You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
My guess would be something more along the lines of conscientious objector. They mention religious reasoning as well.
But the article makes it sound like you can instead vow to help out in a non combative role. Which to me seems pretty legit. Not everyone is for for combat, but messengers, orderly's and transport (just to name a few) are all equally valuable roles in a situation that this oath has been envisioned for.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] DerpExpress 1 point 12 points 13 points (+13|-1) ago
Why did they remove that?
[–] theburntsausage 5 points 6 points 11 points (+11|-5) ago
probly because they cannot be trusted.
[–] scrotums [S] 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
But they're trusted enough to become citizens. Which means they can bear arms.
They're just no longer to swear that they will.
[–] forgetmyname 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
something something naturalized citizens no longer have the right to bear arms.
[–] dv1155 3 points 4 points 7 points (+7|-3) ago
Because the left, who rabidly hates this country, is hoping they'll take up arms against this nation.
[–] Alias_Unknown 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
My guess would be something more along the lines of conscientious objector. They mention religious reasoning as well.
But the article makes it sound like you can instead vow to help out in a non combative role. Which to me seems pretty legit. Not everyone is for for combat, but messengers, orderly's and transport (just to name a few) are all equally valuable roles in a situation that this oath has been envisioned for.