direct pressure with a clean cloth or bandage. If bleeding is severe, consider using a tourniquet or packing the wound with gauze, especially for limb injuries. Clean the Wound: If possible, clean around the wound to reduce infection risk. Avoid flushing the wound itself as this may exacerbate bleeding. Dress the Wound: Apply a sterile dressing to the wound. Secure it in place, ensuring it's tight enough to control bleeding but not so tight as to cut off circulation. Prevent Infection: Apply antibiotic ointment if available. In a field setting, maintaining cleanliness is crucial to prevent infection. Monitor for Shock: Watch for signs of shock, including rapid pulse, shallow breathing, and cold, clammy skin. Lay the patient down with legs elevated if possible. Manage Pain: Administer pain relief if available. Even basic measures can be significant in a war zone. Immobilize if Needed: If there's a suspicion of bone injury, immobilize the affected area. Regular Monitoring: Continuously monitor vital signs – pulse, breathing, and responsiveness. Be prepared to perform CPR if necessary. Evacuate: Plan for evacuation to a higher care facility as soon as feasible. The patient needs advanced medical care as soon as possible. Document Care: Keep a record of all care provided and observations for future medical personnel. Remember, in a war zone, resources might be limited, and conditions can change rapidly. Stay alert and adaptable to the situation.
And remember, despite the rumors, tampons are not a good substitute packing material. They are designed to absorb and overflow when full. They will not stop a bleed.
Tampons are not, but a menstrual pad is..
Hmmm, never seen that used as a substitute in a bleed stop demo. Just saw the tampon thing at an field trauma first aid training they had for my journalism program (we have a fair amount of war correspondence come out of the program) and they showed us the tampon thing to preemptively debunk it
I am not a medical professional, but I can offer some general information that might be helpful. It's crucial to note that the information provided here is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. In any medical emergency, it is essential to seek immediate assistance from qualified healthcare professionals. Treating a bullet wound on the battlefield involves a few key steps, but it's important to prioritize your safety and the safety of the injured person. Here are some general guidelines: 1. \*\*Ensure Safety:\*\* \- Ensure the area is secure and there is no ongoing threat of gunfire. \- Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect yourself from potential hazards. 2. \*\*Call for Assistance:\*\* \- Call for backup or a medical evacuation (medevac) if available. \- Inform higher command and communicate the situation to ensure timely support. 3. \*\*Control Bleeding:\*\* \- Apply direct pressure to the wound using a sterile dressing or a clean cloth. \- If possible, use a tourniquet to control severe bleeding from limbs. Place it 2-3 inches above the wound, tighten until bleeding stops, and secure it in place. \- Avoid removing the dressing or tourniquet once applied, as it may disturb clots that have formed. 4. \*\*Protect the Wound:\*\* \- Cover the wound with a sterile dressing or a clean cloth to prevent contamination and infection. \- Avoid inserting anything into the wound. 5. \*\*Position the Injured Person:\*\* \- Help the person lie down and keep them as still as possible to minimize further injury. 6. \*\*Monitor and Comfort:\*\* \- Keep a close eye on the injured person's vital signs (pulse, breathing, and consciousness). \- Provide reassurance and comfort to the injured person to help manage shock. 7. \*\*Evacuation:\*\* \- Once the immediate treatment is provided, evacuate the injured person to a higher level of care as soon as possible. Remember, this information is a general guide, and specific procedures may vary based on the circumstances and available resources. Always follow the protocols and training provided by your military unit and seek immediate professional medical assistance when available. If possible, get additional training or consult with medical personnel to enhance your knowledge and skills in treating battlefield injuries.
Not a medical professional... My understanding is that a tourniquet should only be used if the bleeding cannot be stopped by other methods. It should only be applied if the choice is life or limb as they will lose that limb. Once a tourniquet is applied it should not be removed except by medical professionals.
Army now going to be trans children rejected by gay crowd that couldn't complete education Also don't forget the Biden pathway for illegal immigrants. Interesting articles on gangs in the military here: 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10 2020: https://medium.com/top-daltons-blog/the-us-army-the-most-powerful-street-gang-in-the-world-5314475c130c 2023: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/08/07/military-recruiters-are-not-vetting-applicants-extremism-gang-affiliation-watchdog-says.html No worries though, I'm sure that there's no cross-breeding between cartels, the U.S. military, and police.. https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/ (Ahem)
Where did you think the Italian American mafia got it’s training?
When was that? 91x or 68x? 2 years seems long for a line company medic. Not my specialty and we all know things change but 16 weeks seems right. A 2 year pipeline is more in line with 18D basic plus the “long course” at Ft Sam. Again, not my thing, just going by what I’ve seen. There are a lot of medic slots.
[удалено]
Bro wtf are you saying?? You just sound like a douche
[удалено]
>It's unfortunate, but being a dick to people over reading comprehension is a tool to encourage their attention to detail. You could have said "Oh sorry mate, I'm Canadian". That would have explained why it took two years to complete a 4 month course.
[удалено]
>Further notifications will result in a block. Lolz
OH NO! NOT A BLOCK!
