It looks as if gun control in foreign lands operates just like gun control, here in America:

"Ignore the problem individual and stick it to everyone who didn't do it."


Sad but true.

The six stages of a project:

1. Enthusiasm,
2. Disillusionment,
3. Panic and hysteria,
4. Search for the guilty,
5. Punishment of the innocent, and
6. Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

:where is the smiliey with its head in its ass:

The EUrocrats grabbing for legal Swiss guns, when recent massacres have been committed by terrorists with smuggled guns and home made explosives shows that EU "gun control" is much more about control than about substantially addressing gun violence.

k&r,

-app

dscntnt: Gun-"control" is just another political project
The six stages of a project: Enthusiasm, 2. Disillusionment, 3. Panic and hysteria,
4. Search for the guilty, 5. Punishment of the innocent, and 6. Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

Confused. Did you come to praise the swiss model? or bury it?

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates93 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy119 to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

dscntnt: :where is the smiliey with its head in its ass

It's all you, baby.

....what influenced you to minor in missing the point?

That sound you just heard, was the sound whatever point you think you were making exploding into a million pieces.

California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

beergood, regarding restrictive swiss gun policy: you call that restrictive? California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

I didn't, but I cited gunpolicy dot org which did call swiss gun policy restrictive, & they are internationally recognized as a premier gun policy website:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

You contend california has stricter gun laws than these which pertain to the swiss? the ones listed below are most all either more restrictive than california's, or about the same.
Then cite which california gun laws are indeed stricter, cause I think you're fullabaloney - only one I can think of for civilians might be magazine capacity:

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2016, 12:38 AM - Edit history (1)

"right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law " Ca constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, the only reason they can't deny the right is because we are still part of the US.

"Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection" self defence and collection is the main reason the majority of Californians own firearms.

"An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records" so does CA.

"Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety " so does CA.

"private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence" Ca was the first state to ban assault weapons in 1989. that law is still in effect and was just made stricter on july 1st 2016.

the majority of our semi auto firearms require a bullet button to release the magazine. the bullet button was banned on july 1st 2016.

as of july 1st 2016 all residents of Ca must pass a background check to purchase ammo, we can not purchase ammo online, we must pay 50 dollars for the background check, and we are limited on the amount of ammo we can purchase in a year.

beergood first said: regarding restrictive swiss gun policy: you call that restrictive? California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

Beergood defends his comparison of california with switzerland: " {swiss} right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law " Ca constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, the only reason they can't deny the right is because we are still part of the US.

In other words californians have a right by law, albeit via the corrupt scalia heller amendment regarding 2ndA, to keep & bear arms, where the swiss do not.

beergood: "private {swiss} possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence"
Ca was the first state to ban assault weapons in 1989. that law is still in effect and was just made stricter on july 1st 2016.

OK, the swiss AW law is stricter than california's, it's 1 - 1.

n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns

Own any armor piercing ammo, or expansive bullets beergood? know anybody who does?

beergood: as of july 1st 2016 all residents of Ca must pass a background check to purchase ammo, we can not purchase ammo online, we must pay 50 dollars for the background check, and we are limited on the amount of ammo we can purchase in a year.

The swiss rules appear to be stricter for ammo, and home guard members need keep their assault rifle ammo at the armory, not with the assault rifle they keep at their home.
... others appear to be pushes pretty much, so I don't see how california's laws are 'more restrictive', as you contend.

In order to purchase ammunition the {swiss} buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy munition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following to seller
.. valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 and who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems..
residence address
criminal record copy not older than 3 months
weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years

For each transfer of a{Swiss} weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit, a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered

You a registered gun owner in california, beergood?

To carry a {Swiss} loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

for educating me. i will do more study and get back to you.

my experience in purchasing firearms in CA, i had to take a test on the laws of owning/carrying/securing a firearm in your home. pass a BG check, that includes my criminal history as well as my mental history. pay a fee for the test and BG check. i am limited in the type of firearms/ammo i can purchase. i can not carry my firearm without approval from my elected officials. when going to the range i must keep ammo and firearm separate. i can not keep a loaded firearm in my house, i am required to keep them locked up separately. registration is questionable, does it violate the 2nd?

is this CA law? which is more restrictive swiss or CA law?

i called your bluff, why no response?

