Welcome to Magazine Premium

You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

Member Login
Lost your password?

One veteran on gun control

January 12, 2013

 

by Chris Sullins

[Editor:  This was originally sent to a local newspaper disputing their editorial seeking a "middle ground" on gun control, which of course means gun owners give up more of their rights with nothing in return.]

I read your editorial on the middle ground of gun control.  You were correct that there are many things you don’t understand.

I will begin by stating that combat veterans like myself not only swore an oath to defend the Constitution, but we actually risked our lives for it.  I know very well that freedom isn’t free and its payment was made in real blood.  Over my relatively short lifetime, though, I’ve seen politicians use that same document like toilet paper before handing it over to people in the media who seem all too eager to reduce it to pulp for a paycheck.  That alone is a sad commentary on one of the many divides that exists in America today.

I gather from your writing that you’ve punched a few holes in paper and some small furry creatures outside of suburbia.  Keep in mind that you did those sporting activities in a safe peaceful environment.  You might think this gives you some understanding of the ways of the world, its long history and what men are really capable of, but given my experiences I can see you hit far off the mark.  Using a target as a metaphor, you missed the paper completely.

For you to label warnings from your fellow countrymen against possible future government overreach as “paranoia”, you further demonstrate willful ignorance of our history.  In order for you to gain a better understanding of history and dispel your illusions of how things really work, I’d suggest you sit down with veterans from our many past and current wars.  It would do you well to include Native American veterans among that group.  The elders of those tribes could also educate you about a massive domestic genocide about which you are apparently clueless.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights and other founding documents, has nothing to do with sporting purposes.  It’s about limiting government power and curtailing its ability to inflict harm on people.  Once you understand that you might see the realm that the big boys play in and know they gamble with lives on a vast scale.  It’s not a game for the faint-hearted, so I understand why the majority of Americans are in collective denial about this.

You touched upon the spiritual side which I acknowledge as helpful in addressing part of the root problem, but there are many factors to consider.  Americans have a mindset problem.  Attitude and education could go a long way toward addressing this, but then you run into the problem of competing and possibly irreconcilable philosophies.  Maybe this large mass of diverse people living within our common border can no longer find a real middle ground on the national stage.  We have to be honest about that possibility first.

The answer is not another one-size-fits-all directive proclaimed from that tired old oligarchy that hops between DC and the other mega-cities along the coasts while ignoring vast swaths of citizens in the fly-over states.  Such rules always exempt the self-serving elite while screwing the middle class, but I’ll save you that tangent.  We’ve come to a point in history again when it would be best for people who inhabit distant places to make their own decisions based upon their unique cultures.  In all honesty Jackson, Michigan is now more different from federal DC than colonial Concord was from royal London.  Since a monopolistic central authority has a tendency to trample on rights not long before it rolls over lives like a juggernaut, it would be best for more decisions to be localized again within the states.  We need to return to respecting people and their belief systems.  Maintaining diversity requires that we not interfere with different ways of life.  Surely you and I could at least agree on that.

You are probably correct that given the current climate the majority of people in a few states wouldn’t want semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines in civilian hands anymore.  I’ll spare you the long tiring list of evidence that those same people have abrogated many other duties as citizens already, so their unwillingness to bear arms in defense of themselves and their state doesn’t surprise me.  But, I can also assure you that the majority of people in other states would consider those same weapons as untouchable by the federal government.  Those people are still willing to be responsible citizens and carry the burden of defense that the quiet gentle folk in other states won’t shoulder anymore.

I would suggest that the people decide the “gun issue” –among many other issues– at the state level.  And, I would heartily encourage people move to where they might feel most at home. You’re welcome to live in a place where your neighbor doesn’t trust you to own a gun and I will live where I can own weapons in accordance with the belief system of the Founding Fathers.   I believe it would be very apparent after a short time which states were comprised of active citizens and which were little more than pens for sheepish consumers.  Then we’ll see who is safer and more prosperous in the future.