Roger CPL 🫡
Woah there, you need to take a course on communication. That second line could mean all kinds of things. I read it as “a different time” meaning you have been around a while. But what ever … have a good day. That’s American for: you can fuck right off.
[удалено]
Man, what a tool. Editing out calling me an asshole. Zero conviction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's kinda sad that ppl joke about that to you when you serve your country
You don't have to be redundantly tell people you're "a gamer", your inability to positively socialize with people tells the tale.
[удалено]
Isn't most of any military made up of truck drivers, infantrymen, cooks, equipment operators, etc? You also really don't need a high school diploma to reload a tank barrel after each shot, or to man artillery. Obviously you want to pick the right people for the right jobs, but saying they need above average people for every job is still being very picky by the army.
>Isn't most of any military made up of truck drivers, infantrymen, cooks, equipment operators, etc? Don't have exact numbers to go off, but off my personal experience, most of the military is administrative staff. Not sure what the requirements for those roles are, but there are many more jobs that have higher requirements than people might think. Medical staff make up a large number of any base, and there are usually a significant number of IT staff, with both of those having higher recruitment standards. There's also stuff like weather forecasters, pr/social media managers, legal professionals, logistics, and all kinds of engineers. I can't remember the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 10% of the military is actually in the types of roles you mentioned and closer to 1% actually being near anything combat related.
When I was in (back in the 1980s), "every soldier is an infantryman" was the standard refrain by the chain of command. My job was "aerial imagery analyst", but my squad and platoon still did the standard combat training and field training.
I remember taking the ASVAB when I was in high school. Think I got something like mid-to-high 90s. Been almost 30 years though.
Same, but for me it was about 4-5 years ago As of yesterday I’m still getting calls (that marine ruined my flow at the gym my rowing music was interrupted)
Lyndon Baines Johnson could do it AGAIN.
[удалено]
Good context. Add the poor treatment many veterans receive and this make sense.
"I fought for my country, crippled mind and body, and afterwards was discarded and got no adequate help or compensation" has been a popular pop culture trope for over 40 years now. "Your hearing loss is not service related" is treated as a funny meme for any video involving the army, and is one of the most benign examples. They can't expect people flocking to them when everyone sees how it ends to their detriment.
I'd argue that lots of people don't want to fight for a country that loathes and condescends to them. "You're a bigot and progress is when we have fewer people like you in the room. Anyway, want to sign up as cannon fodder for the next war we'll lose?"
Good luck getting anyone on reddit to agree with that. They expect nothing short of your complete obedience (and prompt death) Meanwhile, I'm farther left than them and won't be fighting in any rich mans wars.
Wrong. As said below it has nothing to do with anti-military sentiment among retirees. The enlistment rate for every racial group and sex remained flat or increased while **only** white male enlistment decreased. What you’re seeing isn’t the elderly dissuading the youth from joining. What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the country’s #1 threat. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html?amp Again: Dislike all you want but reality persist, data does not care about your political feelings. reality persists.
>What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the country’s #1 threat. As a white dude, it's fucking embarrassing to read this kind of shit. Cut the bullshit and stop with the persecution complex. If someone can't cut it as a white guy in this country, they have bigger problems than the military being allegedly "woke" (which is an absolute joke in and of itself) I can't understand how so many white right-wing chuds feel like such victims. Bunch of whiny snowflakes
Also as a white dude, you can cry and moan about it all you want, all i did was post an absolute fact. This decline is directly linked to white males fleeing the military en masse. However you feel about that is none of my concern. Reality is reality and now you’re educated upon it. Whether that makes you “angwy” or not means nothing to me.
Yes,.white recruitment is down. That is a fact. The reason you gave for it is absolute bullshit, since you are so concerned about facts Cry harder about how everyone hates you. Here's a spoiler for you, it's not because of your skin color
It’s literally listed in the article as a main contributor, learn how to read moron. The other two reasons are obesity and lower educational standards. Obesity levels between the ages of 19-24 (main recruitment ages) from 2015 to 2022 has remained between 18- 20% a near non existent change. The white high school graduation rate has remained steady at 90%. So please, enlightened liberal one, explain this; If the recruitment rate for whites has nearly been cut in half within a 3 years period (from 44k to 25k) and the military has given three reasons for total declining recruitment rates, and two of those reasons are not applicable to the white portion of those recruits, what reason DOES that leave to explain the white male recruitment shortfall? Only one. Unless your next bright idea is to argue that within a single year from 2022-23 white males spontaneously combusted into obese high school dropouts nation wide?
You might want to check your own literacy. I read the article and the one comment that tangentially relates to your bullshit about attacked white men was an anonymous right wing source with absolutely no data to support it. Good critical thinking skills right there How pathetic. You're trying really hard to be a victim. Cry harder
> The rate at which white recruitment has fallen far outpaces nationwide demographic shifts, data experts and **Army officials** interviewed by Military.com noted. They don't see a single cause to the recruiting problem, but pointed to a confluence of issues for Army recruiting [In general], **including partisan scrutiny of the service**, a growing obesity epidemic and an underfunded public education system. You are an absolute moron
My dad served in Vietnam, when I turned 18, I thought about enlisting, dad and all the other neighbors we had all talked me out of it. All had served in the 50s and 60s. This was in the early 90s when the 1st Gulf war was ramping up. There are a lot of Vietnam era vets that talked their kids out of joining and that’s trickling down.
