Summary: The debate among America’s colonial founders regarding the need for and scope of a standing federal military helped give rise to the Second Amendment. Many early American leaders neither wanted nor trusted a federalized military. A draft with far fewer exemptions than have been contemporaneously used would help alleviate the need for a large standing federal military and could help ensure that any future wars enjoyed widespread public support, congressional approval, and that a well-defined threat would be dealt with in a swift and dramatic way that ensured the safety of all relevant personnel. Despite the controversial nature of compulsion (i.e., a draft), state militias are untenable because voluntary military service will always result in increased government spending. States do not have the resources to spend, and there is a clearly established legal obligation to shift the burden for collective defense to the federal government, providing a ready scapegoat. Finally, war is logistics. The tooth-to-tail ratio reveals that most military personnel, even in wartime, are not combat arms. Yet, in modern times, even combat arms specialties are often outsourced to semi-private security groups that are little more than mercenaries with fun euphemisms. Having a draft-only system wouldn’t need to sacrifice security or operational readiness, as almost every single military occupational specialty has numerous civilian counterparts. Civilians, in fact, often train active-duty personnel. Civilians also build and maintain much of the military equipment. One could find ample amounts of cooks (92gs) in the event of a draft, obviating the need to substantially train them. Beyond that, the sheer numbers coupled with the collective psychology of warfare would likely nullify any negligible losses in productivity that could theoretically arise from a draft.
Context
Contrary to popular belief, the much beleaguered (or beloved) Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was NOT created to help ensure normal, ordinary individuals could protect themselves and their property. Nor was it established in an effort to enshrine a particular right to subsistence hunting into law. In fact, this odd…