None of the terrorist are getting weapons from Switzerland, and Switzerland has a very low murder rate

With proper education, training and experience why not? Maybe America should be investing in the same instead of living in denial. The bulk of our problems here are associated with ignorance.

I believe a Swiss model of national defense would lead to less adventurism.

nuc uni: Maybe America should be investing in the same ... I believe a Swiss model of national defense would lead to less adventurism

Wonders never cease. You may have finally said something sensible, gunwise:

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates93 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy119 to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

That poster said "swiss model of national defense", not "swiss model of private gun ownership".

Attributing to other posters, sentiments they did not author, isn't really clever james.

In fact, its downright disingenuous - but you knew that.

beevul: That poster said "swiss model of national defense", not "swiss model of private gun ownership".

Let me get your LMAO remark straight.
You contend that the swiss model of national defense, where their home guard members keep an assault rifle at home but are not allowed to keep ammunition for the rifle at home (kept at armory), is what nuc uni meant when she said it would lead to less adventurism (whatever that meant). Then 8 out of 9 members who leave the home guard relinquish back to the govt their assault rifle.
I guess criminals are gonna be so cowered by swiss home guard members having a bulletless assault rifle, rather than ordinary citizens in possession with BOTH firearms AND ammunition. LMAO at the beevul.

Attributing to other posters, sentiments they did not author, isn't really clever james. In fact, its downright disingenuous - but you knew that.

That's no rebuttal. That's cavilling.

to purchase their issue weapon. Officers carry pistols and OR carry rifles. If they choose to keep their issue weapons then they are turned on to the armory to be permanently converted to semi-auto only.

As in, select fire rifles (machineguns).

James, it is clearly evident to all that you have somehow latched on the notion that
the word count of an argument is indicative of the strength of said argument
and you have yet to be disabused of it.

At least hers weren't quite as painful on the eyes.

icon: I'd call it a variant of the 'Gish Gallop':
he Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop.

You evidently don't understand properly what a gish gallop is, since simply posting a list would qualify you and your gunbuddies quite regularly. Below is what your own link provides as an example of a gish gallop, and readers can compare my post listing about a dozen single sentence swiss gun rules, and see how friendly icon is again fabricating an asinine rebuttal, since there was no 'on the spot fallacy', as the swiss gun rules come from the swiss constitution (or equivalent):

Example of a GISH GALLOP: HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
.....................
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

It is clear that the Swiss consider these arms full-fledged MILITARY arms, suitable for its citizen army. Here, our arms just look like the real thing.

They are in the armory at least all the bullets are. Without ammo they are paperweights. And IF the discharged soldier wants to keep his gun he can buy it AFTER it is converted to single fire.

AND you seem to have a hard time reading #8.

Don't you mean "converted from full-auto to semi-auto"? Like every civilian AR in the US that some folks are still wasting time trying to ban???

On Edit:

The weapons may indeed be "Assault Weapons." But you know how it is with MSM: Assault weapons, machine guns, assault rifles, to the public they all seem the same. I made the mistake (possibly) of believing Reuters knew the difference.

assault weapons are full auto but the gun industry marketed the ARs as assault weapons for decades until the NRA got nervous and re-named them "popular sporting rifles" and then pointed out that the number of AR style rifles is relatively small. Popular but not many around?

Frankly I don't give a shit if all the ammo is locked up in an armory. Great glorified paper weights. Own all the guns ya' want just leave the bullets locked away.

But hey, what's the difference between the current M4 and an AR? M4 fires three rounds with one trigger pull and AR fires only one. Two rounds per pull. Unless it's equipped with a bumpfire stock assembly, then the AR fires everything in the magazine with one trigger pull. Yeah, technically the trigger re-sets between firing but it re-sets mid cycle so the effect is the same as full auto.