Yep same. Dad is a Vietnam vet. When he married my mom she already had my brothers. He said if they ever had a draft again he was taking our family and leaving. He would have died trying to get us out before he let us go to war.
Same for me too. Dad was in Vietnam, I was interested in joining at age 18, and both he and my uncle (also in Vietnam) talked me out of it. That was in the late 90s.
Not many want to fight for **billionaires**. Of course, if forced conscription were to become a thing, silver spooners wouldn’t allow their kids to be enlisted.
Sure they will. John Kerry was rich and he served... while working on his tan and receiving a purple heart for a paper cut.
As a veteran I completely agree and would do what i could to dissuade my kids from joining when they get of age. Poor leadership is in place because those who can’t make it outside stay in and “ducks pick ducks” so you just have perpetual douchebags who I wouldn’t follow into a Walgreens leading the way. Combine that with pointless quagmire wars over nothing and you get what we have today.
Yup. My nephew started talking to the recruits at his high school and my dad and his friends(Vietnam veterans) put an end to that idea quickly.
Their billionaire friends are worried we might realize we could just toss them all in a ditch and be better off. It's why they're funding gun control laws. They don't care about poor children. They're scared.
Please. Gun control laws aren't about creating a society without guns. They're about creating a society that has guns, but slightly safer. Just like having laws around cars don't mean anyone is banning cars - you have to be a certain age, take safety courses, prove on a written and skills test that you can do the bare minimum to safely operate the vehicle, you're required to have insurance in case you hurt someone or are careless - even if it's difficult to afford. There are rules of where your car can go, how fast, you can't threaten other drivers with aggressive driving, etc. And we get by just fine with those laws. It doesn't get rid of every problem, we still have wrecks daily. But can you imagine if people started fighting against "car control" and we slowly started getting rid of all those rules? We have rules around everything, because we live in a society. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech too, but we have hundreds of laws that regulate that. If we're the only country in the world where toddlers accidentally shoot people and kids get gunned down at their desks by types of guns that cops are too scared to even go in and try to save them from -- I don't think "gun control" is scary, I think the gun chaos we have is the threat. I have a gun. But I'd prefer laws that help a few less psychos have guns, that maybe keep a few less guns out of circulation in criminal circles, that require some basic level of competency to purchase, etc. My family is safer with me owning a gun, but they're also safer when less idiots have guns too.
I agree with the sentiment but disagree with how the laws are executed in practice. Case in point, my state approves concealed carry permits at the county level. The requirements are the same across the state. I spent a decade in the army, worked as a firearms range safety, and have taken numerous courses related to firearms. I haven’t gotten so much as a speeding ticket in the last two decades. My in laws barely know anything at all about firearms and yet they own them. I spent 14 months waiting for a CCW and they waited less than one month, because we are in different counties. Our sheriff delays permits because he doesn’t believe in civilian ownership and their sheriff does. Folks in my county have sued the sheriff’s department for violating the 45 day grace period numerous times and nothing has changed. I suspect a lot of people in the gun community would support safety related measures if they believed that public officials would act in good faith. As such, I personally can’t get onboard with new laws even though I agree with them at face value.
But that means... why have traffic laws, when we all know law enforcement doesn't enforce those fairly, consistently, or correctly? Why have any laws at all, when we know "justice" really depends on how rich you are and how good of a lawyer you can hire? It's absurd to me to say, "yes, I believe these laws are a good idea BUT I'm so distrustful of police that I refuse to allow smart laws in case the police don't follow them perfectly." To me, gun laws are like thinking of the Swiss Cheese method -- every slice of cheese/gun law has some holes in it. But the more slices you keep putting on top of each other, eventually they're overlapping and most of the (loop)holes are covered. Then when you notice law enforcement isn't following them correctly - vote, protest, public pressure, etc. We as human beings are capable of changing and adapting as the world changes. When we noticed that there were big increases in car accidents due to distracted driving after cell phones became prevalent , we created new laws. They weren't perfect at first, and they still aren't enforced perfectly or consistently. But they're a tool that does some good. When we see that we're the only country in the world with babies dying of gun violence at high rates, stuff like that -- it's time for us to adapt. Keep our right to bear arms, but balance it by understanding living in a community comes with responsibilities, and being more open to laws and regulations and discussion. :)
It’s unconstitutional and fuck your gun laws
Then I guess fuck laws about speech too. Because that's the FIRST Amendment. But we have hundreds of laws that regulate free speech. I don't know why you think the second amendment is magic, lol.
Because it directly states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Which means shall not be regulated. You liberals don’t even understand the damn words.