27 comments on “One veteran on gun control

  1. fantastic

  2. FirstLady on said:

    Great editorial!!!!!

  3. Tom B. on said:

    The article is a dead center bulls eye.

  4. Soldier on said:

    I was talking with my superiors on the possibility of the government seizing weapons from civilians, and I told them my reply would be to take the patches off of my uniform and leave them on the desk on my way out.
    That would be an unconstitutional order that I would not follow, now or ever.
    I only hope enough of my fellow soldiers would follow me out the door, because at that point this country would no longer be worth my time and blood to defend it.

    • I would contend that the better option would be to have such a ‘superior’ relieved of duty for issuing a clearly UNLAWFUL order! I’d rather have you and your brothers still wearing those patches in our defense. God bless you, Soldier and thank you for your service.

    • Mike Fulcher on said:

      If I was still in that would be my same response. I hope all our soon to be, current, and former military see the same.

    • Former Marine on said:

      You’d be better off to say ‘Yes Sir’ draw your weapon and all the ammo they’ll give you and disappear into the night.

      • Nathan Hale on said:

        I would hope all Servicemembers would draw their weapons and vehicles. Relieve any officers/commanders planning on executing un-Constitutional orders, then join the Resistance.

  5. When I entered the service and took the oath to defend Country and Constitution I didn’t think for one moment that there was an expiration date on my obligation, whether I was still in the service or not. I plan on honoring my commitment until the day I die.

  6. David P on said:

    The soldier writes a good article, but it is not practical. The reason is this. When those states that restrict guns become dangerous and people have no defense, they will flock to the states that can protect them. The bad thing about that is they will bring their stupid mindset with them. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberals don’t learn because they think they know everything. Now, if we could put a fence around them and their stupidity and force them to live in it until they corrected their own situation or were all murdered, then we would have something. I know that sounds radical and it is, but do you honestly believe it would work any other way?

    • Molon Labe 1776 on said:

      You are exactly right!
      The libtards flee and take their failed ideology with them and expect everyone to change theirs-
      I’ll help build the fence.

    • David P, One) your ‘Liberalism is a mental disorder’ is the worn out ranting shtick of a burned out hippy that realized he could not make a real living with all the college degrees he amassed. Look up the education credentials of Michael Savage. Two) The day the US Constitution was penned and before the ink had dried it was a Liberal agenda. Every – no, make that EVERY Conservative idea you hold to was Liberal at some time, some place and/or to some one.

      • What you obviously fail to comprehend is that the meaning of Liberal has been bastardized and twisted over the 237 years since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were scribed.

        • P.S., I am also a veteran and the oath I took to
          “Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States” didn’t have an expiration date.

      • Veritas on said:

        The meme that every conservative ideal started as a liberal one is a bad joke. It reveals a breathtaking ignorance of history and a warped sense of perspective. Liberal does not always mean progress nor does conservative always mean reactionary. If you do not comprehend this than you define yourself as minnion of the Obamas of the world.

      • phillip on said:

        Troll

    • ARIZONA on said:

      IF anyone had seen what happened in arizona,when all the california liberals moved to the state,everyone would understand the need for a fence,it only took them a few years to compelety destroy freedom there,they hated california and then turned arizona into a suburb of california in five years…………

  7. Aaron, I’ve heard this nonsense about how the Constitution was a liberal idea, and yes it is and was, a liberal idea, but not the way you and other current liberals think it is. It’s a Classical Liberal idea, meaning that those who wrote it were true intellectuals willing and able to consider and understand all ideas presented to them totally unlike modern liberals who have their set ideas that they’re not willing to consider might well be wrong or misguided. If a modern liberal said that they opposed open borders, gun control, abortion, the absolute equality of women in everything, et al, they’d be booed out of wherever they spoke such heresies, and possibly stoned to death for their apostasy.

