Please go back to the first post on this thread, re-read it, think about it a bit, then see if your post at 2:50 pm makes any sense.

My point all along is that young males ARE required to register with the Selective Service, and despite the gender neutrality achieved by gender integration troughout the military, young women AREN’T required to register.

Is that fair, dano? Why require gay, minority and non-minority young males to have exclusive responsibility to register? Why exclude women and lesbians from registering?

Frank, you’re being disingenuous. Yesterday you were saying women have to register, too.

The Selective Service issue is not a moot point.

The Selective Service requires all males between the ages of 18-25, including gays, to register, while excluding all women, including lesbians, from registering.

Shouldn’t persons of all shapes, sizes, genders, races, etc. be required to register…not just males, including gays?

There is no effort toward “gender-neutralization of the military”. There is an effort to recognize that due to a shortage in men volunteering to serve (the multiple deployments ring any bells) and the stark reality that women HAVE BEEN in combat since…well a long, long time, this is recognition of that service and gives them the pay and promotions that come with the territory when done by a man that they were not able to get.

It is and will remain voluntary for BOTH to serve and BOTH to have battlefield responsibilities. Until such time as service can no longer be just voluntary.

Quit being a putz and respect the service of BOTH men and women in our armed forces.

Since women are volunteering in such numbers as to make this happen, I think the Selective Service issue is a moot point. They already serve and they have NEVER had to!

A hatchet job indeed. And who’s babbling about an “underage girl”? This girl is 21 years old. And says she’s never met him.

“However, it pains me to think that my grand daughters might be placed into a situation where they have to register with the Selective Service.”

Who cares what “pains” you? Maybe if we start sending our girls overseas we’ll be a little more descriminatory about what idioti,c pointless, and expensive military boondoggles we engage in. See Hay Frank? Even people like you might get a little less enthusiastic about war with Iran if your girls have to fight in it. I’d say that’s a good thing. Cheers!

Uhh, Dan, this is Frank you’re talking to. It wouldn’t be Frank unless he asked the same “question” eleventy-seven times.

Comment by Dan Casey — February 5, 2013 @ 1:08 am

This is a real problem. In t5he past twenty years there are various estimates that the number of guns in the U.S. has increased from around 200 million to around 300 million. Yet a recent study by the Violence Policy Center which has tracked these stats for 35 years shows that the percentage of households where there is a gun on the premises has decreased from 54% to 32%. More and more guns are being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people and a significant portion of the increased guns are being owned by the anti-government folks who think they are going to overthrow the government with their AR-15′s and their Glocks.