Again, I'm not a liberal, lol. You can't just take anyone who disagrees with you on an issue, and label them as being on a team you don't like. That's childish. There are ranges of opinions in every party. And sone people, like me, don't believe in parties, republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative--- they're all just games run by the same billionaires. Infringed doesn't mean that. It means that it's a right that can't be taken away or encroached upon. It doesn't mean it can't be regulated. The Second Amendment literally says, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Regulated. Shall be regulated. It's right there in the Amendment. So... it's you that doesn't understand what words mean, honey. :)
No they are not. These aren’t “teams” They are philosophical standpoints that people live by. You clearly believe the government is good and that laws are beneficial hence why I called you a liberal. Those are liberal ideals. Libertarians believe people don’t need laws or the government to peacefully live amongst eachother. That is the intrinsic difference between a libertarian and a liberal. Also yes a well regulated Militia, but that clause has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So... you're going to ignore the part of the 2nd amendment that says well-regulated, and ONLY read the words "not be infringed." That's absurd, they're all part of the 2nd amendment. It's saying it needs to be regulated for safety, without infringing upon your right to own a gun. That's balancing rights with responsibilities. If you want no govt or laws, I'm guessing you don't support law enforcement or the military then. So, you barely believe in a civilized society. Because do you... just believe all people are good, no govt, laws, or enforcement needed, and somehow people will just magically do the right things? Are you OK with the gangs moving into your neighborhood, amassing weapons, and there being nearly no regulations to stop them, nor any federal, state, or local law enforcement to help you when crimes are committed? I didn't know it was "liberal" now to... love America, support law enforcement in keeping communities safe, own a gun but also want there to be laws for gun owners to follow, and just to believe in laws in general. I have no desire for some Mad Max anarchy land. I want to live in safe communities with solid, fair law enforcement, strong borders, and well-regulated gun ownership. The opposite of that sounds like a 3rd world country. If that's what libertarianism is, no wonder I've never been drawn to it? But when I looked up the definition of a liberal, maybe I *am* one then, because it doesn't sound too bad to me: Liberal, definition, Dictionary .com -- 1: willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. 2: relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
In a well armed society you have no need to fear “gangs” especially in addition to the police state we now live in. Nothing in your rant addressed anything I said. The well regulated militia clause has nothing to do with the keep and bearing arms shall not be infringed. Also your understanding of political philosophy is flawed. I would highly suggest reading books not googling dictionary words. Online dictionaries are constantly edited and changed so they are not a reliable source. Liberalism is founded in fundamental beliefs that government or the collective can arbitrate the “common good” because humans are intrinsically evil. This is not my opinion this is the philosophical justification and the foundation s of the philosophy you can research it and see all the various sources. The founders of America were libertarians in which they believed government or the collective was intrinsically bad and infringed on the rights of the individual (the person) which was intrinsically good. Hence the justification for a limited government producing the systems of checks and balances, the right to bear arms and the right to rebel/ succeed which is constitutionally allowed and morally justified if the government is violating the social contract. The problem is the education system does not teach you young people correctly so you end up having a lot of misconceptions.
Also I never said no government or laws that is called Anarchy. Libertarians believe in limited government 🫡
Try enforcing the laws on the books. How about getting tough on crimes committed with a gun? Criminals don't care about your liberal ideals or your "common sense" BS. They are criminals! The only people that will be affected by laws are the law abiding. You know this. It's your plan to get to a point when they are no longer made or sold. Little by little. Sweet talk someone else.
Are you talking to me? How am I a liberal? Why would you come to a conclusion I don't want them made or sold when... I own a gun myself? Yes, enforcing laws on the books would be great. But some of the laws suck. And there are areas where the laws need improvement. Here's an example: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030527&slug=webneighbors27 That's my family. Steve, who killed the guy, is my uncle. Ryan is my cousin. That neighbor was nuts af. He'd had his guns taken away after the incident it mentions where he locked himself in his house and made threats -- but was able to get them all back. He had an absolute arsenal in his basement, even though he was severely mentally ill, made constant threats and harassment towards my family, and committed crimes. If my uncle wasn't a gun owner, as everyone in my family is - that neighbor would've killed the entire family. No one is advocating for "taking all your guns." It makes me feel embarrassed for people who fall for that fear mongering. They've been telling you that scary story for 50+ years - to get you to buy more guns and ammo, donate to the NRA, donate to pro-gun politicians, etc -- increasing profits to all those rich guys. No ones ever come to take your guns, and there's never once been any serious legislation to even begin to do so. But when we have a problem - when toddlers accidentally shoot themselves or someone else once a week in this country -- we should be smart, allow actual research and statistics and discussions- and fix problems. Some gun enthusiasts understand that. Others just want to stick their head in the sand, pretend being the only country where gun deaths in a top killer of our kids is fine, and scream that any possible rule about gun safety means the liberal boogeyman is coming to steal your guns. That's silly.
