I've seen this floating around and I'm going to tell you why its a bad idea.
There are approximately 2.4 million active and reserve duty members of all branches of the armed forces in service today. According to the most recent US Census, there are roughly 24 million 18-24 year-olds in the country. If we did a little logic based math and broke that figure down to say 18-19 year olds to coincide with the 2 years of service this meme suggests we would come to a figure roughly around 10 million. Basically, you would increase the military size by 4 times. And you would be turning over 80% of the military every year. Logistically, this would overwhelm and paralyze our fighting forces.
The only statistics on contentious objectors I could find was in a wikipedia article on the topic that claimed .002% of the US population claimed that stance. Logically broken down to the statistical group of 18-19 year olds and I would say we are immediately eliminating 200 people per year....statistically irrelevant. But some sort of bureaucracy would need to be developed to deal with those who flat out refused to serve. I'd also assert that the percentage of people who object would drastically jump. Though, to what level, I couldn't say.
Obviously, you would also be enlisting a lot of trouble makers and people who flat out just didn't want to be there. Those people would become time and resource wasters.
Monetarily speaking, if you were planning to pay these enlistees, I don't know how we would accomplish that. The base salary of an E1 with less than 2 years experience is about $18K. Spread across 10 million people is $180 billion in additional funding to the military budget. And people complain about military spending now....lol.
Logistically speaking, the infrastructure investment to house an additional 10 million people on training bases would be an additional $216 billion based on basic housing allowances.
Speaking of training....what are you going to train these people to do? Would you invest thousands of dollars to train someone who is only going to be around for 2 years as the majority of these enlistees would? That would just be a waste.
Of course, I understand the sentiment of the post. Responsible and knowledgable gun owners that have been properly trained to defend. I get that. I just don't agree that this is the way to go about it.