Thursday, September 7, 2006

How To Handle Draft-Nappers -- A Fantasia

Draft-Nappers, n: A collective designation for people -- both private citizens and government parasites -- who advocate or seek to enforce the practice of child-theft, servitude, and murder called conscription.

“The United States military has a very big problem: Too many global conflicts and commitments - and too few soldiers,” began a recent Christian Science Monitor op-ed by academic Edward Bernard Glick.

“Yeah, go on,” I said, taking the safety off my Ballester-Molina .45 and putting it on the desk within easy reach.

(Oh, I should point out that as I read I was imagining a conversation with the retired Temple University Professor).

“That's why it's time to reinstate the draft,” he continued in a less confident voice, his eyes distending and lip beginning to quiver as, my face darkening in visible disgust, I heaved a weary sigh and reached slowly for the handgun. The good professor's reedy voice vaulted an octave in alarm as he tried to continue his pitch.

“A draft would do more than just harness the energy and idealism of the nation's youth to meet the military's unmet personnel needs,” he said, the words tripping over each other in a panicked rush to get out. “It would also tap more of the resources of the nation's women, heeding their demands for more gender equality by making their obligations more consonant with their rights --”

At this point, looking at our three-year-old daughter Katrina (who shows every sign of growing up to be an attractive version of Catherine Zeta-Jones) and our one-year-old daughter Sophia – who, in defiance of genetic expectations, has lissome blond hair, alabaster skin, and cerulean eyes – and imagining them being fed into the maw of the War Machine, I chambered a round and fixed the professor with a dispassionate stare.

A dark stain suddenly spreading across the front of his khaki pants, the professor stood up and fled, thus making it necessary for me to read the rest of his pitch in the Monitor.

“America must revisit the wisdom and morality of placing the responsibility for defending - and sometimes having to die for - this country only on volunteers,” Glick wrote from the safety of his office. “Consider the Israeli experience. Except for small minorities, Israelis feel that the responsibility for defending and dying for one's country is a duty that must be shared equally. They feel that military service should not be determined by demographics, by social circumstances, by the unemployment rate, or any other aspect of the nation's economy.”

“Well, bully for Israel,” I commented to the professor via cell phone, hearing him gasp and stammer on the other end, shocked and alarmed that I had tracked him down.
“If the Israelis want to put up with universal conscription, that's their sovereign right. But my children are Americans, not Israelis. I wish the Israelis no ill, but I hardly find their experience a persuasive argument for inflicting an un-Godly, unconstitutional form of Marxist servitude on my children or anyone else's.”

After fleeing to what he unreasonably believed to be a secure location, the professor resumed his proposal, which follows a now-familiar outline of a system in which all American youth at age 18 would be required to undergo a mandatory sentence of federal servitude:

“• All able-bodied and able-minded 18-year-old men and women should have their names placed in a lottery. Depending on how many soldiers are needed - typically just a few thousand each year - a modest percentage would be drafted.
• Then, the names of all those who didn't get drafted should be placed into a lottery for nonmilitary service in city or suburban slums, rural areas, native Americans reservations, or other poverty-stricken places.
• If the lottery puts draftees in a nonmilitary program - say, in healthcare - that requires more education and training than they possess, they could opt for getting that additional expertise in the civilian world. But then, the draftees would have to enter that nonmilitary program immediately after completing their studies.”

“Now, it is always possible that in any given year the number of young people eligible for both the military and nonmilitary lotteries may exceed the need for their services,” the professor elaborated, casting a nervous glance around to make sure he was alone. (He wasn't; I'd stalked him to his little redoubt.) “But whenever any young people miss involuntary service by the luck of the draw, they will have done so more fairly and honorably than was true during the days of the Vietnam War.”

“I have a better idea,” I said, emerging from the shadows that had enshrouded me, to the professor's visible and audible shock.

The .45 aimed squarely at his forehead, I continued. “Why don't we simply force the pack of criminals in Washington to abandon their idiotic interventionist foreign policy, and scale down the military establishment to a size appropriate to legitimate national defense? And why don't socialist Pencil-necks like you find another country to ruin? I hear Israel's nice this time of year – but on the other hand, don't go there,” I continued, pressing the barrel of my gun to his forehead, “since those poor people have already suffered enough.”

“Wh-why are you doing this to me?” gibbered the professor as an antipodal stain on the back of his slacks joined the one previously left in the front.

I warned you,” I said, grabbing the front of his shirt with my left hand and lifting him off the floor, “that if you threatened my children, I'd hurt you.”
Casting the gun aside, I dropped the professor to his feet.