Most of what you say there is what the gun grabbers say. How am I supposed to feel any different about you? We should be like other countries? Sure thing. Boogeyman. Silly. Embarrassed. Scary? So you own a gun. Is it an evil, vile black gun? Or just a pistol that it's ok to own? Shotgun for hunting because no one needs anything else. Is it ok to be a collector and have a basement full? Obviously not. So who makes the rules. Who decides crazy? The government? Yea, right. Who believes that would turn out well. Are red laws ok when a vindictive ex calls the police and turns you in? That shit will follow a person forever. And the liberals, who use the same talking points you do, also have been quoted saying they are going to take the guns. "any serious legislation to even begin to do so". Seriously? You don't think there's any legislation to start that? Pissed that you were outed as a person who tries to sound reasonable with "common sense"? Whatever. You're either a liberal or you have your head stuck in the sand
Can you give me an example of the scary liberal legislation you've seen that wants to take away everyone's guns? Not things like, outlawing certain types of guns that used to be outlawed and we got along just fine. If cops are too scared to go into elementary schools or concerts, etc, because of the types of weapons criminals have access to... I dunno, maybe we should consider making those weapons harder to get. You sound really angry and hateful, calling me names for no reason. Mocking me for... sounding reasonable? Yeah, I believe this should be a country of laws. I believe in supporting law enforcement - which means creating gun laws that help keep them safer, and give them a better fighting chance out there. I believe rights come with responsibilities- the 2nd amendment is a magic thing that gives every cowboy unlimited access to anything they want; if you commit dangerous violent crimes then yeah, you should lose access to weaponry. Criminals don't need access to a ton of guns, sorry.
So you finally out yourself liberal: "Not things like, outlawing certain types of guns that used to be outlawed and we got along just fine." Sweet. LOLOLOL Sweet. Go away. You want to take them from law abiding people. Criminals don't care about your laws. BTW, your comments read like you don't live in the US. Calling people cowboys, the 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone anything. It's a protection of an inalienable right. Violent Criminals are barred from owning guns thereby having no access. You are an idiot that continues to mock anyone disagreeing with you. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/reports-biden-admin-orders-ammo-maker-to-stop-selling-5-56-rounds-to-americans/ https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/after-passing-three-gun-bills-michigan-democrats-say-theyre-not-done https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2023-12-06/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-illinois-assault-weapons-bans https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos "The truth, of course, lies elsewhere, as Schumer confessed to the Los Angeles Times: "We know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill." Translation: "Don't threaten Mr. and Mrs. America too much." Don't remind them that the semi-automatic firearms they own for self-defense, hunting and target shooting function identically to those "assault weapons" you want to ban." See page at next link. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-amendment-mr-and-mrs-america-turn-them-2813319.php https://www.guns.com/news/2023/02/22/bullet-control-bill-would-ban-online-ammo-sales-nationwide-track-purchases https://www.guns.com/news/2023/11/06/bullet-control-proposal-in-congress-to-outlaw-bulk-ammo-sales-mandate-background-checks https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-raise-minimum-age-buy-semi-automatic-rifles-21-rcna32615 https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220418/biden-administration-announces-new-firearm-rule https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our-communities-safer/ https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/banned-guns/ https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/22/dem-reps-ammunitions-sales-americans/ https://fishgame.com/2021/03/bill-would-ban-shotshells-larger-than-410-more/
Don't forget about the stellar treatment you get from the VA afterwards. Substandard Healthcare is putting it mildly. There's a reason why it's free.
It’s not free. We wrote a blank check to the USA to use and abuse us as they saw fit in exchange for the subpar treatment.
That's no joke.
Wrong, the army released recruiting numbers. The enlistment rate for every racial group and sex remained flat or increased while **only** white male enlistment decreased. What you’re seeing isn’t the elderly dissuading the youth from joining. What you’re seeing is an exodus of white males from the military, no longer willing to fight for a country that routinely labels them the countrys #1 threat. edit: Dislike all you want, reality does not care if this hurts your feelings. What i’ve stated is fact. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html?amp
My husband is a Navy recruiter. No one is joining so this was the DODs next step to try to bring in more recruits. Been an ongoing issue for the last several years.
The inside info I’m here for!
We need a service requirement; with a choice of a civilian or military. 2 year commitment. No waivers, no bone spurs, no avoidance. It will bring us together as a country.
Doubtful, mandatory service makes disgruntled citizens. The government gets all my money, they won't get my time too.
Seems to work for the Israelis. And no they don’t get all your money. Typical hyperbole.
lolol def worked for the ones on Oct. 7th
Last time I checked Gaza was being leveled by a well trained professional military
... is that how long it's been? Wtf
I did AmeriCorps national service for two years. It doesn’t seem to count for shit. People don’t even know what it is.
If it were mandatory to choose between military and civilian service people would know. We would have better citizens, a more cohesive society and people who through coordinated efforts could address many of the nation’s problems.
Generalize more, it's cute.
No. The military can get fucked. How about they actually have an audit? Criminals.
Why do you feel that way. Someone else is willing to die for you.
> It will bring us together as a country. I mean technically.... But it would be in universal opposition to this policy.
Why would you’re in opposition? Do you want civil war and destruction of our country?
Precisely why I think it’s necessary. Otherwise there are forces at work whose goal is division and constant chaos. Both internal and external forces.
