Thread Tools

**XtremeAaron** · September 14th, 08:59 PM

Young people dont have enough self control to drink, i think 21 is fine legal age.

***NYY*** · September 24th, 02:13 PM

I fail to see how the two have anything to do with each other...
Same goes for drinking and voting. The age restriction laws are in place to protect you. The legal age to enlist in the military is low, but you have to remember that our military is 100% voluntary.

**hurdlebeast** · September 24th, 07:51 PM

so is drinking
if they have enough self control to operate a motor vehicle, then they should be able to drink. if they have enough self control to fire a gun, drive a tank, etc, then they should be able to drink.

**ArmoArchangel** · September 24th, 09:18 PM

The difference, however, is that there are many people responsible enough to drive a motor vehicle, and not responsible enough to drink. Self control is not a universal thing.

The difference also is that the military teaches self control and discipline, it instills it in the individual. Those who can not meet to the standards that are put forth are weeded out. These same standards are not in normal society (or at least not indoctrinated/enforced).

I also know plenty of people who are in the military and are not responsible enough to drink. Self control and responsibility are not universal.

**hurdlebeast** · September 24th, 11:59 PM

so...i'm confused now....it's ok to drive a motor vehicle, even if you are not responsible enough, and you are allowed to shoot a gun if you are not responsible enough...but you can't have a few drinks?

I do know what you are saying though, no matter what the situation it all comes down to the individual. I know people that are older than I am and should not be driving, but they are. I also know people that are younger than me that are probably more responsible drivers than I am. So it works both ways, i guess.

But for argument's sake i'm gonna disagree

**ComradeMolyneux** · September 26th, 09:48 PM

Kids are idiots. That's why they don't vote.

***NYY*** · September 29th, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurdlebeast

so...i'm confused now....it's ok to drive a motor vehicle, even if you are not responsible enough, and you are allowed to shoot a gun if you are not responsible enough...but you can't have a few drinks?

I do know what you are saying though, no matter what the situation it all comes down to the individual. I know people that are older than I am and should not be driving, but they are. I also know people that are younger than me that are probably more responsible drivers than I am. So it works both ways, i guess.

But for argument's sake i'm gonna disagree

You missed his point. YOU may be able to control yourself when drinking at 18, but there are enough 18 year olds who can't control themselves to justify a legal drinking age that is higher than an enlistment age.

**hurdlebeast** · September 30th, 02:24 PM

I agree with that, but what i'm saying is that i think drinking is a little less dangerous than handling a firearm. I know that you have to go through alot of training to go through the military (i'm not going to be an idiot and say that they just "ship people over" with guns) but for argument's sake it is something to think about: you can operate a firearm and operate a motor vehicle (both potentially dangerous) but you cannot drink (which, by itself, isn't too dangerous, but couples with other actions (like shooting guns and/or driving) is very dangerous).

Really, it should come down to the individual. maybe they should have a drinking test, just like they do background checks with firearms and drivers test for drivers licenses.

i'd pass for sure

**TonyD** · September 30th, 05:55 PM

I'd be interested to see figures comparing alcohol-related deaths in people under the age of 18 to gun-related deaths. This isn't in sarcasm, either; I'm really unsure of how they'd compare and I'm curious.

**ArmoArchangel** · September 30th, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurdlebeast

I agree with that, but what i'm saying is that i think drinking is a little less dangerous than handling a firearm. I know that you have to go through alot of training to go through the military (i'm not going to be an idiot and say that they just "ship people over" with guns) but for argument's sake it is something to think about: you can operate a firearm and operate a motor vehicle (both potentially dangerous) but you cannot drink (which, by itself, isn't too dangerous, but couples with other actions (like shooting guns and/or driving) is very dangerous).

Really, it should come down to the individual. maybe they should have a drinking test, just like they do background checks with firearms and drivers test for drivers licenses.

i'd pass for sure

This is where I come to think that you don't understand too much about the military.

Handling a firearm is more dangerous when you don't know what you are doing. There is not only a lot of training that goes into proper use and handling of a firearm. There are numerous checks and regs/standards put in place to ensure safety.

Think about this. Where are you going to use a firearm in the military? Combat, and on ranges/training sites.