The AR has been called an "assault weapon".

From the Ball of Confusion hizzelf:

"Assault weapons... the weapon's menacing looks, coupled with the public's CONFUSION over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chances of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center, a gun-control organization.

My confusion is that I felt Reuters (in all its professionalism) had gotten over the grand deception, and was using correct terminology. Silly me. That's what you get for being reasonable.

The AR type weapons have been marketed as assault weapons. Kits for semi auto .22 lr rifles are marketed as 'assault weapon' conversions.

My confusion is that the very people who make and market this shit don't know what they are marketing.



But hey, what's the difference between the current M4 and an AR? M4 fires three rounds with one trigger pull and AR fires only one. Two rounds per pull. Unless it's equipped with a bumpfire stock assembly, then the AR fires everything in the magazine with one trigger pull. Yeah, technically the trigger re-sets between firing but it re-sets mid cycle so the effect is the same as full auto.

<iframe width="560" height="316" src="

Are in the group that is supporting Republicans over two Democrats?

I think we scared them, by pointing out they were encouraging people to vote gun control over party. Skinner would seriously frown on that.

Now it says; "vote for the best Democrat that supports gun control" and they are pretending they never said gun control over party.

But we know they posted that and it is the true feelings of the four that post in that group. It's huuuggge

Bump fire seems to be a gimmick in any case.

"Confusion... can only increase the chances of public support for restrictions." I think we both know what Josh is up to.

The simpler bumpfire applications are almost impossible to use and keep the rifle on target requiring a delicate balance between forward force on the fore-grip and negligible movement of the trigger finger.

Some of the more sophisticated stock assemblies minimize those downsides and make the AR almost as effective as the M16A1. Note the 'almost'.

In "bump fire", so I'm not current with what's on the market.

'confiscator', 'gun grabber' and 'prohibitionist'?

No, of course you don't. You only want to obfuscate.

Posting a link to something you are familiar with is just as easy?

accessories I recommend the most expensive but worthless POS I could find because if you need help from me you are apparently to uneducated to know the difference.

Bump fire stock of sufficient sophistication exist to modify thy performance of an AR-15 to make it almost as effective as an M16A1.

I'm not biting. Last time we did this you wound up calling me a liar. Wanna' do it again?

It's in no way a "hijack".

exchange. I suggest you do the same. Just go away, declare yourself victor and celebrate among your yourself.

to outlaw any adjustment as this is all supposed to aid in getting off more rounds accurately so as to (presumably) kill more people in mass shootings/gang shootings/insurrection/hiding, etc. That "improving" the practicality of "bump firing" is thrown into the mix does not surprise me all.

Outdoor Life's most recent issue evaluated 4 AR rifles costing -$1,000 and weighing less than 7 lbs. for their usefulness in hunting. Some models were penalized for having, variously, "military-type grips," "military sights," and other features having to do with traditional (military) features. I think it ironic that for all the talk about banning military-style "assault weapons," those features are seen as negative for using ARs as hunting-shooting sports weapons. I also noted that Ruger (and presumably others) makes a "compliant" version (meets all the hoop jumps of various state bans) as well as more ergonomic, adjustable versions. Same price, same availability.

I do not consider you stupid, about guns or anythig else. But you'll have to excuse me while I wash the blood off my cold dead hands.

of sophistication is required to engage in meaningful conversation.

Of the concept is sound enough, shouldn't you be able to explain it in terms anyone can comprehend?

Why would I waste my time with someone who can't tell the difference between design date and adoption date?

You are speaking of since you can't provide any evidence to the contrary. If the question is so "unsophisticated", it should be a breeze to answer.

What design and adoption dates are you referring to?

...that would qualify as a conclusion rather than an assumption.

The difference between?

That they are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8169936

Why didn't you answer there?

