January 13, 2013

  • An opinion recently expressed in Wichita Eagle, stated: “All the gun-control fanatics should talk to our troops returning from war zones about how they feel about taking away the rights they fought and died for.”

    First, any person calling another people a fanatic probably won’t do much to advance their argument or their cause.

    Secondly, if someone fought and died, I doubt they will be telling anyone what they think about guns or anything else. Dead people just find it impossible.

    I’ve heard this same BS before, that our troops died to protect free speech is a typical chant. Another is that men died to protect our freedom.

    The first amendment to the U. S. Constitution gives us freedom of speech. That amendment was written and ratified when we were not at war, when no one was having to defend that freedom. And, as a matter of fact, there have been people who oppose war who speak out against war even while some Americans are actually abroad, engaged in combat. How can that be? It happens because our constitution gives us the right to free speech, not because soldiers are engaged in war, but irrespective of whatever conflicts might be occurring coincidentally.

    People are concerned about gun control. Sportsmen want to be able to retain the privilege to purchase sporting weapons. Many people think that gun ownership is a right, rather than a privilege.

    Right or privilege, many people wish to be armed for personal defense. People concerned about mis-use of weaponry, especially in incidents such as those in Newtown on December 14, 2012, or earlier this in California, want to be able to have logical discussions about appropriate gun controls relative to the types of weapons, the ease of obtaining such weapons, the proper use of such weapons. The list goes on and on.

    No one with a rational, honest concern and opinion need be deemed fanatical.

    And no one needs to attempt to justify their opinion based upon military personnel.

    Ask this: Are soldiers fighting to defend my right to be a mass murderer, a careless hunter, a hot head who settles arguments with a gun?

    Actually, the returning vets with whom I have conversed, generally agree that once in battle, their concern is self-preservation, and the preservation of their ‘buddies’ on the field of battle. No one has told me that as they dug a fox hole, they had a conscious thought about freedom of speech, or the right/privilege to keep and bear arms.

    In several of our wars, men and women have enlisted to fight for democracy, or honor, or whatever other reason. When the draft was still in effect, many people were drafted who did not particularly care to serve. One of my best friends enlisted in the Air Force. He saw a notice from the Army in his parent’s mail box. He knew he had been drafted. He didn’t want to be drafted, but knowing he had been, he went to the Air Force recruiting station and enlisted. Another friend, a college buddy and roommate, graduated from college the year before I did. He was drafted, sent off to Officer’s Candidate3 School, became a Second Lieutenant, went to Viet Name was stepped on a land mine threeks later. His name is on a particular monument in Washing, D.C.

    With literally millions of people still alive who have served in the military, I defy anyone to explain the one reason why each of those persons served, that is, to protect free speech? Gun rights? Maybe to escape going to jail by entering the service. Who knows, who knows? No one. The is no singular reason that is universal to all.