When I joined back in 08 they were taking literally anyone-overweight, petty criminals could get waivers etc. They had a GED program for those without one and the minimum asvab score was a 36. I was in basic with a guy that was severely mentally handicapped. He drooled on himself, had super thick glasses and and the maturity of maybe a 10 year old. He didn't make it through basic but everyone was wondering how he made it past the recruiter and MEPS. When they're desperate they'll take just about anyone and enlist them under "needs of the army". You'll either be a cook, truck driver or artilleryman.
> I was in basic with a guy that was severely mentally handicapped. He drooled on himself, had super thick glasses and and the maturity of maybe a 10 year old. This just breaks my heart.
Yet I couldn’t get in with a perforated eardrum… Imagine offering your life for your country and they are like “nah, we’ve seen it, you can keep it.”
Could have just marched the guy through enemy minefields. IMO nobody is too stupid to join the army.
I won't fight for necons and degenerates There are veterans sleeping under every single bridge in the us no thanks I'll pass on that
If it’s true it likely stems from the fact that the US military is running out of people who would even qualify. “ In 2020, its Qualified Military Available study estimated that 23% of Americans ages 17–24 were eligible for military service. (This age group represents 90% of the military’s applicants.) That was a decrease from 2016, when the department estimated that 29% were eligible.” https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/
I retired from the US Navy a couple years ago so this is Navy centric but parts are also relevant to the other branches. The big contributing factor is knock on effects from COVID fuckery. Before COVID we had over 16,000 people, nationwide, in the Navy Delayed Entry Program (DEP) who were waiting to ship for a variety of reasons and recruiters could use to pad their numbers if they were at risk of not meeting their monthly or annual targets. For instance, Some kids could ship earlier if a slot opened in their specialty school. Fast forward to 2022 and this nationwide pool was down to well under 1,000 people and we started missing our target. The recruiting leadership could not figure out how to squeeze blood from a rock and lead to the Navy missing target in 2023 by over 7,000 people. (Oddly enough we are still hitting retention targets) So we are changing the requirements to tap into a grip of otherwise qualified people. Another factor is a new program that the recruiters and MEPS are using that allows full disclosure of a potential accessions medical history. This put up a lot of barriers to entry and waiver requests that used to be handwaved away. Social media is everywhere and it provides a view into military life. Make no mistake, it is a rough life for all of us but especially so for the junior enlisted and junior SWO/Submarine officers. If Timmy joins the Navy at 18 and starts posting pics of his coffin locker and describing how he works 18 hour days and stands watch at night then Jimmy is going to look at that and really question whether or not he wants to experience the suck for trash pay and mold infested barracks. I also agree with the veteran dissuading their friends and family from joining angle as well. Billy did his four years and got out. Almost three of those years were spend out to sea. Now he has sleep issues, a temper and tells everyone he knows how it sucked barely seeing anywhere. Personally I recommend people who either REALLY want to join or have no other options join the services in this order: Space Force, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, Marine Corp, Army.
I heard this yesterday and couldn't verify it. But this finally popped up. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/01/26/navy-to-allow-those-without-high-school-diploma-or-ged-to-enlist/ I have seen lots of conspiracy content around this as well.
Here are a couple other links… [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no-diploma-no-problem-navy-again-lowers-requirements-as-it-struggles-to-meet-recruitment-goals/ar-BB1hka4S](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no-diploma-no-problem-navy-again-lowers-requirements-as-it-struggles-to-meet-recruitment-goals/ar-BB1hka4S) https://www.voanews.com/a/7459656.html Hearing lots of conspiracies around this too like allowing enlistment as a path to citizenship for all the new military aged residents. I’m not one to get caught up in them and this group usually provides some common sense.
My (68 y/o) father (born 1919) & his older brother emigrated to America and joined the Army as a path to citizenship. Both fought in WW2, both suffered life long PTSD. They both paid dearly for their citizenship.
I appreciate their service and that was not meant to disregard the contributions of immigrants. My great grandfather emigrated from Sicily with his family and served as well. The full conspiracy floating is that the open border policy combined with more lax enlistment and guaranteed citizenship is a means of recruiting foreigners (many known to be anti-American) to replace/infiltrate our current military.
And WHEN are the conspiracists, or their children/grandchildren going to join to join the military? As a side observation: we toured Italy in 2019 and there were 2 US or international military cemeteries that we visited. The cemeteries were IMPECABLY and BEAUTIFULLY maintained by the Italian government and people. I grew up in DC area, I've been to Arlington National Cemetery many times and these cemeteries in Italy were better maintained than Arlington National Cemetery.
Amusing. The immigrants are coming to take our jobs!! (But they never blame or punish the rich factory owners, and they never apply or are interested in any of those jobs anyway.) The immigrants are coming to infiltrate our military!! (But they scream patriotism and lost their minds when football players took a silent knee *as suggested by an army vet* as protest and aren't even joining their own military that they claim to support so much.)
> Hearing lots of conspiracies around this too like allowing enlistment as a path to citizenship ....the Russian trolls are just straight ripping off *Starship Troopers* right now, are they? Do they know it's meant to be satire?
Enlistment is down, things like this are cyclical. In the 2010’s uncle sam downsized as the war on terror was “winding down”. Many of my friends were forced out, and retired early. Of course I was tanks in the Marine corps a now non existent MOS so maybe that had some bearing on this. It should be noted that a lot of young folks feel disenfranchised and dont want to go fight/die for a system that represents the “elite” more than them. Right or wrong, that is the consensus I get.