Ranges and training sites have Range Safeties. This past summer we had a dumbass trainee who didn't keep his weapon pointed downrange. He turned to look at the range safety who was telling him something, and he happened to point his weapon (inadvertently) towards the rest of the range (NOT downrange where it should have been pointed). The range safety promptly kicked the barrel of the weapon so it pointed downrange. He had the trainee unload, relinquish his weapon, and he was escorted off the range. That person is probably STILL getting concurrent and remedial training.

Safety is a BIG thing in the Army.

When in combat, you are in a combat zone or on the FOB (forward operating base). Inside the FOB, weapons are at the most on Amber, which is weapon on safe, magazine loaded, but no round chambered. Some FOBs (depending on where they are), have weapons inside the FOB on Green, which is weapon on safe and no magazine loaded (no round in chamber either).

In combat zone, that's where training comes into play. I'm not talking about just Basic, I'm talking about Basic, the concurrent training you've had your entire time in the army, the rehearsals and training you had that were mission specific, you name it. There is a lot of training.

Once again, safety is BIG in the Army.

**hurdlebeast** · September 30th, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmoArchangel

This is where I come to think that you don't understand too much about the military.

Handling a firearm is more dangerous when you don't know what you are doing. There is not only a lot of training that goes into proper use and handling of a firearm. There are numerous checks and regs/standards put in place to ensure safety.

Think about this. Where are you going to use a firearm in the military? Combat, and on ranges/training sites.

Ranges and training sites have Range Safeties. This past summer we had a dumbass trainee who didn't keep his weapon pointed downrange. He turned to look at the range safety who was telling him something, and he happened to point his weapon (inadvertently) towards the rest of the range (NOT downrange where it should have been pointed). The range safety promptly kicked the barrel of the weapon so it pointed downrange. He had the trainee unload, relinquish his weapon, and he was escorted off the range. That person is probably STILL getting concurrent and remedial training.

Safety is a BIG thing in the Army.

When in combat, you are in a combat zone or on the FOB (forward operating base). Inside the FOB, weapons are at the most on Amber, which is weapon on safe, magazine loaded, but no round chambered. Some FOBs (depending on where they are), have weapons inside the FOB on Green, which is weapon on safe and no magazine loaded (no round in chamber either).

In combat zone, that's where training comes into play. I'm not talking about just Basic, I'm talking about Basic, the concurrent training you've had your entire time in the army, the rehearsals and training you had that were mission specific, you name it. There is a lot of training.

Once again, safety is BIG in the Army.

lol I agree totally with you. that's what i was trying to say, really, but i put it down wrong. all the armed forces make you pass rigerous training with firearms before they send you out. it's common sense. you have to pass a drivers test to drive a car. I think you should have to pass a drinking test to drink.

basically, i'm disagreeing with what i said before (that the drinking age should be lowered) but don't want to come out and say it. If i do someone will qoute my previous threads and i'll look like a dumbass. If i slowly post semi-controversial threads, I was hoping I could swing it around. But in doing so I made the worse error of not explaining the whole military thing. I understand how that could be taken the wrong way, but really, I understand that the military makes sure you pass all the tests before you are even issued a weapon. If you can't pass the tests, you go into combat with a knife. If you can't pass the knife test, I hope you know how to box.

^^^That last bit was a joke.

**ArmoArchangel** · September 30th, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurdlebeast

basically, i'm disagreeing with what i said before (that the drinking age should be lowered) but don't want to come out and say it.

mmmmm irony.

**hurdlebeast** · September 30th, 11:44 PM

bastard

**Number One Andrew** · October 28th, 11:23 AM

The drinking age is at 21 for a reason >_>

**ComradeMolyneux** · October 29th, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number One N00b

The drinking age is at 21 for a reason >_>

Someone told me the other day that there wasn't a 'Federal' drinking age, and that the states were free to choose any age they pleased. The catch is, if you have a drinking age under 21, you won't get any federal funding for roads and stuff.

Anyone anyone? Confirm or deny?

**ArmoArchangel** · October 29th, 07:33 PM

It's the same with tobacco regulations. A state can choose their own age, but the government would like it if it was at least 18. It would behoove the states to make their "free decision" in the government's favor in order to get funding for public works and stuff.

Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

View more Paintball photos