[fr_freak]

Otherwise: you’d be simultaneously arguing that the soldier is mature enough to serve and die at 17, but not old enough to cast a ballot... and how can that be true?

First, I originally suggested veterans, not active duty. This should mean anyone who has done one full term of service. If they are active again afterward, they qualify.

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue? Hell, even the US military doesn't put its trust into a 17 year old enlistee right away. He starts out as a private (depending on the branch) and basically does whatever he is told to do. He doesn't get to go around helping to make decisions until he has earned his stripes. The country is the same way, but on a grander scale.

[mountainbunny]

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue?

The wisdom comes when it comes time to decide whether or not to serve and possibly die. If the 17 year old (substitute 18 year old, per the article), is too childish to understand voting, then I would argue that they are too immature and childish to comprehend the weight of their decision to join in the first place.

Being physically capable of fighting is one thing. Being mentally capable is another. Soldiers need both. If they have both, let them vote.