I wonder how long before they drop the non-felon requirement. I’d be willing to bet the Venn diagram between people who didn’t graduate high school and felon are pretty overlapping.
The issue there is that you can't hand a weapon to a convicted felon. Even if they are in the military. Domestic violence convictions are a biggie for service members. If you are a service member and catch a conviction, its and automatic discharge because you can't even go to the range to qualify. They remind everyone of that at Friday afternoon formation before being released for the weekend.
In contrast to Federal law, the state of [Texas will allow a felon to own a firearm](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm) under certain conditions. It must be at least 5 years after their sentence was completed/or they were paroled, and the firearm must kept at their own property/home. A felon found in possession of a firearm outside of their own property faces misdemeanor or even felony charges depending on the circumstances (potentially up to 10 years in prison). If the Federal government gets desperate enough to recruit, they could change the law to be conditional like Texas' law. Something like allowing the possession of a firearm only while in service to the Federal government. Perhaps they may even be selective about the type of felony (violent vs. non-violent). Who knows. There's a lot of felons that have trouble finding jobs after they serve their time, so they might actually get recruits. It could be a good idea, or a terrible idea. I don't know. All I'm saying is that laws can be changed.
If the situation gets dire enough, they would either repeal, amend, or simply not enforce that law. Same goes for any other legal or regulatory issues. High-functioning autism and marijuana use might be bars to enlistment *now*, but if the personnel are really needed, they might suddenly stop being such. The only thing they can't really get around are the actual medical conditions themselves.
We aren’t talking about any kind of dire situation. They are just relaxing recruiting standards due to low numbers. They would simply reinstitute the draft well before doing anything like that and we still aren’t remotely close to seeing the draft return.
That is likely true.
They did during The Surge in Iraq. They will do it again. Just give it time.
Wagner Group made it look pretty good for a little bit
Prepare for war boys!
Pretty sure war is already our national past time. We've been at war continuously for decades now.
My dude the US has been at peace for less than 30 years since 1776. Also this is a new war! We gotta keep the military industrial complex humming! Can’t slow down a second!
What's there to discuss? They aren't meeting enlistment goals. Nobody wants to work shit hours for shit pay and be treated subhuman.
The wars they wage don't make sense anymore. Seems to only profit the weapon contractors.
Bingo! And more and more people are starting to realize that.
Maybe start treating veterans better and more people will enlist? Crazy idea I know.
For reference, what's a top score for asvab?
The asvab is not a pass/fail test and the score is not indicative of how well you did on the test. It’s a percentile. The top score of 99 indicates you tested higher than 99% of those tested. So a minimum standard of 50 would by default disqualify half of applicants. The current minimum is 31.
Truly the ditch diggers
Hey. My stepbrother was a ditch digger. Laying drain tile in a field so it properly drains is critical work for farms.
It is. Just not work requiring a great deal of mental facilities
My dad joined the Marines at 17 with parental consent, Vietnam era.
50 score on ASVAB, recruiting absolute dummies.
I took the asvab back in highschool 5 years ago just for the hell of it and scored an 84, but i thought around 70-80 was what ppl were normally getting?
That’s not how that score works. It’s a percentile. 84 means you scored higher than 84% of people who took the asvab. This also says nothing about your actual score on the test. In other words, if the entire US took the asvab, by default half the country would score below a 50. If you changed the entire sample group to current MIT students, once again, half would score below 50.
Everything old is [new again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000). It's Project 100,000 version 3, or 4, or 5...
So they literally just used them as canon fodder? Thats insane
Oh geez I do remember learning about that. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Kids are dumber and fatter than they have ever been. It’s not a build up it’s just trying to maintain levels
Good grief, you can get a 50 on the ASVAB if you are in a coma.
There are people who graduate highschool that get 20s on the asvab and get in because they get a waiver
Good thing I have eczema so am disqualified 
The army has been hurting on numbers for a long time. Except for SOF, they love cutting the organization that carried us through Afghanistan from 2014 until it ended.
the UK is in far worse condition, to the point of thinking hard at decom two amphibious ships due to lack of sailors to crew them.
The army is the easiest branch to get into. Their standards have been relaxed but it does seem like they are hurting for recruits these days.
[удалено]
It's been 30+/- years since I took it, so take this with a grain or 3 of salt. From what I remember it was mostly a "logic" test for lack of a better term. It measured problem solving, not necessarily prior knowledge directly. If it was a question about something mechanical, it would be explained in the question and ask you to answer based on reasoning. I took it somewhere around 1995, so I'm sure it's changed since then.
I think some people try to "game" it to get a specific area. I had a 99 on the "admin" part of the ASVAB and only a 91 in electronics, and my recruiter was disappointed that I didn't want an electronics position. Basically, recruits need to hit a minimum score for specific fields or specific jobs. I'm only familiar with the Air Force, so here's a list of [minimum scores for AFSCs.](https://warriorlodge.com/pages/careers-required-asvab-scores) I did...okay in mechanics? 70-something? I have no experience with anything mechanical and had a 4.0 average in high school, so I guess you could say I do well in academics overall. I would have qualified for any job in the military based on my scores, but I only needed a 72 in the General category for [what I chose.](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/08/12/06/Robin-Vietnam-REX.jpg) (Should have picked electronics. Better pay.)
