hmmmm...

Everyone in the military knows how to fight, non combat just means you are not on the frontlines.

there is a saying in the USAF, every airman is auxilary security forces.

that's fair.

Everyone must pass basic training, in the armed services.

Here it is three month of intensive infantry fighting, and small squad tactics. They you go on to do your specialization in whatever branch for a year.

im not actually oppose to enrollment in military for some degree of citizineship, but i think a distinction should be made between being a citizine, being a native, and being a foreigner and that the option for not being a citizine should not be too punishing. make something manditory and people will resent it.

that seems sensible

i also think that the enrollment in military is instead something more like milita training where the demands are less severe and the training is more national defense focused rather than standing army

so... national guard service for a year?

I'm not sure of the differences TBH

yeah something like that though id also like to see national defense become less federal and more local and see it gain more cultural value and expanded to be involved with more social programs in the cuntry

from an american perspective some of the things the founding fathers of the united states ment for this country to take the shape of have actually failed to be attempted, from very early times even. we do not have a society that is ready to become a milita given a threat by a foreign power. this is what the united states was supose to be, a country where everyone was supose to be able to defend the country from enemys from without and within but quickly we began to modal our military institution exactly the same way as the people we critisized with only minor differences within our constitution (like no quarter). this path has lead the united states creating an imperial military, which is a military build up of conscripted or volentier elite soldiers who's training is in invasion of territory and occupation of foreign territory which also has the secondary capability of fighting against other militarys

well trained militia

but the dems just want to take all the guns, they don't want people able to say no to tyranny

i veiw a milita and an army as different

likewise, but it's nebulous what the difference is to me. The constitution allows all people to be armed because all citizens are militia

IIRC this has been argued in the supreme court before

sure but if all citizines are armed but not a militia they are simply just people with weapons and only disciplined by happenstance either being raised with respect for weapons and human life or choosing to be tought those principles by another person after adulthood (the latter being rare and the former becoming rare). even then were a poorly organized and unconnected militia without any training in holding territory and managing resources under threat of invasion while being highly antisocial with few connections to the society around us to band together with

the problems that the united states has with firearms isint simply because not enough of our people are armed, its because theres no meaningful reason to care about anyone you live with while most of the people you lived with are armed and ignorent of the consaquences of themselves being armed., a problem increasing with each generation

Whats the benefit of paying more for border security than the border wall?

to me it sounds like you will be paying alot more over a longer period for security than the wall because the wall will pay for itself over time

until it needs to be repaired, yes

but even then the cost to benefit ratio is ludicrously skewed

Yeah and how much would be maintenance compared to rebuilding a new wall

Build the iron curtain!

hm. I hadn't considered that parallel

I mean I get it, but..

If you paid the same amount for personnel and equipment how far would that go? Lets say motion sensors, vehicles, and the like

There are alot of moving parts in equipment and would therefore need more maintenance than a simple wall

Then lets say they detected something out and went to investigate it

by the time they arrive whatever was out there might be long gone

at which point you created a glorified meter

A wall impedes movement and is a deterrent

sure some will still find ways to go around it but if it reduces like 95% of the traffic it would have done its job well

you can never stop something 100% of the time and people are mostly lazy

yep

dems must think everyone is retarded to not have figured this basic stuff out

to be fair it seems like its really hard to convince people of this logic

more than one would expect to at least

whats worse is that the amount needed for the wall wouldn't even register for a comparison against the total budget