On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:08:21 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>>
>>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>
>>>>All men are?
>>>
>>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>>
>>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>
>There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
>combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.

So can we agree that women and men who don't want combat should
equally not have to go into combat? Or do you make a distinction?