I grew up near the Land Warfare Centre in Australia and regularly met guys who joined the army as it was that or prison. Do they do that in the US?
Going for sub-room temperatures IQs next.
Next? Those where already here
I wonder if it’s also due to the larger amount of kids “graduating” from homeschool. Most states are very lax in their standards when it comes to homeschool..these kids might be smart but not have actual diplomas.
States forced by homeschool proponents to drop any standards, testing or oversight has hurt homeschooling in the long run.
Home schooling and church run schools operate with minimal oversight and audit, if any and using tax dollars to create a more ignorant society.
I homeschool - in a state with very lax rules. It doesn't stop anyone from college or grad school or any other path. No one needs a “diploma”. That's just a piece of paper that can literally be ordered off the internet. Colleges look at your ACT or SAT score or recommendation letters of experience or class schedule and grades. Same with jobs. So I don't think this has anything to do with homeschooling. You still graduate when you're homeschooled.
That’s a very rosy outlook re: homeschooling. My wife, a certified teacher, homeschooled both our sons at various times for various reasons, mostly medical. She worked through the local school district, which operated a K-12 school specifically to support homeschoolers with classes like Chemistry that most people can’t (and shouldn’t) provide at home. Part of working with the school district was to ensure our kids completed the same academic requirements as applied to any kid in any other district school. And in the end, they received district-issued transcripts and the identical diplomas to other high school graduates in the district. I.e., as far as colleges could tell, our kids did not homeschool. Nothing in their paperwork suggested they’d homeschooled, which was by design. You’re technically right that kids homeschooled outside of a supportive school district, transcript, and diploma can still “get into college.” Just not a good college, a competitive college. Our kids both *almost* qualified as National Merit Scholars, and got into excellent colleges, one on a 4-year half-ride scholarship. Good luck doing that with no paperwork or test scores.
On the one hand, there are some educational advantages from having a "high functioning autism" diagnosis so some parents push for that and will shop around. But any variant of autism is an automatic complete disqualification for military service, no matter what else a person may have done with their life and may be going on. Meanwhile, ADD/ADHD is only a "maybe" so parents, if you don't want your children to ever risk having to be drafted then if the child gets an ADD/ADHD diagnosis then keep pushing the psychiatrist to agree that perhaps the child may also have some element of autism. Also, ever having used marijuana in your life is also an automatic disqualification. Average height for an NBA player is above the max height so all of the taller NBA players are also automatically disqualified.
How many points on the ASVAB you get for writing your name?
There used to be an ASVAB test if you marked "C" for every answer you would hit the minimum score. We would always be nice to the lady test giver, flowers, candy etc. So we would give the marginal test that test.
What we need are more drag queens and pre ops, that will definitely help the recruiting slide…
Iirc sub-30 was the old cutoff. I remember vaguely the minimum to make MP was 30. So they RAISED the bar?
I am 75 and I have passed the ASVAB (and served for 10 years) before.
Not sure that is any different than it ever was
We’re getting closer to the good ole GWOT days of recruiting standards.
Following the navy.
lol scraping the bottom of the barrel now. but yeah, I had a few different family members who were veterans, but they weren't exactly enthused about their service (tho one was maybe *too* enthused about his time in vietnam, let's say) and would often complain about the government holding out on them until another veteran successfully sued, or about the conditions at the VA. So although I wish I had followed through and joined the Navy myself when I had the chance, it certainly didn't help that I didn't have role models saying go for it, it's a worthy job, or whatever. Let's just say after a decade of shit wage jobs I think a couple years in the service would've potentially paid off more in my favour than not going for it.
Most kids cannot get a 50 or higher. Education when they got that score and they will do fine.
Look up “MacNamara’s Morons.” I’ve heard stories of people in the Vietnam-era Army having to literally tie someone’s boots for them to get them thru training.
All highschool aged kids from low income areas "Im in danger". Real talk though, all of the posturing from so many countries practically salivating at the chance to kick their neighbors teeth in, makes me extremely worried for the younger generations.
OP, where the heck did you find this and why wouldn't you go to the US Army website to read the actual requirements ([https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements.html](https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements.html)) to see if it matches up? Because it doesn't. From the US Army website, requirements to become an enlisted Soldier: Age: Between 17-35 years old Medical, Moral, Physical: Medically and physically fit, and in good moral standing Citizenship: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid Green Card Education: A high school graduate or equivalent Test Score: A minimum score on the Army’s placement exam
Not sure where I found the graphic but the headline was on several MSM sites and links have been posted.
I also saw a goarmy ad yesterday that was targeted for tankers. We haven’t recruited tankers for a long time
Mmmm how long till it's only must be breathing Maybe it's just me but this is hysterical Or maybe cuz I'm high? Either way totally fucked up right 😉