“I only use a closed fist when I hit an actual man,” I said, bringing my open palm back to slap him. Recoiling from the anticipated blow, the professor tried to run, then tripped and face-planted into the side of his desk, knocking himself out, just as I had intended.

“Good,” I said, retrieving the gun I hadn't really intended to use. “You're exceptionally fortunate that I'm a Christian and therefore absolutely will not kill, except in self-defense or defense of my family,” I informed the prone and sleeping socialist, who was lying in a puddle of his own drool and feculence. “The same is true of my kids – that is, the children God gave me to protect, educate, and raise. They don't belong to you, or to the abstraction you call `society,' or to the monstrous criminal entity that calls itself our government. Like millions of others, they serve people every day, without government intrusion.”

Turning to walk away, I muttered to myself:

“Now I need to have a few words with Jack Murtha.”

(Apologies to Richard Daughty, aka The Mogambo Guru, for stealing his schtick and doing it poorly.)


dixiedog said...

Don't worry so much about conscription, Will. If you're even a moderate richie, simply PAY the piper the required fee, or make sure your Kinder are all enrolled in college after HS (home school) with a sufficient GPA and they are out of the draw. Simple as that, just like it's been in previous mandatory drafts, i.e. Vietnam, Korea, et al. There was a draft exemption fee during the Civil War as well.

Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that conscription (or being drafted into the military machine) will be a fait accompli for everybody do you?? No Will, it'll still remain largely the domain of the economically underprivileged and uneducated, maleducated, or rather, I should say, non-college educated just as the "voluntary" regimen is. It's always been this way historically concerning drafts. This is where the commoner, as usual, is constantly being fed a load of scat and they eat it all up. I could start a riot if I could gather a large enough collection of commoners, who basically loathe richies for some right, but too often for the wrong reasons, into a group and pound the truth of the matter into their brains, thusly:

"Look, can't you see that a draft is not a 'share the misery' arrangement of servicing the war machine as I suspect most of you folk believe and would hope to be the case!!?? The richies simply PAY the pipers in Rome (uh, I mean Washington, sorry) an exorbitant exemption fee and their Kinder are exempt from the draft. Or, if their Kinder are enrolled in a university possessing an acceptable GPA, they're exempt! Get it??!! How else do you think those hippy '60s freaks always had time to protest in the streets of America, live comfortably, and otherwise drink and be merry while your Kinder were slouchin', sloggin', killin', and dyin' in the jungles of Vietnam in misery?? Because, once again, their richie parents paid the piper the exemption fee and/or their hippy kiddies were safely ensconced in a university!!"

This is just one of the many reason why I loathe the entire military complex as I said in a previous thread.

You worry way too much, Will. Relax!

Captain Kirk said...

The Ballester-Molina is a fine pistol Will, but I'll stick with my trusty Springfield 1911A1 or my S&W M19 (the finest combat sidearms ever devised, IMOHO).

Seriously though, I've never been thrilled with the idea of conscription. If one wants to volunteer for military service, then that is the individual's choice. My problem with conscription lies in that theoretically I, my wife or my children might be forced into a situation where we are required to kill someone without just moral cause (as opposed to government-sanctioned “legal” cause). I agree with the notion that the USA is not the world's police force. The US has been involved in conflicts that we should have not been involved in the first place. If an individual volunteers for military service, I hope that they do so with the understanding that they may be called upon to fight such a war. Conscriptees do not have the luxury of making that choice and being put in such a position involuntarily is untenable as far as I am concerned. Don't get me wrong...I would not hesitate for a second to take up my Mini-14 (I live in the People’s Republic of California where the government feels that non-government entities are either too stupid or criminal-minded to own as AR-15, AK47 or other suitable fighting rifle) in defense of my family and myself. I am willing to take up my rifle in defense of our country if we were invaded, but I reserve the right to take up arms in a foreign land only if the cause is something that I believe to be morally justified. As a conscriptee, I have no choice in the matter. As I said before, this is an untenable position for me morally.

Anonymous said...

The Ballester-Molina is a fine pistol Will, but I'll stick with my trusty Springfield 1911A1 or my S&W M19 (the finest combat sidearms ever devised, IMOHO).

Seriously though, I've never been thrilled with the idea of conscription. If one wants to volunteer for military service, then that is the indi

Anonymous said...

Every time I think I'm crazy, that I'm alone in rejecting the national service schemes as senseless power mongering, I read something like this.