Claim in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8169936

Care to explain this basic error, Mr. expert?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172173321#post27

Mosin and Nagant were working on parallel designs. In 1888 the two were combined and accepted pending prototype and testing. The approved design then went out for manufacturing bids in 1891 as the Russians had no manufacturing to speak of at the time. The first production run was in the U.S. They were known as Dragoons. After WWI they were recalled to the armory and modified to repair muzzle damage from cleaning rods. Barrels were shortened 3" and sights changed from cubits to metrics. New cleaning kits were issued. The designation was changed to 9130 to indicate the modifications made in 1930. Later modifications included a carbine with bayonet for paratroopers and one without bayonet for tankers. The most highly sought after model is the sniper which was modified at the factory to include a 4x scope. Buyer beware as there are a lot of base 9130s out there with after market scopes.

I will not address you further as you are not worth my time. Not here, not in another thread and not via email. Good day sir.

No Dragoon was ever manufactured in the USA. Dragoon (and Cossack) variants were manufactured only in Izhevsk and Tula, Russia.

I can go on, but there is little point.

That's just pure fantasy. If you would like to still be regarded as an expert, that is.

And adopted in 1891. It's miraculous, or perhaps time travel was involved.

You sure about that statement? I did a Google search, and absolutely nothing came up under the term "assault weapon conversion", or when I added "kit" or when I added ".22 lr".

Since the NRA discovered that after years of marketing the AR as an assault weapon it was getting a bad reputation among the general public they started a concentrated effort to re-badge the gun as a "popular sporting rifle". This is a totally and completely new and fictional kind of gun.

However, before that there was this:

So much for self-proclaimed 'experts'...

From the previous day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211593#post3

since there are likely semi autos and bolt actions of the same caliber for sale on the civilian market. Of course, they can buy all the government subsidized ammo they want at the range.

suicides go down. Without ammo it's just a glorified paper weight.

you can still buy ammo at the store. Besides, the issue box of ammo was to be sealed until needed.

Outside of the ammo, Swiss gun laws are not that much different than Michigan thirty years ago.

gunners feel the need for. Your are wrong. Period. End of statement. I will not respond to further idiocy on your part.

Good day sir.

Erratic, noisy, inconsequential

a logical fallacy. Here I was hoping for a post hoc ergo propter hoc.

is true is not. You cannot argue that the Earth is flat as if it is a valid argument.

Wyoming, where you call home, has the highest gun ownership rate of the states and the highest suicide rate as well.

You do not get to set the parameters of what is arguable.

You want to play dumbass games about fallacies, I want to save lives.

And that was, in fact, an argument by assertion.

Mere claims that an idea would actually work, however emphatically stated, won't cut it.

South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world, yet they all but ban guns. Wyoming is almost all rural. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas pretty much everywhere in the world, even in South Korea and Australia. If USVI were a state, it would have the highest murder rate, and has gun laws similar to Hawaii, what's your point? No, you didn't make a valid point.

whats wrong with masturbation? it relives stress. http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/5-reasons-you-should-masturbate-tonight

don't tell me your one of those bible thumpers that's against it?

Not surprising you are now one of the hosts of one of the most closed groups on DU that is terrified of any true discussion. All you seem to have is insults, sad

How many rounds per minute do you think a suicide requires?

there is no evidence of that. suicide is a mental heath issue. access to firearms has no affect on suicides. i know two people that killed themselves, one with rope the other with drugs. i own firearms and pointed a loaded one to my head. i am alive while the other two are dead. i sought help and received it, at a very expensive price. lets address the price/availability of healthcare. that is if you truly care about suicide.

Firearm controls the Swiss have.

some states have stricter laws than Switzerland, or most of Europe in general. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii come to mind. Oh, don't forget DC.
If were were to adopt a European country's gun laws, I would prefer the Czech Republic. Your ownership license is also your concealed carry license.

that will land you in prison for years in NY or CA. For example, civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

A lot of commentators get hung up on the Swiss practice of sending restricted military automatic weapons home with their reservists, but forget that Switzerland has a thriving (and peaceful) civilian gun/shooting culture also, that is unrelated to military service.