    Modern liberalism is a mental disorder, seeing no evil, hearing no evil, but speaking plenty of evil. To modern liberals there is no such thing as evil except maybe for guns and ideas that disagree with their feelings and beliefs.

    • Really?! We are going to start splitting hairs about the definition of Liberal. Okay, how about we start rolling the clock back on Liberal ideas. No more Civil Rights from the 1960s. No more Women’s Right to Vote. Should we keep going… How about we go back to White Male Land Owners Only? That good enough for you? But when you start burning witches and press me to death under a board I hope I can scream “More Weight” like Giles Corey. You know…. a couple of Liberals decided being a member of a militia was not necessary for gun ownership. That would be our current Supreme Court.

      • Veritas on said:

        Aaron you are an idiot. The 1964 so called civil rights act destroyed the freedom of association; of contract; it substituted racial quotas.

        Where do you get elimination of the woman’s right to vote. It existed in most states in the west and south before the federal government did anything. When was the right to vote limited to “white land owners” only. Perhaps in Massachusetts where Lutherans and Catholics and other non Pilgrims were denied the vote unlike Georgia or Maryland.

        And can you name those idiot liberals in the Supreme Court who decided you didn’t have to be a member of the militia to own guns.

        Apparently these clowns trump poor excuses such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. But these are dead white guys who are relevant in your universe.

        Sad to see such tripe. But it does illustrate what a public education can do for the felt side of the IQ scale.

  8. Another Soldier on said:

    If he actually supported the constitution he would do that if guns were confiscated in any state. It doesn’t matter what the people think. The constitution says shall not be infringed. States can do things not already covered in the constitution. Weapons are covered.

  9. Bulldog on said:

    Based on the 14th Amendement, the states have NO right and NO power to restrict guns or any other protected rights anymore than the federal government does. Regardless of where we live, the “state” has no authority to take our freedoms. Quite simply, they do not “grant” these freedoms to us and therefore cannot take them away. However, “we” have put up with a lot of infringements to our rights and that has emboldened the tyrants. It’s time to take back ALL of our rights. Yes, I am most certainly on “a list”, but so are you if you are reading this. We who believe in the Constitution are now considered enemies of the state by the treasonous tyrants now in charge. If you do nothing now, someday they WILL come to take YOU away. What are you going to do about it?

  10. Well obviously a helluva of alot of people shouldn’t be voting who are, hence Obama. Sure it should be limited to people who are working, can speak English, understand History and Goverment, etc. Testing 1,2,3…

    Veterans: have you read the Founding Fathers? Washington said stay out of foreign entanglements. Did we do that? Why are you so proud to have fought in unnecessary and immoral wars? That’s the whole story of the 20th Century and we are off to a bad start with the 21st. They didn’t even like the idea of a standing army for Pete’s sake. And remember: with every war, starting with the Civil War, the Federal Goverment got bigger and stronger. You have fed the beast and now it threatens you.

    I only mention this because veterans are so often lost to rational discussion. Duty becomes everything. The rule of no disagreement in the armed forces is carried over into civilian life along with the pride of having served – the latter of which I agree with. Add to that a buddy or a friend who was lost or even seen killed – and they will tolerate no criticism of the war in which it happened. To them, to criticize the war in which the loved one died, is to say that his death was for nothing. It’s unbearable to them, but in fact, most of the wars were unnecessary and ill advised.

    • Veritas on said:

      Jaego we all bow to your wisdom. If only you could have been there to allow Hitler to feeed more people to the ovens. Had we your brillance we could have allowed hundreds of millions more to have been snuffed out in the name of Karl Marx. We could have joyously watched as you caused more boat people to flee and drown.

      I only mention this because non veterans have never witnessed the results of their senseless indoctrination and mindless platitudes. Descent people do not ask you to take arms to defend right and freedom nor do we solicit your wisdom or mindless and craven observations whinned so often from the safety of your padded room in your parent’s basement.