Sir, I salute you with a fully-full-on goat throw --> \m/

Also, I personally prefer the XD .45. To each his own.

Anonymous said...

You, Sir William (nod, wink) are my new Hero! Power on!

Anonymous said...

For a good read, check out War Is A Racket by Major General Smedley Butler...

Anonymous said...


When you say "Don't worry so much about conscription, Will. If you're even a moderate richie, simply PAY the piper the required fee...," what do you mean by "required fee"?

During the Vietnam War, common ways to get out of the draft were going to college, getting a medical exemption, and moving to Canada. Just wondering if I'm missing something. Are you suggesting that bribing draft board members, or making "campaign contributions" to elected officials to get one's kids out of the draft were widespread?

Anonymous said...

"The State has no right to force people to kill and die on its behalf, and any government that cannot inspire volunteer efforts in its defense not only deserves to die, it must die."

Let us all hope that the "inspiration" that the government uses to effect more volunteers is not another 911, or Pearl Harbor, or some other staged blood sacrifice that I am too uneducated to know about. God help us and be merciful to those who love you.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be ironic if the first African-American president of the USA reinstituted slavery?

Anonymous said...

"You're exceptionally fortunate that I'm a Christian and therefore absolutely will not kill, except in self-defense or defense of my family,"

Huh? Could you please provide New Testament support for this position? How many people did Jesus kill in self-defense (in the example he provided in his life on Earth)? How about Stephen? Peter? Paul? How many Roman soldiers do you think the average Christian "took out" before finally being subdued enough to be fed to the lions?

Anonymous said...

Another German word may (God forbid) enter the English lexicon just as Schadenfreude did a decade ago: Reichstagbrand.

Anonymous said...

+1 on the XD .45 - That thing is a junkyard dog that will eat any type of ammo out there - even the overcharged loads we create that have the same case pressures as a .44 Magnum. Try that in a pretty little 1911 :)

Mr. Grigg keep up the good work.

Molon Labe

Anonymous said...

I would humbly suggest that you put the reverse-engineered B/M back in the museum case where it belongs.

If indeed you are serious about protecting yourself, and you are enamored with 1911 style handguns, take a serious look at the following:

Caspian Arms (do not sell complete guns - only premier parts)
Springfield Arms

With these, you can feel secure that it will go bang, go bang again, and send the bullet where you aim it with precision.

Over and over and over.....

Kevin Wilmeth said...

Fine writing, as usual, Mr. Grigg. I suspect many of us have had similar fantasias throughout our lives (personally, I lost count at least a decade ago).

My comment is not about the point (excellent!) nor is it about the hardware (the Argentine is perfectly serviceable), but rather it is about technique. (Please pardon the pedantry; I absolutely love your work.)

"...taking the safety off my Ballester-Molina .45 and putting it on the desk within easy reach..."

This is a Hollywood-ism. No serious student of pistolcraft would move a safety lever to "Fire" and then put the pistol down.

"...imagining them being fed into the maw of the War Machine, I chambered a round and fixed the professor with a dispassionate stare..."

Fantastic imagery, but brought an unloaded gun to a gunfight? Jeff Cooper would have scolded you mercilessly for this. Again, this is a Hollywood technique, inserted solely for dramatic effect.

Alternate suggestion: remove the gun from the holster, ostentatiously chamber-check it, and reholster.

"...I continued, pressing the barrel of my gun to his forehead..."

The price paid for this (powerful) image is a grievous tactical error. You do not go into "the hole" on purpose, when you have a precision remote-control weapon at your disposal.

"...Casting the gun aside..."

A serious pistolero would never do this. He would holster. On safe, of course.

"...the gun I hadn't really intended to use..."

This is a violation of good sense, of course, but that piece of license is rather central to the fantasia. :-)

Finally, the choice of weapon is indeed conceptually wrong. The fantasia posits an opportunity to intimidate those who would enslave us. Intimidation is inherently an act of offense, not defense. The pistol, your defensive weapon, is properly holstered and on-safe, and preferably discreetly concealed on your person. For offensive intimidation you use an offensive weapon, which is a rifle--preferably a military-style, scary looking "black rifle", from which you could deck your target from...well, from Horiuchi distance. (But I digress.)

Again, Mr. Grigg, excellent fantasia, but it would be even better with unimpeachable technique. (We may forgive the protagonist his manners, since the entire thing can be considered a response to unprovoked aggression.)

By all means, keep up your work. We need it now more than ever.