Long story short: Local 25 year-old guy wants to join the Army. When he shows up for boot camp, he is told that he has too many tattoos to serve. All his tats would be hidden by a long sleeve shirt, but the Army still says no way.
What do you think? Should he be allowed to be all that he can be?
I say sure, let the guy in.
If the tattoos are subversive, drug related, or indecent, I say yes, they should keep him out. His are none of these, and hidden by dress uniforms. He should be allowed in. Veterans get more than he has during their service.
No debate here, he should be allowed to join. Looks like I wont be able to join the army either.
Ludicrous. I was under the impression that having tattoos was a prerequisite for getting into the army! As long as they don’t say something like “Kill the President” or “Screw Uncle Sam” I don’t see what the hell the problem is! (Especially since they’d be covered up by uniform sleeves anyway.)
You’d think the armed forces would be champing at the bit to have healthy, patriotic, qualified people sign up. Oh, unless you’re gay of course. :rolleyes: But that’s another rant entirely.
Doesn’t look promising for Tommy Lee, does it?
No.
When you join the military you become a military member. Can you honestly expect an organization which dramatically anti-individual to allow something like that?
For one tattoo’s are an identifiying feature which would not be good for some functions.
As for saliors in previous years their tattoo’s were recieved on arrival in other countries. This is also back when you could get out of serving jail time by joining the service.
We have gone from tough Americans fight for freedom and our values to an Imperial Police Force.
If you’re willing to fight and die for the country I don’t care what you do to adorn your body, who you have sex with, or what gender you are.
Just think: all those guys who fled to Canada during Vietnam could’ve saved themselves the trouble just by skipping down to Shady Jake’s Tattoo Parlor.
What?
That’s what I was thinking Spoke. If there was another draft, I’m pretty sure Uncle Sam would welcome this guy with open (but tattoo free) arms. So why not let the guy volunteer?
There’s a reason. When you put on the uniform, you’re representing the United States Army, Navy, etc. (whichever applies). I do not want my brethren walking around in uniform covered in tattoos. I can’t tell you how bad my mental image looks. A couple tattoos, fine. But having them everywhere is out of line for someone in uniform, whether or not a long-sleeved shirt will cover them all. Not all uniforms are long-sleeved. The military tires to convey a higher standard than the average citizen, and tattoos do not help this effort. It may sound like a lame reason to keep someone from serving, but to me it sounds just fine. Now if a draft comes along, I’m sure these standards would be relaxed.
If the average citizen isn’t covered in tattoos, then the higher standard woul ddemand that military personell cover themselves in tattoos! 
When I was in the service I was told that my body was now government property, and the government didn’t want me to get tattoos. Never said anything about having them. 'Course, I went and got some anyway.
When I was a civilian cook at Quantico I worked with the biggest group of misfits, drug abusers, alcoholics, and general burnouts that I’ve ever encountered in my life (and I lived in a fraternity house in college). They were all enlisted members of the Marine Corps. I don’t know what kind of standard they were using to accept personnel in the mid-80s, but whether or not they had tattoos would have been the least of my concerns.
[urban legend]
Back when the draft was still a going concern, a guy had “Fuck The Army” tattooed on the edge of his hand by the little finger thinking it would keep him out of the Army. (Think: saluting)
It did. They drafted him into the Marines.
[/urban legend]
My husband says it is actually illegal to get tattooed when in the service, although I don’t think anyone enforces it. Supposedly it’s because you are “military property.”
The tattoo regulation is crap. It really is a specific type of descrimination. People don’t want to have the military base membership on the color of a person’s skin, but don’t mind if they exclude a possibly good soldier because of the colors of his skin.
–==the sax man==–
During the Civil War the Union actively recruited former slaves and freemen into the army and organized them into units designated as United States Colored Troops (there were some state raised regiments, too, notably the 54th (?) Mass.). There was considerable resentment among White regiments that were assigned to serve alongside Black regiments. The utilitarian argument that at least prevented mutiny in the White units was: “A Black man can stop a bullet just as well as you can.” So I say – a tattooed man can stop a bullet as well anybody else.
The real problem is whether the tattoos are simply tasteless decoration or are political advertising. There was a problem some years ago with White Supremacy groups setting up in military and naval units and identifying themselves with (IIRC) spider web tattoos. There were several murders around Ft. Bragg associated with these people. If tattoos indicate an inclination to use a military organization to further a criminal purpose then exclusion may well be justified. That is a question of content, not quantity.
SMUsax, was your post serious?
Of course it’s discrimination. I think having a standard and acting on the result of that standard leads to discrimination. Do we accept the physically handicapped, mentally retarded, non-GED/high school dropouts, and persons over a certain age? No, we don’t. This is discrimination, right? But we’re the people who’re protecting the country and its interests, so we do what we can to get the highest caliber of people in our organization. The quality of our forces is just as critical if not more so than the quantity of our forces.
And your assertion that someone may be a good soldier even if he’s got tons of tattoos may be right, but then again, we want people who take pride in their appearance. The appearance of a clean cut, upstanding American. I’m sorry, but I don’t see that when I look at a tattoo-riddled person.
flyboy88, I recognize your opinion, and respect your right to have it. The bigger issue here is regulations that are not precise.
Sounds like massive personal interpretation here, as evidenced by his acceptance at one level and rejection at Benning. He had a waiver, that was then overridden.
This is just wrong. The guy should be signed up.
This guy wants in and he is willing to remove or change his tattoos to get in. Turning him down just because he has tat’s is plain stupid.
And to flyboy88, yes this is discrimination but on a different level than the examples you used. To quote your post
Unless I misread your post you automatically believe people with tattoos are unfit to serve and therefore should be discriminated against. You back that up with
So your vision of what an upstanding American is should be the standard? Tattoos, like religon, are a personal choice. If you didn’t like his religon, or lack thereof, would that make him unfit?
In other words flyboy88, you are judging this guy on a purely personal standard that ignores his capabilites and the contribution he could bring to the Army.
Oh, on a related note, both of my uncles served in Korea and the both have medals. But I guess the medals mean nothing because they both have tattoos all over the place.
Slee
" In other words flyboy88, you are judging this guy on a purely personal standard that ignores his capabilites and the contribution he could bring to the Army. "
What if his tatoos are big bullseyes?